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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
First of all , are i correct here?
Semi involved editor comments: To properly understand this whole debate, I'm afraid it will probably be necessary to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: General Question, which currently fills up about 4/5 of a fairly long and active talk page. Another flowering thread can be found at Operation Goodwood tactical outcome, and there are several creepers at the Charnwood talk page, and both Enigma and Blaabla's talk pages. I'm putting this here because I believe that this subject has already been discussed Ad nauseam, and is still ongoing. As a result of these discussions (and buried deep within them), one editor is now tightening up the various victory definitions and there has been some loose agreement about what can be described as a tactical victory. Ranger Steve ( talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol sorry enigma but i proofed that you misinterpreted a source and now you come and bring other vague sources which support the claims . YOU deliberatly misused a source and now you dodge this with bringing other sources. Take position to your violation of wiki rules !! Blablaaa ( talk) 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
ranger is lieing or not able to understand the point. Nowhere we discussed in length the outcome of this article, we discussed the phrasing of a statement. Please show me some edit were i talked about this sources and that they dont say tactical victory and then show me where other users said that partial victory is same like tactical victory. Go ranger search for the edits and present them here. Until now you posts were a waste of KB so please proof your claims and bring "diffs" Blablaaa ( talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
@ formerip. This is not only OR the objective was not only to capture northern cean it was also to secure bridgeheads, but enigma forgot this detail Blablaaa ( talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
when enigma says D'est says the allied inflicted "heavy" losses on the german then this means actually the allied sustained far higher losses. Blablaaa ( talk) 06:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
ranger can you explain me why they have to read the discussion there to judge if beevors statement means Tactical victory . can you explain this please instead of dodging? I also await the diff of me where i talked about the sources and the outcome. Please give them or was it wrong what u claimed? please give diffs .... Blablaaa ( talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(4x EC)
enigma misused a source and you responded with telling this people that i was insulting in other discussion also you downplay the misuse of source with claiming there are other sources which support these claims. Eventually you are not able to give me a quote for this after i asked two times. To be honest i see absolutly not what your point is. I came here to discuss the misuse of beevor and d'est. Two neutral editors stated that they think the usage of beevor was at least not good. you did nothing to provide facts against this.... This discussion is already over. And i must admit its the first time that i dont want to debunk all points given by an editor because i cant see any value. Even thoug iam able... Blablaaa ( talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
so maybe now chaosdruid you start consider your intentions again. I want to highlight that no word of you talked about enigma who misused a source. You call yoursefl neutral? ^^ iam done with you... Sorry you only try to insult me. You follow me and if somebody has a similar opinion like mine u immediatly but in and start a rant against. Thats not helpful at all Blablaaa ( talk) 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Blaa - one minute you say "I can't see any value" then you do it anyway, can we try and stick to just improving the article as we are currently discussing on Talk:Operation Charnwood - Unfortunately I posted the numbered list after 4 edit conflicts and kept adding to it while I waited to save it and the two previous posts did not show up when I refreshed prior to saving - If they had I probably would not have posted it. Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think its a common point of view that this battle was a tactical victory. The english articles ( i think its the only wiki article doing this ) called it tactical inconclusive, without any citiations. I attempted to changes this but was reverted. To illustrate that its common view that this battle was tactical german victory i posted some books at the talk page. Other editors, which present their point of view, while they discuss why they consider this battle as inconclusive, failed to bring only one quote which supports "tactical inconclusive". For every neutral editor checking this bear in mind that tactical is a special condition of a victory which needs special citiations. There are multiple scales of warfare, they are losly connect. A tactical victory is something different then strategic victory. Thus we need exact claims for this. Please take a look here :[ [2]], i list sources there. You also can take a look at any non english article about this battle, you could also do a quick google search with "tacitcal victory" and jutland. Thanks for your time Blablaaa ( talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
One user User:Tbma have such a strong feelings that this battle is a Hoax and never took place. He has nothing to support this claim, no scholars, no historians more than his own home made thoughts. Despite this he continue to put a NPOV and a Disputed tag on this article. He don't approve any sources Finnish, Russian, Swedish or Anglo-American.
I want the board to prove:
-A: Is this battle a hoax? (I ask despite the fact that my own grandfather fought in it)
-B: Are there anything to be criticise in the sources?
Posse72 ( talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
User Posse72 is putting words in my mouth. I was saying that there are a lot of other contradicting sources, that are portraying different picture of the event than it is said in the article. Since he and other anonymous users (maybe sock-puppets) are removing any references that say otherwise (and he is actually falsifying the numbers from the references) - I propose to put "Disputed" and "POV" tags on the article, as it was before. -- Tbma ( talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a sad sign that I have to waste my time, but here it goes. Syria is an overview article which covers the most basic facts about the country. There is one section on the Six-Day War. Several editors with long block histories and topic-bans in the Israel/Palestine area due to their partisan editing insist on having this section look like this:
"When Nasser closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Eilat-bound ships, the Baath government supported the Egyptian leader, amassed troops in the strategic Golan Heights to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis. The New York Times reported in 1997 that "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, a Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan…[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland."
The problem is that books about the history of Syria paint a different picture, definitely not the picture drawn here that Israel was the sole aggressor. The consensus of several books I consulted is the following: Syria and Israel exchanged fire over the Golan border, and there is no consensus which side started it. It usually followed an attack-retaliation pattern. There is also consensus that Syria directly supported military excursions by terrorist groups over the border. The quote by Moshe Dayan is in itself dubious. It is usually ignored in most history books, and the NYT article that was linked makes it clear that historians have doubts about the accuracy of Moshe Dayans quote. In particular they question they motives of Moshe Dayan in making this statement, and the clearly say that even if Moshe Dayans assessment is correct it is only a part and not the whole story. Books I checked: "Syria 1945-1986: politics and society" by Derek Hopwood and published by routledge and Syria: a country study ( http://books.google.com/books?id=B9L9ZWtnYsgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syria&hl=en&ei=EJ9GTJjBBJGUjAfN-Oj0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#), "Syria and Israel: from war to peacemaking" by Moshe Maʻoz.
Two questions (and keep in mind that this is an overview article):
1. Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel? 2. Should the Moshe Dayan quote be included, without a qualifier, given that most of the literature ignores the quote and given that historians doubt the accuracy?
Pantherskin ( talk) 07:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have sources that dispute what other reliable sources have said add them to the article. How can including what Moshe Dayan, at the time Israeli Defense Minister, said about an attack that he ordered and saying that this is what Mose Dayan said be a NPOV issue is not something I understand. We do not say that what Dayan said is true, we say that Dayan said that. This same quote is published in a number of sources, such as The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim, How Israel was won and The dark side of Zionism by Bayliss Thomas, Israel's wars: a history since 1947 by Ahron Bregman, Arab-Jewish relations: from conflict to resolution? edited by Elie Podeh, Asher Kaufman, and Moshe Maʻoz, and in a large number of scholarly journal articles. nableezy - 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskins misrepresents the situation above with his: "Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel?".. all the sources provided (and there are several: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions") at the Syria and Golan articles show that Israel provoked Syria in the DMZ, so what dayan talks about which is published in the New York Times "General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan" is also mentioned by several different sources. Several editors have repeatedly asked Pantherskin to show us information disputing this, but he has not provided anything and keeps on edit warring to remove it. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional note: Supreme Deliciousness had to acknowledge only after he was caught red-handed that he used a fake source to push his POV, see [5] and [6]. Pantherskin ( talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not say it has something to do with Dayan. But evidently it has something to do with both of you wanting to include "According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis", by using a fake source. And apparently now Supreme Deliciousness wants to use youtube video as a source... [7]. Pantherskin ( talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to get into that level of detail in a general overview article (which seems dubious), why not mention that in May 1967 the Soviet Union deliberately and maliciously lied to the Arabs about supposed Israeli plans to "invade Syria"? AnonMoos ( talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It's no big deal, but an expert opinion would be appreciated. In the article on the recently deposed Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, an editor is keen to retain the word "stratospheric" as well as "unprecedented" in this sentence:
I have suggested that unlike "unprecedented", which is provable by statistics (and is true), "stratospheric" is a subjective term, without a clear boundary between what is stratospheric and what is not. It appears unnecessary to the sense of the wording, and I'm concerned that it risks accusations of puffery. Ref 10 is to an opinion piece by a journalist, who cites the opinion of a pollster:
I don't think this changes the matter. Tony (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
As clearly evident from this, the article lacks an entire section. Repeatedly removed without sufficient support, this section should represent a fairly large view of Kenny's music, which is backed up by a vast share of reliable sources, including the infamous interview with Pat Metheny (who would "smash his new guitar over Kenny's head"). As indicated at the end of that discussion section, the article is clearly being patrolled by Kenny G fans; this is anything but neutral. I initially wanted to add that section, but after stumbling upon the discussion I realized it would drag me into a meaningless edit war. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page has a very strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias at the present time. While a page on criticism of another's religion should carry both pro and con viewpoints, and outline the history and reasons for criticism, the current article, which was largely put together by an editor who is openly opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, leaves one with a very negative viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than a NPOV, as required by Wikipedia. There are a number of specific points that have been posted on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because there is something of an edit war on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, and because one editor repeatedly deletes attempts to make reasonable revisions to clarify wording on that page, and it has been very time-consuming, I am requesting that a warning tag be placed on the top of the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page.
The article does more than reporting or informing the reader of the criticisms that have been made against Jehovah's Witnesses. The article itself is strongly biased in favor of criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, even advancing it's own criticisms. The opening paragraph strongly presents criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, with a short rebuttal that Jehovah's Witnesses deny these claims. This in itself is enough to open up a bias in the reader's mind. Included are accustations of mishandling sexual abuse cases, which took place close to 10 years ago. It creates a first impression of negativity to Jehovah's Witnesses, and largely cites the work of Ray Franz, who has his own page on Wikipedia, and other former Jehovah's Witnesses, who have been disfellowshipped, and afterwards wrote book against Jehovah's Witnesses.
It has been suggested that these books themselves, although published, are biased, and were written in attempts for self-justification. If one quotes largely from biased sources, and rejects attempts to present material which presents the opposite viewpoint, the result is a strongly biased article. This is the case, and the specific unanswered points are listed on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page. Wikipedia editor BlackCab, who is the main developer of anti-Jehovah's Witness information on Wikipedia at the present time, edits only Jehovah's Witnesses pages.
I don't know the full Wikipedia procedure to request a tag on the page, so if someone can direct me if there is another method, it would be appreciated. Natural ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
I've been giving an item some thought, and would like feedback from those a little more experienced and knowledgeable. On the Freemasonry articles in general, we refer to two main branches of Freemasonry: "regular" and "irregular". The regular one is those lodges that follow a belief in a Supreme Being (like the United Grand Lodge of England, and the irregular is those that don't ( Grand Orient de France). Now, while those two bodies do not make the rules for regularity (it's up to each Grand Lodge as sovereign body in its own jurisdiction), they are the most often-cited examples of their type.
Now, the majority of Masonic research available in English comes from UGLE-branch Lodge members. Therefore, the terms are defined in relation to UGLE-branch lodges (and thus inherently POV). The UGLE-based branch is "Anglo-American" or "regular", and the GOdF branch is "Continental", "liberal", and probably a few others. In the rare instances where research or statements come from GOdF branch lodges, they tend to call themselves "adogmatic" and the UGLE ones "dogmatic". However, each branch is regular unto itself, and each branch is not confined to the geographic terms used (there are UGLE - and GOdF-type lodges all over the world). I would like to use "UGLE branch" and "GOdF branch" lodges as a term, but those neutral terms are not used in research papers (so it would be OR). However, I feel that their use encourage a conclusion from the reader (which violates NPOV).
So my question boils down to: what wins when policies conflict? OR or NPOV? MSJapan ( talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a minor problem so far, but there is one anon who is pushing an unsourced POV. I am running out of reverts. What am I supposed to do with this? Mhym ( talk) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The section in the main article Jehovah's Witnesses under Doctrinal Criticisms, violates, I feel Wikipedia's NPOV policy for several reasons and isn't accurately placed. 1. Accusing JW of being a false prophet isn't really a doctrinal criticism. If someone critices JW position on the Trinity or hellfire, that would be a doctrinal criticism.
Several points to make here:
1. The section is part of a summary of a spinout article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is fair, factual, written in an editorially neutral tone, based on reliable sources and contains a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society.
2. The opening statement that the Watch Tower Society claims God uses the JWs as his prophet and has "equipped them with advance knowledge of future world events" is based on articles in Watch Tower publications. One of the cited articles, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them", (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972) contains a discussion about the role of Old Testament prophets and asks the question, "Does Jehovah have a prophet to ... warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? ... These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses." A 1959 Watchtower article cited notes the role of JWs as God's "prophet to the nations", the "modern Jeremiah" and the apparent success of a prophecy that the League of Nations would fall apart. The article also notes the JW prediction that the United Nations is "also doomed to join the League of Nations". User:Naturalpsychology arbitrarily dismisses those sources as "antiquated", but both articles are among a library of Watch Tower publications dating back to 1950 contained on a CDRom that all Witnesses are encouraged to own and use for research. He also makes the false claim that that articles do not use the word "prophet" in the context of making future predictions. In fact the 1972 one refers to JWs as a "modern day Ezekiel", a group that gives warning of what they believe God will do in the future. Other WT articles cited in the article include a 1997 magazine in which JWs again are compared with Old Testament prophets to whom God "revealed" warnings "of what was to come" and described as "God's messenger".
3. Two books are cited, by Crompton and Beverley, that contain the explicit claim that JWs are a false prophet because of specific predictions made in the past about events that did not take place. Crompton writes of the JWs' "failed predictions"; Beverley spends several pages detailing false predictions. Watch Tower Society publications themselves have dealt with accusations of being a false prophet, thus acknowleding the claim exists.
4. It is certainly a doctrinal issue that a religious organisation describes itself as a "prophet", directly and specifically chosen by God as his sole representative on earth to give warning of a future calamity, and that the religion has an intricate chronological system in which it calculates when various parts of God's destruction will take place. The issue is therefore appropriately located in the article.
5. Naturalpsychology refers to me in his final, slighting reference to a former JW with an animosity to the religion. He fails to note that he is a current member of the religion. Any intrinsic "bias" he implies on my part will be mirrored by his own. Neither is terribly important. What matters is that the material presented in the article is fair, balanced and editorially neutral. It is.
6. The spinout Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article is one of a number of articles dealing with criticism of religions. Others include Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Mormonism and Scientology controversy. BlackCab ( talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
These are BlackCab's statements concerning Jehovah's Witnesses - · Over the years I became increasingly disenchanted with the regimentation of Witnesses and the imposition of rules, the denial of personal choice in many areas, the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses. · I was told it was the truth. I was told it was from God himself. So much of it I now realise was arrant nonsense. · And so, after enduring much unhappiness, frustration and silent anger as a Jehovah’s Witness — for one cannot voice these criticisms, even to one’s closest friends, for fear they will report you to elders as an apostate and a murmurer — I chose to cease associating with the Witnesses. · Even though I no longer think of myself as a Witness, I have no intention of resigning, or formally disassociating myself from the organization, because I know that this will automatically result in an announcement at my local congregation, with the result that all those Witnesses who know me will be required to shun me. Any who disobey this injunction are liable to be disfellowshipped themselves. · But such is the power of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. · I love to read and I love to accumulate information and share it, particularly information to which the Watch Tower Society would prefer Witnesses not be exposed.
Natural ( talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
These two references do not state or imply that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet". They can't be used in this spot to support BlackCab's personal viewpoint and that of some other religious opposers. The word prophet is not to be found in the Jehovah's Witnesses - Proaclaimers of God's Kingdom referenced here.
^ "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced Happy", The Watchtower, May 1, 1997, page 21
^ Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, Watch Tower Society, 1993, page 708.
The only two references that are cited which have bearing are from 1972 and 1959. There are no one of the Governing Body of JEhovah's Witnesses alive today who were on the Governing Body in 1959, and possibly one out of the eight who was alive in 1972. Jehovah's Witnesses have not referred to themselves and do not refer to themselves as a "prophet". The Governing Body do not refer to themselves as a "prophet" and the term is not to be found in JW literature since 1972. If a historical criticisms section is created somewhere, this can be used. HOwever, it is not current, and if these two references are to be used, then the dates of the criticisms should be clearly noted in the argument. (That is of the 1972 and the 1959 references.
Additionally these two articles draw a comparison with Jehovah's Witnesses and Ezekiel as a prophet with regard to their preaching of the good news of the kingdom, and do not state that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet" in the sense of making predictions.
Wikipedia synthesizes two ideas. 1. Jehovah's Witnesses stated (in 1959 and 1972) that they are a prophet. 2. That Jehovah's Witness literature in other places has said that God has given them advanced knowledge based on Bible prophecy (not based on their own private ideas, as do Latter Day Saints). Jehovah's Witnesses believe all prophecy ended since the Bible was written, and that they sometimes have discernment with regards to the fulfillment of prophecies already made in the Bible. Wikipedia is giving an entirely different viewpoint here, and attempts to clarify the position of Jehovah's Witnesses are swiftly removed from the current editor. Natural ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
Sythesis and Original Research Policy - It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.
BlackCab uses Synthesis to advance his argument of JW being a false prophet. He quotes refers to a number of JW publications, which do not refer to JW as a false prophet, to make his own argument on the main Wikipedia page that JW are a false prophet. In other sentences he makes references which talk about failed predictions of JW but do not refer to JW as a "false prophet". They talk about failed predictions, but don't use the word "false prophet". The Reasoning on the Scriptures of JW does use the term with a defense, but that is not quoted here, and if it were quoted, it would need to be quoted in the context with which Reasoning on the Scriptures uses the term, and not in the way that an editor who is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses wants to us it, in his own Synthesis of an argument, syntesized and created on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, but not anywhere else. See: WP:No Original Research Natural ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
This article has a systematic bias that advocates the views of one party, Israel, to the near exclusion of the other listed parties - the United Nations and Palestine. That problem has been discussed here [9], here [10] and here [11]
Attempts to add historical material representing significant opposing viewpoints from reliable sources are routinely reverted, e.g. [12] and [13] Several editors have complained that this article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE. The POV and Globalize templates are being removed without discussing or correcting the problem. harlan ( talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's rather audacious of User:Harlan wilkerson to have started this thread here, since Harlan_wilkerson's idiosyncratic and decidedly non-mainstream views of United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 (the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine) have been the source of much of the tension on this article (and a number of other articles as well). It is solidly established and very well accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars that in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan -- yet Harlan_wilkerson is prepared to go through endless contorted twisting of purported "sources" and any amount of convoluted personal abstract metaphysical philosophizing in order to try to deny this very simple and basic fact of history. Of course, he then goes on to develop his own further personal idiosyncratic hypothetical speculative interpretations based on his historical denialism -- so that according to Harlan_wilkerson, even though the Arabs vehemently denounced UNGA resolution 181 with vituperative contumely during late 1947 and early 1948, and never followed through on any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as respect for Jewish holy sites and borders freely open to trade), nevertheless all of the provisions of UNGA 181 which would have benefited the Arabs (if, counterfactually, they had agreed to it) somehow supposedly now have full legal force.
Harlan_wilkerson is quite intelligent and very knowledgable in some areas, but I frankly doubt whether he will ever be able to do anything very positive to improve 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia until and unless he will finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. If he continues to give his elaborate personal theories priority over the basic accepted facts of history, then I really think that it's time for him to withdraw from editing all 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia... AnonMoos ( talk) 11:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not waste your breath on single statements in that article while the sourcing of the article is APPALLING (I don't often shout). Either this article is rewritten entirely from appropriate secondary sources, i.e. academic books (with perhaps the occasional news report, UN policy document or other mainstream fact-checked source, per WP:PSTS) or someone will stub it right down. Blogs!!!! On a article about one of the most prominent international relations issues of our time. Shocking. Check the sources out on RSN, asking specific questions, as often as you need to. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Since my major rewrite of this article in Sept 2007, I have followed several disputes. The current storm whipped by Harlan is just another one. There is a very healthy discussion in the talk page of the article, edits have successfully been made to the text. I say we do not need this noticeboard. Emmanuelm ( talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
These articles have multiple issues. Neutral point view, COI, etc. I wonder how these type of scams can still exist in wikipedia, and survive from scrutiny. Perhaps, it is because nobody here in wikipedia has any idea about it. I recommend those who wish to preserve wikipedia's principles to view the website prepared by a former Amway IBO. None of the facts stated in this website are mentioned in these articles;
http://www.amquix.info/amway.html
78.185.248.54 ( talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
About a year or so ago I started to notice the {{ USgovtPOV}} tag being applied to a lot of articles. I have questions about this tag.
I'd like to know why this tag was considered necessary.
I'd like to know when those who created this tag considered it appropriate.
Surely it is possible, in principle, to base wikipedia articles on US Government references, while complying with WP:NPOV? When a US Government source makes an assertion, doesn't compliance with [ and specifying biased statements] merely require making clear the assertion is not a "fact", but is merely a position taken by a US government official?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Messianic Jews believe that it is possible for someone to be both Jewish and Christian simultaneously. Most conventional Jews disagree. Sociologists and unbiased religious scholars tend to describe what each group believes, not what the scholars themselves believe to be true. Some users insist on putting into the lead of Messianic Judaism a statement that flat-out says that Messianic Judaism is a "Christian religious movement." See, e.g., this diff. It seems to me that this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV — the article should not be taking one or the other side in this controversy, especially not in the lead sentence. User:Bus stop has refused to provide any sources for his preferred version. *** Crotalus *** 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Back in 2008, a British Conservative politician stated that her party planned to ban the use of khat in the UK, citing supposedly negative effects amongst the Somali community there, with whom its use is associated. Since the Conservatives are now in power, I thought this worthy of mention at Somalis in the United Kingdom. My addition was reverted on the grounds that the source was just the opinion of a politician. In light of this, I reintroduced the material but with much more context, including a study on the use of khat by Somalis in the UK and a newspaper article contesting some of the politician's claims, along with an article about Somalis campaigning for a khat ban. Again, this has been reverted. The reverting editor explains why here. They seem to be arguing that it is POV to include the politician's opinions, even though I have balanced them with those of other commentators. I don't see the problem provided that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed (which I think I have done). Regardless of whether the politician's views about the Somali community's khat use are based on solid evidence or not, it seems important to me to mention them given that they seem to be informing government policy on this issue. If a ban is introduced, it will presumably have a big impact on the Somali community in the UK. Third-party opinions would be welcome, though. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
How about the following as a draft?
Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:
In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture. [7]
One newspaper estimate from 2003 suggests that 90 per cent of Somali men in the UK chew khat. [8] In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. [9] Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. [10] In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny". [1]
In 2008, Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi suggested that use of khat by Somalis was partly responsible for their low employment rates and poor educational achievement, and stated that a future Conservative government would ban khat. [11] The Conservative Party website states that a Conservative government would "Tackle unacceptable cultural practices by", amongst other measures, "classifying Khat". [12] Brian Whitaker, a journalist for The Guardian specialising in the Middle East, criticised Warsi for making statements not supported by scientific research. [13] Previously, in 2005, Labour MP Stephen Pound claimed that khat was responsible for relationship problems amongst Somalis. The authors of a book on khat write that: "Khat use has certainly become a factor in family relationships and in community identity, but to regard it as the 'corrosive, visious, and pernicious' driver of family breakdown in the Somali community, to quote MP Stephen Pound, is an absurd and potentially very damaging generalization". The argue that these generalisations have gained weight because they were supported by anti-khat campaigning by members of the Somali community. [14]
I think that's balanced and reflects the debate about the impact of khat amongst the Somali community. If others are happy with it, I'll add it to the article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you gentleman for weighing in. There are a few key bits of information that have not yet been mentioned which I would like to share. For starters, this is not the first, but the second time that the user above is attempting to gain support for a variation of the material in question. He first tried obtaining it on the WP:BLP noticeboard, but ran into something of a wall there. So here he is again on yet another board; at some point, one has to start wondering if WP:FORUMSHOPPING hasn't yet come into play. The fact is, the user has been attempting to add some pretty contentious opinions from one politician ( [33]) who claims that khat, a legal substance in the UK that is sold in cafes, restaurants, etc., is partly responsible for, among other things, what she claims is the very high unemployment rate in the community. However, her claims are not only not based on any actual study or scientific evidence (as other opinion pieces, ironically enough, have pointed out [34]), they are also factually inaccurate. She writes that the unemployment rate (not the employment rate) in the Somali community is quite high: "Unemployment rates among the Somali community are far above the national average. Academic achievement rates are far below the national average. And khat is in part responsible." However, this is not true, since most Somalis in the UK that are not employed are economically inactive, not unemployed. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the unemployment rate in the community is actually only 10%, nor is there any study that attributes this inactivity mainly to khat use. In fact, an actual study on khat use among Somalis in the UK ( [35]) states that there is no link between unemployment in the Somali community and khat use. The paper also indicates that only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat", that the most common health "symptoms that respondents associated with khat use were: sleeping difficulties; loss of appetite; and an urge to chew more khat", and concludes that "the overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use." So basically, it's not just an opinion piece citing unsubstantiated, contentious claims about a living third party (which is against WP:QS); it is also factually inaccurate and has been explicitly identified as such too. Since khat use in the community in question is analogous to alcohol use in many other communities, the only thing that makes it even notable in the article is if it is in some way abused. However, as I've pointed out, the actual studies on its usage in the community do not support this at all. The user above now links to a site indicating that the Conservatives are considering banning the substance -- a site that doesn't even mention Somalis in the UK, let alone any so-called link between unemployment in that immigrant community and khat use -- as well as a closed-access paper (whose contents are unverifiable) on perceptions in the Somali community on khat. But none of these are any more reliable sources (or even relevant, in the former's case) than the politician's unsubstantiated opinions; perceptions do not a social issue make. In fact, this is what the study on khat use that I cited above indicates:
"The social problems which respondents most commonly attributed to khat use concerned discord or breakdown within marital or familial units.... However, a number of other factors may have also had an impact upon these social tensions, including: the experience of being a minority group within the UK; being isolated from an extended family network; differences in expectations about gender relations within western society; and the experience of socio-economic difficulties. It is not possible within this study to establish where causation lies between all these factors."
Many people (wives and mothers, especially) would also like to see alcohol banned and perceive it as being bad, but one doesn't see this being mentioned in any ethnic group articles. Double standards notwithstanding, this article is no exception. Middayexpress ( talk) 04:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."
Middayexpress, what would you say if I suggested adding a section on khat use, without the Warsi comments, as a starting point? We can then continue to discuss her contribution to the debate with a view to including it (or not) at a later date, when consensus is reached either way. We could add the following, for instance:
Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. [1] [8] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:
In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture. [7]
In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. [9] Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. [15] In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny". [1]
Cordless Larry (
talk) 09:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"The social problems which respondents most commonly attributed to khat use concerned discord or breakdown within marital or familial units.... However, a number of other factors may have also had an impact upon these social tensions, including: the experience of being a minority group within the UK; being isolated from an extended family network; differences in expectations about gender relations within western society; and the experience of socio-economic difficulties. It is not possible within this study to establish where causation lies between all these factors."
I am an editor of the article. Middayexpress, you have been misrepresenting Cordless Larry's position, misunderstanding and misusing policy, and making baseless accusations. You claim repeatedly that Cordless Larry is using someone's ( Warsi) opinion to cite contentious claims about khat use among Somalis (see corresponding BLP noticeboard, above messages, and the article's talkpage). This is not what he is doing and you are misrepresenting him by claiming so. His position is that Warsi made those statements. You claim he is in violation of WP:QS with regards to this and challenges him to prove why he is not, wishing him "Good luck with that". Well I will do just that. He is not in violation of QS because he is not using a statement/opinion by Warsi to support claims about khat use among Somalis; what he is actually doing is using this Guardian article to support his addition that Warsi made statements about khat use about Somalis (" Sayeeda Warsi suggested in 2008 that use of khat by Somalis" and same here), so adhering to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, where he attributes a statement or opinion by a person to that person. You claim that the Warsi comments fall under BLP so could not be included; editors at the BLP noticeboard disagreed, as the comments were about a generic group and not specific individuals.
You claim he is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, that he tried to get consensus about khat use at the BLP board but failed, so is trying again here. Again you are misrepresenting him, as his aim at the BLP board was not to get consensus for the khat use material but to clarify whether the issue fell under the BLP policy. He did this in response to your claim that it did. At the BLP board, editors basically agreed with him, contrary to your assertion that he hit a "wall" there. He did note that they said that there may be better sources on the khat issue. So in response he added more information. You again disputed these additions, claiming that material relating to khat use are undue weight. Since he could get nowhere by arguing with you, he decided to raise the issue here, which is where we are at now. Far from Cordless Larry's post being a "rant", that label seems more appropriate for your extended opinions on how khat use isn't an issue. So, far from forum shopping, it seems that he has gone out of his way to address any issues you bring up.
You mention alcohol in ethnic group articles when this is largely irrelevant to this article. You say the closed-access sources are unverifiable, when WP:SOURCEACCESS says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". You said to Cordless Larry " :I don't particularly care what your intentions were", a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You seem particularly keen to argue that khat use among Somalis is not an issue, when our job is not to decide this but to report what others say (as long as it complies with policies). In short, you have misrepresented the positions of others, misused policies, and made unfounded accusations, among other things.
Since the topic of khat use among Somalis has been documented in several reliable sources (academic, government, media), I generally agree with the proposals put forth by Cordless Larry. Christopher Connor ( talk) 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, since there seems to now be general agreement about this, I've added the material. I made a few changes compared with the text above, to include more references and mention of a recent review of studies about the mental health impacts of khat use by, amongst others, Somalis in the UK. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is biased and pushes the unsubstantiated point of view that the book promotes false memories. It is watched over by editors who revert all edits that go against this general thrust. No positive statement about the book is permitted to stand.
The article also fails to give an accurate idea of the book's contents. Someone reading the article is likely to take away the impression that the book is all about repressed memories and satanic ritual abuse, when in fact these issues constitute a small fraction of a very large book.
The article bears the scars of multiple edit wars and is, as a result, repetitive and badly written. It is a mess and cries out to be restarted from scratch, if not deleted altogether.
Here are some of the reverts made in defense of the bias:
I have tried discussing this and got nowhere:
I'm afraid I haven't got the time/inclination to tussle with problem editors and go through the whole dispute mediation business, so I'm hoping someone else will be willing to take this on. Thanks. Feeline ( talk) 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
User:AndeanThunder has been adding POV laden edits to this article and others for some time, this afternoon edit warring to add an edit that included a racist term. I had highlighted this at WP:ANI earlier but the thread was accidentally removed by User:Toddst1. As noted in this diff he has added another one [41]. Edit fails WP:NPOV and relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm tiring of reverting POV edits, then being threatened with a block for edit warring by admins who don't look at the edits properly. Please could someone look and take the necessary action to deal with this disruptive editor. Justin talk 23:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The matter is a pretty heavy issue. Cyprus is an ongoing dispute and any discussion can very quickly dissolve into a heated dispute and edit warring is common.
Most commonly the articles on Cyprus receive little support from the Turkish Cypriot side and the majority of editors are either Greek (and not Cypriot) or Greek Cypriot. The problem of the dispute is that the ongoing dispute between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is not likely to result in consensus in this matter, as can be seen from the first sets of comments and replies in the RfC.
Mediation is likely to be difficult - I have already attempted to point out that I am neutral and must remain so and have started the RfC as it seems to me that there is good reason for the editor to question the neutrality of the article title. I beleive that the Greek side will always claim "Invasion" and the Turkish side "Intervention"
The fact is that the treaty signed by Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain gave the parties the right to intervene if either party felt its protected persons were suffering at the hands of another involved in that treaty. No limit was put on any side which would ban the use of military forces to resolve any issue which may have arisen.
The RfC is here RfC
The article title is disputed as being POV. The evidence is given from UN documents which state it as "Intervention".
There have been several Greek or Greek Cypriot editors (as evidenced by the Greek flags or statements on their user pages) who have commented and say that the term "Invasion" is correct.
Google searches seem to support that the more common usage of the term is "Intervention".
The question - "Is the term Invasion POV and should the term Intervention be used instead to remain neutral on the matter?"
Chaosdruid ( talk) 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(From Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_on_2012_phenomenon): Firstly, please don't misinterpret my word. The dispute is not escalated, however, I am unable to stay in what I feel is my boundaries to meet on neutral grounds with some other involved editors, and I believe it is the same thing on both sides. I am not edit warring, but I feel that there is likely to be a misunderstanding on one or both sides. Please kindly visit this link to view the discussion over there. If you need me to summarize, I proposed this revision to state the important key facts on the subject, which are backed by evidence and reliable references, yet my proposal is still being criticized for being incompliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly neutral point of view. All in all, it looks to me like one of those borderline cases, where it is more difficult than average to find neutral grounds where we can all meet. Please kindly reply for any advice or assistance, and please make any criticism (for any party) constructive and polite in order to help prevent things from escalating. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Most astronomers and other scientists have rejected the apocalyptic forecasts on the grounds that the anticipated events are precluded by astronomical observations or are unsubstantiated by the predictions that have been generated from these findings.[7] NASA has compared fears about 2012 to those about the Y2K bug in the late 1990s, suggesting that an adequate analysis should preclude fears of disaster. Others have said that it is a hoax (then put your sources)". Slatersteven ( talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the diff.
You seem to be asking for general comments without having a specific problem, so here are my first thoughts.
Please see WP:LEDE - one problem which already existed and which you are perpetuating is the existence of citations in the lede. What you are doing would be much less controversial if you put it in its own section heading within the article. The lede is the part of the article which gives general readers an overview of the article, and there is no need to go deeply here. The fact that a WP:SPS is hosted in a .edu domain does make it a WP:RS. This link is not a RS because the author is not identified and it seems to be an individual's personal space and does not include citations for all claims. What sources are cited there may themselves be WP:RS, though.
Also as a general rule, if you are doing anything which could be construed as controversial then considering making changes one at a time. Sometimes when you introduce multiple changes and only one of them is objectionable, the entire edit gets reverted and communication becomes difficult. It is hard for me to determine what exactly the problem is, but it seems that you still have reasonably good communication on the article talk page so I would advice just separating your proposals and talking it through.
Please be more specific with your future questions if you continue to have difficulty. Blue Rasberry 19:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, please give polite feedback. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute concerning the structure of the article Monty Hall problem. The article is a featured article that has been through two featured article reviews. This dispute is part of a larger dispute that has led to formal mediation (which is currently on hold pending the assignment of a mediator).
The specific change is [42] which moves the "Aids to understanding" section to immediately follow the "Simple solutions" section, thereby moving the "Conditional probability solution" section (which contains material that may be construed as critical of the "Simple solutions") so neither the other (conditional) form of solution or the criticism of the simple solutions contained within this section are immediately adjacent to the "Simple solutions" section. The question we're asking for input on here is whether this change creates a structural POV favoring the simple solutions.
Some background on this dispute might be helpful.
Several editors have been unhappy with the article for some time, essentially complaining that it takes the POV of those sources which criticize a certain (simple) style of solution presented by other sources. These editors want the criticism and the alternate style of solution to ideally be completely removed or if not that then put far, far away from the sections of the article describing the solutions that are criticized (possibly in an "academic considerations" section), which would in the opinion of other editors make the article take the opposite POV.
At least one editor insists the article should present the simple solutions (the ones that are criticized) first, followed with several sections of "Aids to understanding" - with no mention that this style of solution is criticized by numerous reliable sources or that another style of solution even exists - and only then present the other style of solution. The rationale for this structure is to fully explain the "simple" solutions before moving on to the more complicated conditional solution, in the interests of making the article more accessible to non-expert readers. Both styles of solution are presented by numerous reliable sources, although "popular" sources nearly exclusively present the simple style (which is also presented by numerous academic sources) while the other (conditional) style is presented nearly exclusively by academic mathematical sources. The sources that criticize the simple style (far less common than sources presenting either simple or conditional styles of solutions) are peer reviewed academic math papers or textbooks.
This change has been discussed multiple times on the talk page, most recently at [43] (link to a specific version of the talk page since it is auto-archived). Note the discussion continues in the next section of the talk page.
A note of caution - the topic here, the Monty Hall problem, is notorious for causing arguments (even among mathematicians). I don't think the question being asked here necessarily requires any particular mathematical background, particularly if this is viewed strictly as a POV issue.
The request here is specifically concerning the structure. Is presenting the simple solutions and several sections worth of "Aids to understanding" before mentioning another style of solution exists or that numerous reliable sources criticize the simple solutions creating a structural POV?
Thank you. -- Rick Block ( talk) 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi ( talk) 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's the intro:
In early Latter Day Saint history, seer stones were stones used, primarily (but not exclusively) by Joseph Smith, Jr., to receive revelations from God. Smith owned at least two seer stones, which he had earlier employed for treasure seeking before he founded the church.[1] Other early Mormons such as Hiram Page, David Whitmer, and Jacob Whitmer also owned seer stones.
This needs a major NPOV review it seems to me. BE——Critical__ Talk 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! A couple of issues have arisen at this article, mostly around the WP:LEAD description of the English Defence League (EDL) as a "far right" organisation.
There's a minor and good natured dispute, possibly now resolved, over whether the term "political organisation" is appropriate.
More seriously, a new editor (who identifies as a member of the EDL) objects to the term "far right". This term is sourced, but careful examination of the sources, by uninvolved editors, certainly wouldn't go amiss. I think it's fair to say that regular editors at EDL are, by and large, not supporters of the EDL (and by that I mean: they tend to oppose the EDL). Input at Talk:English Defence League from non-involved editors would be very welcome: both to clarify whether the current lead is neutral, and to provide assistance to the new editor who - not unreasonably - isn't happy with advice given to them by regular editors who they perceive as partisan.
TFOWR 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Stormfront denies that they are a racist organization, but they obviously are, and many reliable sources label them as such. I'd say a similar situation applies here: they may deny being right-wing, but opinion is against them. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A new issue has arrose over alledged links to the BNP. Initlay it was decide that the material shouold be removed [ [45]] now an attmept is being made to re-insert it even thoguh it is the saem material, and none of the issuses raised last time have been addressed [ [46]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Request third party input on the consensus to split Article about Spying Allegations into two articles
Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam."
It is necessary that you thoroughly go through most or all of the sources as some of them directly contradict each other.
Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_student_scam
Link to Relevant Talk Page discussion on Split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Split.3F
Thanks.
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 03:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Broccoli is not an objective third party user as he has already commented on the article. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please thoroughly read through the sources as there is indeed an abundance of evidence supporting the allegations. Thanks. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I highly encourage the neutral reviewer to thoroughly read through all of the sources. That is the best way to gain an understanding of the issue. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 06:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono is also not an objective third party user as she has already commented on the article. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 07:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the fact that in the past you have edited the article should be brought up so that no one mistakes you as the neutral admin. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, you're also ignoring The Guardian article "Israeli student 'spy ring' revealed." The Guardian has the second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is about allegations of spying that easily meet the notability qualifications. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 16:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam many solemn protestations were made that if the article wasn't deleted that it would be greatly cleaned up, but now it seems to be a conduit for the same old conspiracy-theory garbage... AnonMoos ( talk) 05:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250
This posting could use review by persons who have not been previously involved. Blue Rasberry 23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 06:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 09:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I think one of the things that isn't helping here is the discussion not following WP:INDENT norms. Simple visual aspects like this put people off. Preciseaccuracy, please could you follow WP:INDENT. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Gaza War article there had been text in the lead saying the conflict had been known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world pretty much since the beginning of the article sourced to a variety of sources. The three sources that had been in the article up until today are as follows, with quotes from the source:
The text and the source on the Arab name for the event has now been completely excised from the article. My question for you all is should this alternative name be included in the article and should it be in the lead as a relevant foreign name? nableezy - 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"Massacre" was not an official title or sole description from Hamas. Al Jazeera, the biggest source in the region, titled their special coverage "War on Gaza" and used the title most frequently (and is verified from a third party source). Searches of their site along with multiple other sites based in the region do not show "Massacre" being a predominant title or description. They should know more than one newspaper in South Africa. Maybe they have an axe to grind, maybe it was a circular reference, maybe they are not correct. I don't know but it is not a strong enough source. I've even tried emailing them t see if they would clarify their source! It is simply an extraordinary claim without extraordinary sources backing it up and even other sources contradicting it in some way. Even the Arabic Wikipedia had bickering over this which raises even more eyebrows. So there have been several solutions on how to handle this"
Clearly a cadre of editors don't like one of the alternative names for the event and are taking turns removing it to circumvent the 1RR restriction on the article. This noticeboard is where, hopefully, uninvolved editors can look at this from a policy perspective. So far it's involved editors. RomaC TALK 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
While there are more than enough WP:RS showing that libertarianism is used by antiproperty "leftists" and proproperty "rightists" (and that the latter are better known worldwide), there are always left and right people who want to come along and kick out the other grouping. I've worked on the article for several years and it was manageable and compromises were found in the past. But in the last six months POV pushers, especially from the right who want to eliminate rightwing anarch0-capitalists as well as all left wingers from the article. There are problems of POV pushers, AnonIPs (now blocked from editing), AnonIPs who now have registered (perhaps more than once), and identified sock puppets, engaging in constant WP:SOAPBOX and personal attacks on the talk page. And there are bouts of actual edit warring in the article itself. It's gotten ridiculous and just too discouraging to more NPOV editors who want to include all views with proper balance. Even though I have come up with some good ideas and WP:RS to resolve the issues, I've given up on the article for the time being myself because of the nonsense. Any help appreciated. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two editors that seem to be pushing a heavy pro-capitalist POV, by suppressing any information about the anti-capitalist tendencies of certain libertarian factions in the article on libertarianism. The most recent diff to engage in this suppression is here: [47]. There is little question that the material is verifiable -- the initial editing removed four or more sources which were not contested. At the related talk page section ( Talk:Libertarianism#Blatant_Anarchocapitalist_POV_pushing), the editor states that he has objections of WP:UNDUE.
IMO, the attempt to POV push is rather blatant since the initial editor concedes that left-libertarianism should remain, due to its notability, but that he deletes any information about the anti-capitalist viewpoint that is prominent within left-libertarian philosophy, in the sense of Noam Chomsky who has in a book that
a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production" [A.K.A. " capitalism"]... Chomsky, Noam; Peregrín Otero, Carlos (Sep 2003). "Introduction to Chomskys Social Theory by Carlos Peregrin Otero". Radical priorities. AK Press
I believe that a variety of reliable sources show libertarianism to have many prominent viewpoints and that both right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are clearly regarded as forms of libertarianism. I believe left-libertarianism is notable, especially outside of the US (as touched upon on page 130 of the Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines which mentions "the 'family' of left-libertarian movements in...France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland."Klandermans, Bert, and Conny Roggeband. Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines. New York: Springer, 2009. page 130).
Given all of the above, I think the previous version is far more NPOV, and should be preferred to the current censored version. Opinions welcome! BigK HeX ( talk) 05:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
There's an RfC starting on the Messianic Judaism page, here. The dispute basically boils down to applications of NPOV policy, and a few uninvolved opinions would be welcome, so I'm adverting it here. -- Ludwigs2 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has the kind of issues one would expect. I'm tired of dealing with it and taking the article off my watchlist; posting here in the hope that someone else will feel like making it their responsibility. Prezbo ( talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever is being described in this article is as much caused by various other activities that took place in the US financial industry, as by the underlying subprime mortgages. To label this the Subprime mortgage crisis is incorrect, and violates NPOV.
I posted this on July 18. Since the there has been one response, which did not agree with me. I only became aware of this page in the last few days. Glkanter ( talk) 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What is RS? Yes, the term *was* used early on. Since then it has become evident that the sub-prime mortgages were less responsible for the financial crisis and bailouts than many other actions of the Wall Street & Hedge Fund crowd. Making the title what it is precludes, minimizes, and biases any discussion in the article that there could be any other equal or greater causes. It serves to pre-judge. Glkanter ( talk) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The "Subprime mortgage crisis" was a mythical beast. Once the facts were gathered, it was evident it did not exist. There *is* a foreclosure and vacancy crises, but that is quite different, and not the title of this article. I will not argue the semantics of words like 'subprime mortgage' vs 'mortgage backed security'. It is a false equivalency which I reject. Glkanter ( talk) 03:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this very discussion, regardless of who is right or wrong, indicates that the title, unfortunately, suggests a POV. Maybe different people see that POV differently, as you describe, but it is a POV, nonetheless. Which is what this page is all about, isn't it? Glkanter ( talk) 03:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, to demonstrate the phrase is outdated, I guess the lack of recent references would have to suffice. Here's my google search which shows nothing in the last 2 or 3 years. Except for this 'insightful' opinion column from Ann Coulter, which supports the bias claim. Glkanter ( talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that this is nothing more than another case of an 'experienced admin' being argumentative rather than working in collaboration. Coulter is not a reliable source? So, the bias I point out is provided by a person who is unreliable, "conservative wingnut Ann Coulter" to quote you, because of her bias? Heaven help me. And Wikipedia. I have no desire for another of these pointless, protracted arguments where the admin is prima facie correct. Unless someone else cares to help me here, you win. Again. Our score to date: Admins - Infinity. Truth - 0. Glkanter ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
First of all , are i correct here?
Semi involved editor comments: To properly understand this whole debate, I'm afraid it will probably be necessary to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: General Question, which currently fills up about 4/5 of a fairly long and active talk page. Another flowering thread can be found at Operation Goodwood tactical outcome, and there are several creepers at the Charnwood talk page, and both Enigma and Blaabla's talk pages. I'm putting this here because I believe that this subject has already been discussed Ad nauseam, and is still ongoing. As a result of these discussions (and buried deep within them), one editor is now tightening up the various victory definitions and there has been some loose agreement about what can be described as a tactical victory. Ranger Steve ( talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol sorry enigma but i proofed that you misinterpreted a source and now you come and bring other vague sources which support the claims . YOU deliberatly misused a source and now you dodge this with bringing other sources. Take position to your violation of wiki rules !! Blablaaa ( talk) 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
ranger is lieing or not able to understand the point. Nowhere we discussed in length the outcome of this article, we discussed the phrasing of a statement. Please show me some edit were i talked about this sources and that they dont say tactical victory and then show me where other users said that partial victory is same like tactical victory. Go ranger search for the edits and present them here. Until now you posts were a waste of KB so please proof your claims and bring "diffs" Blablaaa ( talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
@ formerip. This is not only OR the objective was not only to capture northern cean it was also to secure bridgeheads, but enigma forgot this detail Blablaaa ( talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
when enigma says D'est says the allied inflicted "heavy" losses on the german then this means actually the allied sustained far higher losses. Blablaaa ( talk) 06:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
ranger can you explain me why they have to read the discussion there to judge if beevors statement means Tactical victory . can you explain this please instead of dodging? I also await the diff of me where i talked about the sources and the outcome. Please give them or was it wrong what u claimed? please give diffs .... Blablaaa ( talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(4x EC)
enigma misused a source and you responded with telling this people that i was insulting in other discussion also you downplay the misuse of source with claiming there are other sources which support these claims. Eventually you are not able to give me a quote for this after i asked two times. To be honest i see absolutly not what your point is. I came here to discuss the misuse of beevor and d'est. Two neutral editors stated that they think the usage of beevor was at least not good. you did nothing to provide facts against this.... This discussion is already over. And i must admit its the first time that i dont want to debunk all points given by an editor because i cant see any value. Even thoug iam able... Blablaaa ( talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
so maybe now chaosdruid you start consider your intentions again. I want to highlight that no word of you talked about enigma who misused a source. You call yoursefl neutral? ^^ iam done with you... Sorry you only try to insult me. You follow me and if somebody has a similar opinion like mine u immediatly but in and start a rant against. Thats not helpful at all Blablaaa ( talk) 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Blaa - one minute you say "I can't see any value" then you do it anyway, can we try and stick to just improving the article as we are currently discussing on Talk:Operation Charnwood - Unfortunately I posted the numbered list after 4 edit conflicts and kept adding to it while I waited to save it and the two previous posts did not show up when I refreshed prior to saving - If they had I probably would not have posted it. Chaosdruid ( talk) 08:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think its a common point of view that this battle was a tactical victory. The english articles ( i think its the only wiki article doing this ) called it tactical inconclusive, without any citiations. I attempted to changes this but was reverted. To illustrate that its common view that this battle was tactical german victory i posted some books at the talk page. Other editors, which present their point of view, while they discuss why they consider this battle as inconclusive, failed to bring only one quote which supports "tactical inconclusive". For every neutral editor checking this bear in mind that tactical is a special condition of a victory which needs special citiations. There are multiple scales of warfare, they are losly connect. A tactical victory is something different then strategic victory. Thus we need exact claims for this. Please take a look here :[ [2]], i list sources there. You also can take a look at any non english article about this battle, you could also do a quick google search with "tacitcal victory" and jutland. Thanks for your time Blablaaa ( talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi
One user User:Tbma have such a strong feelings that this battle is a Hoax and never took place. He has nothing to support this claim, no scholars, no historians more than his own home made thoughts. Despite this he continue to put a NPOV and a Disputed tag on this article. He don't approve any sources Finnish, Russian, Swedish or Anglo-American.
I want the board to prove:
-A: Is this battle a hoax? (I ask despite the fact that my own grandfather fought in it)
-B: Are there anything to be criticise in the sources?
Posse72 ( talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
User Posse72 is putting words in my mouth. I was saying that there are a lot of other contradicting sources, that are portraying different picture of the event than it is said in the article. Since he and other anonymous users (maybe sock-puppets) are removing any references that say otherwise (and he is actually falsifying the numbers from the references) - I propose to put "Disputed" and "POV" tags on the article, as it was before. -- Tbma ( talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a sad sign that I have to waste my time, but here it goes. Syria is an overview article which covers the most basic facts about the country. There is one section on the Six-Day War. Several editors with long block histories and topic-bans in the Israel/Palestine area due to their partisan editing insist on having this section look like this:
"When Nasser closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Eilat-bound ships, the Baath government supported the Egyptian leader, amassed troops in the strategic Golan Heights to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis. The New York Times reported in 1997 that "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, a Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan…[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland."
The problem is that books about the history of Syria paint a different picture, definitely not the picture drawn here that Israel was the sole aggressor. The consensus of several books I consulted is the following: Syria and Israel exchanged fire over the Golan border, and there is no consensus which side started it. It usually followed an attack-retaliation pattern. There is also consensus that Syria directly supported military excursions by terrorist groups over the border. The quote by Moshe Dayan is in itself dubious. It is usually ignored in most history books, and the NYT article that was linked makes it clear that historians have doubts about the accuracy of Moshe Dayans quote. In particular they question they motives of Moshe Dayan in making this statement, and the clearly say that even if Moshe Dayans assessment is correct it is only a part and not the whole story. Books I checked: "Syria 1945-1986: politics and society" by Derek Hopwood and published by routledge and Syria: a country study ( http://books.google.com/books?id=B9L9ZWtnYsgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syria&hl=en&ei=EJ9GTJjBBJGUjAfN-Oj0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#), "Syria and Israel: from war to peacemaking" by Moshe Maʻoz.
Two questions (and keep in mind that this is an overview article):
1. Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel? 2. Should the Moshe Dayan quote be included, without a qualifier, given that most of the literature ignores the quote and given that historians doubt the accuracy?
Pantherskin ( talk) 07:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If you have sources that dispute what other reliable sources have said add them to the article. How can including what Moshe Dayan, at the time Israeli Defense Minister, said about an attack that he ordered and saying that this is what Mose Dayan said be a NPOV issue is not something I understand. We do not say that what Dayan said is true, we say that Dayan said that. This same quote is published in a number of sources, such as The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim, How Israel was won and The dark side of Zionism by Bayliss Thomas, Israel's wars: a history since 1947 by Ahron Bregman, Arab-Jewish relations: from conflict to resolution? edited by Elie Podeh, Asher Kaufman, and Moshe Maʻoz, and in a large number of scholarly journal articles. nableezy - 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskins misrepresents the situation above with his: "Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel?".. all the sources provided (and there are several: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions") at the Syria and Golan articles show that Israel provoked Syria in the DMZ, so what dayan talks about which is published in the New York Times "General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan" is also mentioned by several different sources. Several editors have repeatedly asked Pantherskin to show us information disputing this, but he has not provided anything and keeps on edit warring to remove it. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional note: Supreme Deliciousness had to acknowledge only after he was caught red-handed that he used a fake source to push his POV, see [5] and [6]. Pantherskin ( talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not say it has something to do with Dayan. But evidently it has something to do with both of you wanting to include "According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis", by using a fake source. And apparently now Supreme Deliciousness wants to use youtube video as a source... [7]. Pantherskin ( talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to get into that level of detail in a general overview article (which seems dubious), why not mention that in May 1967 the Soviet Union deliberately and maliciously lied to the Arabs about supposed Israeli plans to "invade Syria"? AnonMoos ( talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
It's no big deal, but an expert opinion would be appreciated. In the article on the recently deposed Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, an editor is keen to retain the word "stratospheric" as well as "unprecedented" in this sentence:
I have suggested that unlike "unprecedented", which is provable by statistics (and is true), "stratospheric" is a subjective term, without a clear boundary between what is stratospheric and what is not. It appears unnecessary to the sense of the wording, and I'm concerned that it risks accusations of puffery. Ref 10 is to an opinion piece by a journalist, who cites the opinion of a pollster:
I don't think this changes the matter. Tony (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
As clearly evident from this, the article lacks an entire section. Repeatedly removed without sufficient support, this section should represent a fairly large view of Kenny's music, which is backed up by a vast share of reliable sources, including the infamous interview with Pat Metheny (who would "smash his new guitar over Kenny's head"). As indicated at the end of that discussion section, the article is clearly being patrolled by Kenny G fans; this is anything but neutral. I initially wanted to add that section, but after stumbling upon the discussion I realized it would drag me into a meaningless edit war. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page has a very strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias at the present time. While a page on criticism of another's religion should carry both pro and con viewpoints, and outline the history and reasons for criticism, the current article, which was largely put together by an editor who is openly opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, leaves one with a very negative viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than a NPOV, as required by Wikipedia. There are a number of specific points that have been posted on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because there is something of an edit war on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, and because one editor repeatedly deletes attempts to make reasonable revisions to clarify wording on that page, and it has been very time-consuming, I am requesting that a warning tag be placed on the top of the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page.
The article does more than reporting or informing the reader of the criticisms that have been made against Jehovah's Witnesses. The article itself is strongly biased in favor of criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, even advancing it's own criticisms. The opening paragraph strongly presents criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, with a short rebuttal that Jehovah's Witnesses deny these claims. This in itself is enough to open up a bias in the reader's mind. Included are accustations of mishandling sexual abuse cases, which took place close to 10 years ago. It creates a first impression of negativity to Jehovah's Witnesses, and largely cites the work of Ray Franz, who has his own page on Wikipedia, and other former Jehovah's Witnesses, who have been disfellowshipped, and afterwards wrote book against Jehovah's Witnesses.
It has been suggested that these books themselves, although published, are biased, and were written in attempts for self-justification. If one quotes largely from biased sources, and rejects attempts to present material which presents the opposite viewpoint, the result is a strongly biased article. This is the case, and the specific unanswered points are listed on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page. Wikipedia editor BlackCab, who is the main developer of anti-Jehovah's Witness information on Wikipedia at the present time, edits only Jehovah's Witnesses pages.
I don't know the full Wikipedia procedure to request a tag on the page, so if someone can direct me if there is another method, it would be appreciated. Natural ( talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
I've been giving an item some thought, and would like feedback from those a little more experienced and knowledgeable. On the Freemasonry articles in general, we refer to two main branches of Freemasonry: "regular" and "irregular". The regular one is those lodges that follow a belief in a Supreme Being (like the United Grand Lodge of England, and the irregular is those that don't ( Grand Orient de France). Now, while those two bodies do not make the rules for regularity (it's up to each Grand Lodge as sovereign body in its own jurisdiction), they are the most often-cited examples of their type.
Now, the majority of Masonic research available in English comes from UGLE-branch Lodge members. Therefore, the terms are defined in relation to UGLE-branch lodges (and thus inherently POV). The UGLE-based branch is "Anglo-American" or "regular", and the GOdF branch is "Continental", "liberal", and probably a few others. In the rare instances where research or statements come from GOdF branch lodges, they tend to call themselves "adogmatic" and the UGLE ones "dogmatic". However, each branch is regular unto itself, and each branch is not confined to the geographic terms used (there are UGLE - and GOdF-type lodges all over the world). I would like to use "UGLE branch" and "GOdF branch" lodges as a term, but those neutral terms are not used in research papers (so it would be OR). However, I feel that their use encourage a conclusion from the reader (which violates NPOV).
So my question boils down to: what wins when policies conflict? OR or NPOV? MSJapan ( talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a minor problem so far, but there is one anon who is pushing an unsourced POV. I am running out of reverts. What am I supposed to do with this? Mhym ( talk) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The section in the main article Jehovah's Witnesses under Doctrinal Criticisms, violates, I feel Wikipedia's NPOV policy for several reasons and isn't accurately placed. 1. Accusing JW of being a false prophet isn't really a doctrinal criticism. If someone critices JW position on the Trinity or hellfire, that would be a doctrinal criticism.
Several points to make here:
1. The section is part of a summary of a spinout article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is fair, factual, written in an editorially neutral tone, based on reliable sources and contains a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society.
2. The opening statement that the Watch Tower Society claims God uses the JWs as his prophet and has "equipped them with advance knowledge of future world events" is based on articles in Watch Tower publications. One of the cited articles, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them", (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972) contains a discussion about the role of Old Testament prophets and asks the question, "Does Jehovah have a prophet to ... warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? ... These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses." A 1959 Watchtower article cited notes the role of JWs as God's "prophet to the nations", the "modern Jeremiah" and the apparent success of a prophecy that the League of Nations would fall apart. The article also notes the JW prediction that the United Nations is "also doomed to join the League of Nations". User:Naturalpsychology arbitrarily dismisses those sources as "antiquated", but both articles are among a library of Watch Tower publications dating back to 1950 contained on a CDRom that all Witnesses are encouraged to own and use for research. He also makes the false claim that that articles do not use the word "prophet" in the context of making future predictions. In fact the 1972 one refers to JWs as a "modern day Ezekiel", a group that gives warning of what they believe God will do in the future. Other WT articles cited in the article include a 1997 magazine in which JWs again are compared with Old Testament prophets to whom God "revealed" warnings "of what was to come" and described as "God's messenger".
3. Two books are cited, by Crompton and Beverley, that contain the explicit claim that JWs are a false prophet because of specific predictions made in the past about events that did not take place. Crompton writes of the JWs' "failed predictions"; Beverley spends several pages detailing false predictions. Watch Tower Society publications themselves have dealt with accusations of being a false prophet, thus acknowleding the claim exists.
4. It is certainly a doctrinal issue that a religious organisation describes itself as a "prophet", directly and specifically chosen by God as his sole representative on earth to give warning of a future calamity, and that the religion has an intricate chronological system in which it calculates when various parts of God's destruction will take place. The issue is therefore appropriately located in the article.
5. Naturalpsychology refers to me in his final, slighting reference to a former JW with an animosity to the religion. He fails to note that he is a current member of the religion. Any intrinsic "bias" he implies on my part will be mirrored by his own. Neither is terribly important. What matters is that the material presented in the article is fair, balanced and editorially neutral. It is.
6. The spinout Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article is one of a number of articles dealing with criticism of religions. Others include Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Mormonism and Scientology controversy. BlackCab ( talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
These are BlackCab's statements concerning Jehovah's Witnesses - · Over the years I became increasingly disenchanted with the regimentation of Witnesses and the imposition of rules, the denial of personal choice in many areas, the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses. · I was told it was the truth. I was told it was from God himself. So much of it I now realise was arrant nonsense. · And so, after enduring much unhappiness, frustration and silent anger as a Jehovah’s Witness — for one cannot voice these criticisms, even to one’s closest friends, for fear they will report you to elders as an apostate and a murmurer — I chose to cease associating with the Witnesses. · Even though I no longer think of myself as a Witness, I have no intention of resigning, or formally disassociating myself from the organization, because I know that this will automatically result in an announcement at my local congregation, with the result that all those Witnesses who know me will be required to shun me. Any who disobey this injunction are liable to be disfellowshipped themselves. · But such is the power of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. · I love to read and I love to accumulate information and share it, particularly information to which the Watch Tower Society would prefer Witnesses not be exposed.
Natural ( talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
These two references do not state or imply that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet". They can't be used in this spot to support BlackCab's personal viewpoint and that of some other religious opposers. The word prophet is not to be found in the Jehovah's Witnesses - Proaclaimers of God's Kingdom referenced here.
^ "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced Happy", The Watchtower, May 1, 1997, page 21
^ Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, Watch Tower Society, 1993, page 708.
The only two references that are cited which have bearing are from 1972 and 1959. There are no one of the Governing Body of JEhovah's Witnesses alive today who were on the Governing Body in 1959, and possibly one out of the eight who was alive in 1972. Jehovah's Witnesses have not referred to themselves and do not refer to themselves as a "prophet". The Governing Body do not refer to themselves as a "prophet" and the term is not to be found in JW literature since 1972. If a historical criticisms section is created somewhere, this can be used. HOwever, it is not current, and if these two references are to be used, then the dates of the criticisms should be clearly noted in the argument. (That is of the 1972 and the 1959 references.
Additionally these two articles draw a comparison with Jehovah's Witnesses and Ezekiel as a prophet with regard to their preaching of the good news of the kingdom, and do not state that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet" in the sense of making predictions.
Wikipedia synthesizes two ideas. 1. Jehovah's Witnesses stated (in 1959 and 1972) that they are a prophet. 2. That Jehovah's Witness literature in other places has said that God has given them advanced knowledge based on Bible prophecy (not based on their own private ideas, as do Latter Day Saints). Jehovah's Witnesses believe all prophecy ended since the Bible was written, and that they sometimes have discernment with regards to the fulfillment of prophecies already made in the Bible. Wikipedia is giving an entirely different viewpoint here, and attempts to clarify the position of Jehovah's Witnesses are swiftly removed from the current editor. Natural ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
Sythesis and Original Research Policy - It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.
BlackCab uses Synthesis to advance his argument of JW being a false prophet. He quotes refers to a number of JW publications, which do not refer to JW as a false prophet, to make his own argument on the main Wikipedia page that JW are a false prophet. In other sentences he makes references which talk about failed predictions of JW but do not refer to JW as a "false prophet". They talk about failed predictions, but don't use the word "false prophet". The Reasoning on the Scriptures of JW does use the term with a defense, but that is not quoted here, and if it were quoted, it would need to be quoted in the context with which Reasoning on the Scriptures uses the term, and not in the way that an editor who is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses wants to us it, in his own Synthesis of an argument, syntesized and created on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, but not anywhere else. See: WP:No Original Research Natural ( talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
This article has a systematic bias that advocates the views of one party, Israel, to the near exclusion of the other listed parties - the United Nations and Palestine. That problem has been discussed here [9], here [10] and here [11]
Attempts to add historical material representing significant opposing viewpoints from reliable sources are routinely reverted, e.g. [12] and [13] Several editors have complained that this article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE. The POV and Globalize templates are being removed without discussing or correcting the problem. harlan ( talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's rather audacious of User:Harlan wilkerson to have started this thread here, since Harlan_wilkerson's idiosyncratic and decidedly non-mainstream views of United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 (the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine) have been the source of much of the tension on this article (and a number of other articles as well). It is solidly established and very well accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars that in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan -- yet Harlan_wilkerson is prepared to go through endless contorted twisting of purported "sources" and any amount of convoluted personal abstract metaphysical philosophizing in order to try to deny this very simple and basic fact of history. Of course, he then goes on to develop his own further personal idiosyncratic hypothetical speculative interpretations based on his historical denialism -- so that according to Harlan_wilkerson, even though the Arabs vehemently denounced UNGA resolution 181 with vituperative contumely during late 1947 and early 1948, and never followed through on any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as respect for Jewish holy sites and borders freely open to trade), nevertheless all of the provisions of UNGA 181 which would have benefited the Arabs (if, counterfactually, they had agreed to it) somehow supposedly now have full legal force.
Harlan_wilkerson is quite intelligent and very knowledgable in some areas, but I frankly doubt whether he will ever be able to do anything very positive to improve 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia until and unless he will finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. If he continues to give his elaborate personal theories priority over the basic accepted facts of history, then I really think that it's time for him to withdraw from editing all 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia... AnonMoos ( talk) 11:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not waste your breath on single statements in that article while the sourcing of the article is APPALLING (I don't often shout). Either this article is rewritten entirely from appropriate secondary sources, i.e. academic books (with perhaps the occasional news report, UN policy document or other mainstream fact-checked source, per WP:PSTS) or someone will stub it right down. Blogs!!!! On a article about one of the most prominent international relations issues of our time. Shocking. Check the sources out on RSN, asking specific questions, as often as you need to. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Since my major rewrite of this article in Sept 2007, I have followed several disputes. The current storm whipped by Harlan is just another one. There is a very healthy discussion in the talk page of the article, edits have successfully been made to the text. I say we do not need this noticeboard. Emmanuelm ( talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
These articles have multiple issues. Neutral point view, COI, etc. I wonder how these type of scams can still exist in wikipedia, and survive from scrutiny. Perhaps, it is because nobody here in wikipedia has any idea about it. I recommend those who wish to preserve wikipedia's principles to view the website prepared by a former Amway IBO. None of the facts stated in this website are mentioned in these articles;
http://www.amquix.info/amway.html
78.185.248.54 ( talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
About a year or so ago I started to notice the {{ USgovtPOV}} tag being applied to a lot of articles. I have questions about this tag.
I'd like to know why this tag was considered necessary.
I'd like to know when those who created this tag considered it appropriate.
Surely it is possible, in principle, to base wikipedia articles on US Government references, while complying with WP:NPOV? When a US Government source makes an assertion, doesn't compliance with [ and specifying biased statements] merely require making clear the assertion is not a "fact", but is merely a position taken by a US government official?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Messianic Jews believe that it is possible for someone to be both Jewish and Christian simultaneously. Most conventional Jews disagree. Sociologists and unbiased religious scholars tend to describe what each group believes, not what the scholars themselves believe to be true. Some users insist on putting into the lead of Messianic Judaism a statement that flat-out says that Messianic Judaism is a "Christian religious movement." See, e.g., this diff. It seems to me that this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV — the article should not be taking one or the other side in this controversy, especially not in the lead sentence. User:Bus stop has refused to provide any sources for his preferred version. *** Crotalus *** 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Back in 2008, a British Conservative politician stated that her party planned to ban the use of khat in the UK, citing supposedly negative effects amongst the Somali community there, with whom its use is associated. Since the Conservatives are now in power, I thought this worthy of mention at Somalis in the United Kingdom. My addition was reverted on the grounds that the source was just the opinion of a politician. In light of this, I reintroduced the material but with much more context, including a study on the use of khat by Somalis in the UK and a newspaper article contesting some of the politician's claims, along with an article about Somalis campaigning for a khat ban. Again, this has been reverted. The reverting editor explains why here. They seem to be arguing that it is POV to include the politician's opinions, even though I have balanced them with those of other commentators. I don't see the problem provided that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed (which I think I have done). Regardless of whether the politician's views about the Somali community's khat use are based on solid evidence or not, it seems important to me to mention them given that they seem to be informing government policy on this issue. If a ban is introduced, it will presumably have a big impact on the Somali community in the UK. Third-party opinions would be welcome, though. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
How about the following as a draft?
Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:
In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture. [7]
One newspaper estimate from 2003 suggests that 90 per cent of Somali men in the UK chew khat. [8] In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. [9] Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. [10] In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny". [1]
In 2008, Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi suggested that use of khat by Somalis was partly responsible for their low employment rates and poor educational achievement, and stated that a future Conservative government would ban khat. [11] The Conservative Party website states that a Conservative government would "Tackle unacceptable cultural practices by", amongst other measures, "classifying Khat". [12] Brian Whitaker, a journalist for The Guardian specialising in the Middle East, criticised Warsi for making statements not supported by scientific research. [13] Previously, in 2005, Labour MP Stephen Pound claimed that khat was responsible for relationship problems amongst Somalis. The authors of a book on khat write that: "Khat use has certainly become a factor in family relationships and in community identity, but to regard it as the 'corrosive, visious, and pernicious' driver of family breakdown in the Somali community, to quote MP Stephen Pound, is an absurd and potentially very damaging generalization". The argue that these generalisations have gained weight because they were supported by anti-khat campaigning by members of the Somali community. [14]
I think that's balanced and reflects the debate about the impact of khat amongst the Somali community. If others are happy with it, I'll add it to the article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you gentleman for weighing in. There are a few key bits of information that have not yet been mentioned which I would like to share. For starters, this is not the first, but the second time that the user above is attempting to gain support for a variation of the material in question. He first tried obtaining it on the WP:BLP noticeboard, but ran into something of a wall there. So here he is again on yet another board; at some point, one has to start wondering if WP:FORUMSHOPPING hasn't yet come into play. The fact is, the user has been attempting to add some pretty contentious opinions from one politician ( [33]) who claims that khat, a legal substance in the UK that is sold in cafes, restaurants, etc., is partly responsible for, among other things, what she claims is the very high unemployment rate in the community. However, her claims are not only not based on any actual study or scientific evidence (as other opinion pieces, ironically enough, have pointed out [34]), they are also factually inaccurate. She writes that the unemployment rate (not the employment rate) in the Somali community is quite high: "Unemployment rates among the Somali community are far above the national average. Academic achievement rates are far below the national average. And khat is in part responsible." However, this is not true, since most Somalis in the UK that are not employed are economically inactive, not unemployed. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the unemployment rate in the community is actually only 10%, nor is there any study that attributes this inactivity mainly to khat use. In fact, an actual study on khat use among Somalis in the UK ( [35]) states that there is no link between unemployment in the Somali community and khat use. The paper also indicates that only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat", that the most common health "symptoms that respondents associated with khat use were: sleeping difficulties; loss of appetite; and an urge to chew more khat", and concludes that "the overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use." So basically, it's not just an opinion piece citing unsubstantiated, contentious claims about a living third party (which is against WP:QS); it is also factually inaccurate and has been explicitly identified as such too. Since khat use in the community in question is analogous to alcohol use in many other communities, the only thing that makes it even notable in the article is if it is in some way abused. However, as I've pointed out, the actual studies on its usage in the community do not support this at all. The user above now links to a site indicating that the Conservatives are considering banning the substance -- a site that doesn't even mention Somalis in the UK, let alone any so-called link between unemployment in that immigrant community and khat use -- as well as a closed-access paper (whose contents are unverifiable) on perceptions in the Somali community on khat. But none of these are any more reliable sources (or even relevant, in the former's case) than the politician's unsubstantiated opinions; perceptions do not a social issue make. In fact, this is what the study on khat use that I cited above indicates:
"The social problems which respondents most commonly attributed to khat use concerned discord or breakdown within marital or familial units.... However, a number of other factors may have also had an impact upon these social tensions, including: the experience of being a minority group within the UK; being isolated from an extended family network; differences in expectations about gender relations within western society; and the experience of socio-economic difficulties. It is not possible within this study to establish where causation lies between all these factors."
Many people (wives and mothers, especially) would also like to see alcohol banned and perceive it as being bad, but one doesn't see this being mentioned in any ethnic group articles. Double standards notwithstanding, this article is no exception. Middayexpress ( talk) 04:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."
Middayexpress, what would you say if I suggested adding a section on khat use, without the Warsi comments, as a starting point? We can then continue to discuss her contribution to the debate with a view to including it (or not) at a later date, when consensus is reached either way. We could add the following, for instance:
Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. [1] [8] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:
In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture. [7]
In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. [9] Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. [15] In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny". [1]
Cordless Larry (
talk) 09:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"The social problems which respondents most commonly attributed to khat use concerned discord or breakdown within marital or familial units.... However, a number of other factors may have also had an impact upon these social tensions, including: the experience of being a minority group within the UK; being isolated from an extended family network; differences in expectations about gender relations within western society; and the experience of socio-economic difficulties. It is not possible within this study to establish where causation lies between all these factors."
I am an editor of the article. Middayexpress, you have been misrepresenting Cordless Larry's position, misunderstanding and misusing policy, and making baseless accusations. You claim repeatedly that Cordless Larry is using someone's ( Warsi) opinion to cite contentious claims about khat use among Somalis (see corresponding BLP noticeboard, above messages, and the article's talkpage). This is not what he is doing and you are misrepresenting him by claiming so. His position is that Warsi made those statements. You claim he is in violation of WP:QS with regards to this and challenges him to prove why he is not, wishing him "Good luck with that". Well I will do just that. He is not in violation of QS because he is not using a statement/opinion by Warsi to support claims about khat use among Somalis; what he is actually doing is using this Guardian article to support his addition that Warsi made statements about khat use about Somalis (" Sayeeda Warsi suggested in 2008 that use of khat by Somalis" and same here), so adhering to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, where he attributes a statement or opinion by a person to that person. You claim that the Warsi comments fall under BLP so could not be included; editors at the BLP noticeboard disagreed, as the comments were about a generic group and not specific individuals.
You claim he is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, that he tried to get consensus about khat use at the BLP board but failed, so is trying again here. Again you are misrepresenting him, as his aim at the BLP board was not to get consensus for the khat use material but to clarify whether the issue fell under the BLP policy. He did this in response to your claim that it did. At the BLP board, editors basically agreed with him, contrary to your assertion that he hit a "wall" there. He did note that they said that there may be better sources on the khat issue. So in response he added more information. You again disputed these additions, claiming that material relating to khat use are undue weight. Since he could get nowhere by arguing with you, he decided to raise the issue here, which is where we are at now. Far from Cordless Larry's post being a "rant", that label seems more appropriate for your extended opinions on how khat use isn't an issue. So, far from forum shopping, it seems that he has gone out of his way to address any issues you bring up.
You mention alcohol in ethnic group articles when this is largely irrelevant to this article. You say the closed-access sources are unverifiable, when WP:SOURCEACCESS says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". You said to Cordless Larry " :I don't particularly care what your intentions were", a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You seem particularly keen to argue that khat use among Somalis is not an issue, when our job is not to decide this but to report what others say (as long as it complies with policies). In short, you have misrepresented the positions of others, misused policies, and made unfounded accusations, among other things.
Since the topic of khat use among Somalis has been documented in several reliable sources (academic, government, media), I generally agree with the proposals put forth by Cordless Larry. Christopher Connor ( talk) 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, since there seems to now be general agreement about this, I've added the material. I made a few changes compared with the text above, to include more references and mention of a recent review of studies about the mental health impacts of khat use by, amongst others, Somalis in the UK. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is biased and pushes the unsubstantiated point of view that the book promotes false memories. It is watched over by editors who revert all edits that go against this general thrust. No positive statement about the book is permitted to stand.
The article also fails to give an accurate idea of the book's contents. Someone reading the article is likely to take away the impression that the book is all about repressed memories and satanic ritual abuse, when in fact these issues constitute a small fraction of a very large book.
The article bears the scars of multiple edit wars and is, as a result, repetitive and badly written. It is a mess and cries out to be restarted from scratch, if not deleted altogether.
Here are some of the reverts made in defense of the bias:
I have tried discussing this and got nowhere:
I'm afraid I haven't got the time/inclination to tussle with problem editors and go through the whole dispute mediation business, so I'm hoping someone else will be willing to take this on. Thanks. Feeline ( talk) 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
User:AndeanThunder has been adding POV laden edits to this article and others for some time, this afternoon edit warring to add an edit that included a racist term. I had highlighted this at WP:ANI earlier but the thread was accidentally removed by User:Toddst1. As noted in this diff he has added another one [41]. Edit fails WP:NPOV and relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm tiring of reverting POV edits, then being threatened with a block for edit warring by admins who don't look at the edits properly. Please could someone look and take the necessary action to deal with this disruptive editor. Justin talk 23:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The matter is a pretty heavy issue. Cyprus is an ongoing dispute and any discussion can very quickly dissolve into a heated dispute and edit warring is common.
Most commonly the articles on Cyprus receive little support from the Turkish Cypriot side and the majority of editors are either Greek (and not Cypriot) or Greek Cypriot. The problem of the dispute is that the ongoing dispute between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is not likely to result in consensus in this matter, as can be seen from the first sets of comments and replies in the RfC.
Mediation is likely to be difficult - I have already attempted to point out that I am neutral and must remain so and have started the RfC as it seems to me that there is good reason for the editor to question the neutrality of the article title. I beleive that the Greek side will always claim "Invasion" and the Turkish side "Intervention"
The fact is that the treaty signed by Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain gave the parties the right to intervene if either party felt its protected persons were suffering at the hands of another involved in that treaty. No limit was put on any side which would ban the use of military forces to resolve any issue which may have arisen.
The RfC is here RfC
The article title is disputed as being POV. The evidence is given from UN documents which state it as "Intervention".
There have been several Greek or Greek Cypriot editors (as evidenced by the Greek flags or statements on their user pages) who have commented and say that the term "Invasion" is correct.
Google searches seem to support that the more common usage of the term is "Intervention".
The question - "Is the term Invasion POV and should the term Intervention be used instead to remain neutral on the matter?"
Chaosdruid ( talk) 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(From Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_on_2012_phenomenon): Firstly, please don't misinterpret my word. The dispute is not escalated, however, I am unable to stay in what I feel is my boundaries to meet on neutral grounds with some other involved editors, and I believe it is the same thing on both sides. I am not edit warring, but I feel that there is likely to be a misunderstanding on one or both sides. Please kindly visit this link to view the discussion over there. If you need me to summarize, I proposed this revision to state the important key facts on the subject, which are backed by evidence and reliable references, yet my proposal is still being criticized for being incompliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly neutral point of view. All in all, it looks to me like one of those borderline cases, where it is more difficult than average to find neutral grounds where we can all meet. Please kindly reply for any advice or assistance, and please make any criticism (for any party) constructive and polite in order to help prevent things from escalating. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Most astronomers and other scientists have rejected the apocalyptic forecasts on the grounds that the anticipated events are precluded by astronomical observations or are unsubstantiated by the predictions that have been generated from these findings.[7] NASA has compared fears about 2012 to those about the Y2K bug in the late 1990s, suggesting that an adequate analysis should preclude fears of disaster. Others have said that it is a hoax (then put your sources)". Slatersteven ( talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the diff.
You seem to be asking for general comments without having a specific problem, so here are my first thoughts.
Please see WP:LEDE - one problem which already existed and which you are perpetuating is the existence of citations in the lede. What you are doing would be much less controversial if you put it in its own section heading within the article. The lede is the part of the article which gives general readers an overview of the article, and there is no need to go deeply here. The fact that a WP:SPS is hosted in a .edu domain does make it a WP:RS. This link is not a RS because the author is not identified and it seems to be an individual's personal space and does not include citations for all claims. What sources are cited there may themselves be WP:RS, though.
Also as a general rule, if you are doing anything which could be construed as controversial then considering making changes one at a time. Sometimes when you introduce multiple changes and only one of them is objectionable, the entire edit gets reverted and communication becomes difficult. It is hard for me to determine what exactly the problem is, but it seems that you still have reasonably good communication on the article talk page so I would advice just separating your proposals and talking it through.
Please be more specific with your future questions if you continue to have difficulty. Blue Rasberry 19:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, please give polite feedback. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute concerning the structure of the article Monty Hall problem. The article is a featured article that has been through two featured article reviews. This dispute is part of a larger dispute that has led to formal mediation (which is currently on hold pending the assignment of a mediator).
The specific change is [42] which moves the "Aids to understanding" section to immediately follow the "Simple solutions" section, thereby moving the "Conditional probability solution" section (which contains material that may be construed as critical of the "Simple solutions") so neither the other (conditional) form of solution or the criticism of the simple solutions contained within this section are immediately adjacent to the "Simple solutions" section. The question we're asking for input on here is whether this change creates a structural POV favoring the simple solutions.
Some background on this dispute might be helpful.
Several editors have been unhappy with the article for some time, essentially complaining that it takes the POV of those sources which criticize a certain (simple) style of solution presented by other sources. These editors want the criticism and the alternate style of solution to ideally be completely removed or if not that then put far, far away from the sections of the article describing the solutions that are criticized (possibly in an "academic considerations" section), which would in the opinion of other editors make the article take the opposite POV.
At least one editor insists the article should present the simple solutions (the ones that are criticized) first, followed with several sections of "Aids to understanding" - with no mention that this style of solution is criticized by numerous reliable sources or that another style of solution even exists - and only then present the other style of solution. The rationale for this structure is to fully explain the "simple" solutions before moving on to the more complicated conditional solution, in the interests of making the article more accessible to non-expert readers. Both styles of solution are presented by numerous reliable sources, although "popular" sources nearly exclusively present the simple style (which is also presented by numerous academic sources) while the other (conditional) style is presented nearly exclusively by academic mathematical sources. The sources that criticize the simple style (far less common than sources presenting either simple or conditional styles of solutions) are peer reviewed academic math papers or textbooks.
This change has been discussed multiple times on the talk page, most recently at [43] (link to a specific version of the talk page since it is auto-archived). Note the discussion continues in the next section of the talk page.
A note of caution - the topic here, the Monty Hall problem, is notorious for causing arguments (even among mathematicians). I don't think the question being asked here necessarily requires any particular mathematical background, particularly if this is viewed strictly as a POV issue.
The request here is specifically concerning the structure. Is presenting the simple solutions and several sections worth of "Aids to understanding" before mentioning another style of solution exists or that numerous reliable sources criticize the simple solutions creating a structural POV?
Thank you. -- Rick Block ( talk) 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi ( talk) 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's the intro:
In early Latter Day Saint history, seer stones were stones used, primarily (but not exclusively) by Joseph Smith, Jr., to receive revelations from God. Smith owned at least two seer stones, which he had earlier employed for treasure seeking before he founded the church.[1] Other early Mormons such as Hiram Page, David Whitmer, and Jacob Whitmer also owned seer stones.
This needs a major NPOV review it seems to me. BE——Critical__ Talk 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! A couple of issues have arisen at this article, mostly around the WP:LEAD description of the English Defence League (EDL) as a "far right" organisation.
There's a minor and good natured dispute, possibly now resolved, over whether the term "political organisation" is appropriate.
More seriously, a new editor (who identifies as a member of the EDL) objects to the term "far right". This term is sourced, but careful examination of the sources, by uninvolved editors, certainly wouldn't go amiss. I think it's fair to say that regular editors at EDL are, by and large, not supporters of the EDL (and by that I mean: they tend to oppose the EDL). Input at Talk:English Defence League from non-involved editors would be very welcome: both to clarify whether the current lead is neutral, and to provide assistance to the new editor who - not unreasonably - isn't happy with advice given to them by regular editors who they perceive as partisan.
TFOWR 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Stormfront denies that they are a racist organization, but they obviously are, and many reliable sources label them as such. I'd say a similar situation applies here: they may deny being right-wing, but opinion is against them. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A new issue has arrose over alledged links to the BNP. Initlay it was decide that the material shouold be removed [ [45]] now an attmept is being made to re-insert it even thoguh it is the saem material, and none of the issuses raised last time have been addressed [ [46]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Request third party input on the consensus to split Article about Spying Allegations into two articles
Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam."
It is necessary that you thoroughly go through most or all of the sources as some of them directly contradict each other.
Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_student_scam
Link to Relevant Talk Page discussion on Split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Split.3F
Thanks.
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 03:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Broccoli is not an objective third party user as he has already commented on the article. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please thoroughly read through the sources as there is indeed an abundance of evidence supporting the allegations. Thanks. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I highly encourage the neutral reviewer to thoroughly read through all of the sources. That is the best way to gain an understanding of the issue. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 06:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono is also not an objective third party user as she has already commented on the article. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 07:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the fact that in the past you have edited the article should be brought up so that no one mistakes you as the neutral admin. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, you're also ignoring The Guardian article "Israeli student 'spy ring' revealed." The Guardian has the second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is about allegations of spying that easily meet the notability qualifications. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 16:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam many solemn protestations were made that if the article wasn't deleted that it would be greatly cleaned up, but now it seems to be a conduit for the same old conspiracy-theory garbage... AnonMoos ( talk) 05:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250
This posting could use review by persons who have not been previously involved. Blue Rasberry 23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 06:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 09:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I think one of the things that isn't helping here is the discussion not following WP:INDENT norms. Simple visual aspects like this put people off. Preciseaccuracy, please could you follow WP:INDENT. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Gaza War article there had been text in the lead saying the conflict had been known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world pretty much since the beginning of the article sourced to a variety of sources. The three sources that had been in the article up until today are as follows, with quotes from the source:
The text and the source on the Arab name for the event has now been completely excised from the article. My question for you all is should this alternative name be included in the article and should it be in the lead as a relevant foreign name? nableezy - 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"Massacre" was not an official title or sole description from Hamas. Al Jazeera, the biggest source in the region, titled their special coverage "War on Gaza" and used the title most frequently (and is verified from a third party source). Searches of their site along with multiple other sites based in the region do not show "Massacre" being a predominant title or description. They should know more than one newspaper in South Africa. Maybe they have an axe to grind, maybe it was a circular reference, maybe they are not correct. I don't know but it is not a strong enough source. I've even tried emailing them t see if they would clarify their source! It is simply an extraordinary claim without extraordinary sources backing it up and even other sources contradicting it in some way. Even the Arabic Wikipedia had bickering over this which raises even more eyebrows. So there have been several solutions on how to handle this"
Clearly a cadre of editors don't like one of the alternative names for the event and are taking turns removing it to circumvent the 1RR restriction on the article. This noticeboard is where, hopefully, uninvolved editors can look at this from a policy perspective. So far it's involved editors. RomaC TALK 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
While there are more than enough WP:RS showing that libertarianism is used by antiproperty "leftists" and proproperty "rightists" (and that the latter are better known worldwide), there are always left and right people who want to come along and kick out the other grouping. I've worked on the article for several years and it was manageable and compromises were found in the past. But in the last six months POV pushers, especially from the right who want to eliminate rightwing anarch0-capitalists as well as all left wingers from the article. There are problems of POV pushers, AnonIPs (now blocked from editing), AnonIPs who now have registered (perhaps more than once), and identified sock puppets, engaging in constant WP:SOAPBOX and personal attacks on the talk page. And there are bouts of actual edit warring in the article itself. It's gotten ridiculous and just too discouraging to more NPOV editors who want to include all views with proper balance. Even though I have come up with some good ideas and WP:RS to resolve the issues, I've given up on the article for the time being myself because of the nonsense. Any help appreciated. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two editors that seem to be pushing a heavy pro-capitalist POV, by suppressing any information about the anti-capitalist tendencies of certain libertarian factions in the article on libertarianism. The most recent diff to engage in this suppression is here: [47]. There is little question that the material is verifiable -- the initial editing removed four or more sources which were not contested. At the related talk page section ( Talk:Libertarianism#Blatant_Anarchocapitalist_POV_pushing), the editor states that he has objections of WP:UNDUE.
IMO, the attempt to POV push is rather blatant since the initial editor concedes that left-libertarianism should remain, due to its notability, but that he deletes any information about the anti-capitalist viewpoint that is prominent within left-libertarian philosophy, in the sense of Noam Chomsky who has in a book that
a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production" [A.K.A. " capitalism"]... Chomsky, Noam; Peregrín Otero, Carlos (Sep 2003). "Introduction to Chomskys Social Theory by Carlos Peregrin Otero". Radical priorities. AK Press
I believe that a variety of reliable sources show libertarianism to have many prominent viewpoints and that both right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are clearly regarded as forms of libertarianism. I believe left-libertarianism is notable, especially outside of the US (as touched upon on page 130 of the Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines which mentions "the 'family' of left-libertarian movements in...France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland."Klandermans, Bert, and Conny Roggeband. Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines. New York: Springer, 2009. page 130).
Given all of the above, I think the previous version is far more NPOV, and should be preferred to the current censored version. Opinions welcome! BigK HeX ( talk) 05:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
There's an RfC starting on the Messianic Judaism page, here. The dispute basically boils down to applications of NPOV policy, and a few uninvolved opinions would be welcome, so I'm adverting it here. -- Ludwigs2 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has the kind of issues one would expect. I'm tired of dealing with it and taking the article off my watchlist; posting here in the hope that someone else will feel like making it their responsibility. Prezbo ( talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever is being described in this article is as much caused by various other activities that took place in the US financial industry, as by the underlying subprime mortgages. To label this the Subprime mortgage crisis is incorrect, and violates NPOV.
I posted this on July 18. Since the there has been one response, which did not agree with me. I only became aware of this page in the last few days. Glkanter ( talk) 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What is RS? Yes, the term *was* used early on. Since then it has become evident that the sub-prime mortgages were less responsible for the financial crisis and bailouts than many other actions of the Wall Street & Hedge Fund crowd. Making the title what it is precludes, minimizes, and biases any discussion in the article that there could be any other equal or greater causes. It serves to pre-judge. Glkanter ( talk) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The "Subprime mortgage crisis" was a mythical beast. Once the facts were gathered, it was evident it did not exist. There *is* a foreclosure and vacancy crises, but that is quite different, and not the title of this article. I will not argue the semantics of words like 'subprime mortgage' vs 'mortgage backed security'. It is a false equivalency which I reject. Glkanter ( talk) 03:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this very discussion, regardless of who is right or wrong, indicates that the title, unfortunately, suggests a POV. Maybe different people see that POV differently, as you describe, but it is a POV, nonetheless. Which is what this page is all about, isn't it? Glkanter ( talk) 03:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, to demonstrate the phrase is outdated, I guess the lack of recent references would have to suffice. Here's my google search which shows nothing in the last 2 or 3 years. Except for this 'insightful' opinion column from Ann Coulter, which supports the bias claim. Glkanter ( talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that this is nothing more than another case of an 'experienced admin' being argumentative rather than working in collaboration. Coulter is not a reliable source? So, the bias I point out is provided by a person who is unreliable, "conservative wingnut Ann Coulter" to quote you, because of her bias? Heaven help me. And Wikipedia. I have no desire for another of these pointless, protracted arguments where the admin is prima facie correct. Unless someone else cares to help me here, you win. Again. Our score to date: Admins - Infinity. Truth - 0. Glkanter ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)