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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I noticed that Christopher Hitchens was categorized as belonging to Category:Genital integrity activists. Looking at the category, I noticed that genital integrity was a redirect to Circumcision controversies. I naively changed the redirect to point to Female_genital_cutting#Attempts_to_end_the_practice, which seemed to me to be a more likely target. Soon after, User:Jakew left a message on my talk page pointing out that the term was more commonly used by opponents of male circumcision, so I have undone my change.
I have no issue with the use of the term "genital integrity" -- awkward though it is -- to suggest opposition to genital mutilation, but I believe there is a problem when it is applied solely to male circumcision. It is clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genital Integrity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intact Day that there is a history of POV-pushing with regard to male circumcision.
Adding to the problem, the members of Category:Genital integrity activists are a mixed bag of opponents to Female genital mutilation ( Molly Melching), Circumcision ( Tim Hammond (activist)), or both (Hitchens). Some of these can likely get deleted for lack of notability, and some can be removed since they hardly qualify as "activists" even if they are opposed to a practice, but there seems to be no one article which should serve as a redirect for Genital integrity. Perhaps the category is just badly misnamed?
As I am not terribly familiar with this particular issue, I may be misinterpreting things and would appreciate some other opinions on how to proceed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here is my proposed solution:
Category | Links to | Purpose |
---|---|---|
Opponents of circumcision | Circumcision controversies#Medical advocacy and opposition | Persons with stated opposition to circumcision |
Opponents of female genital cutting | Female genital cutting#Attempts to end the practice | Persons with stated opposition to FGC |
Opponents of genital modification | Genital modification and mutilation or both of the above | (Optional) persons with stated opposition to any genital modification regardless of gender |
I believe this addresses the most important problems. Namely:
Comments? Jakew ( talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
POV Detective ( talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is that I've hit my 3-revert limit, so I'm looking for some outside voices to either corroborate my understanding of our policies or else to provide a good justification for immediate inclusion of the relevant material. I'm still a fairly new editor myself (~3000 edits), but all of the people forcing the bullying issue into the article are IP editors or single-purpose accounts, and I'm simply outnumbered. — Bill Price ( nyb) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Irisulip has been adding original research and POV at the Greta Berlin article. User:Truegreta was already banned months ago for COI and neutrality at Free Gaza Movement. Edits of concern:
The user has continued despite a warning and a more meaningful warning from an administrator might help. Cptnono ( talk) 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate some outside advice about what I perceive as a neutrality problem at the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I context of a recent high profile supreme court case, a group of editors there who all favor one significant point of view on the 2A topic have decided that the other significant point of view seen in reliable sourcing needs to be removed from the article. Personally, I am reading the WP:NPOV policy and I think it says that when determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. These editors are claiming that the significant point of view they personally don't like (and which 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices voted against) is now a 'fringe' point of view and must be removed. Is that how the policy works around here? Just asking. Thanks... SaltyBoatr get wet 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor here. When coming to this noticeboard, it would probably be more useful if you folks spelled out exactly what you're talking about, so that outside reviewers have a shot at contributing helpfully. Which is the disputed source? Is the issue really one of the reliability of a specific source, or is it one of recentism vs. history? What exactly is the neutrality issue here? Be specific ... about the issue, not about how much you dislike one another as people.
For what it's worth, I distrust the suggestion that a Wikipedia article about a point of constitutional law should only cover the most recent decisions or views about it. Legal history is how the common law is shaped; the law cannot be understood without reference to that history. For instance our First Amendment article deals with a whole lot of laws, precedents, legal tests (such as "clear and present danger"), and arguments which have since been stricken down or found unconstitutional.
An encyclopedia has history as one of its primary functions, especially in a matter as fundamentally history-based as the common law is. Historical facts, outdated views, and overturned precedents therefore must not be confined merely to "History of ..." articles. -- FOo ( talk) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter ( talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Rachel Shabi and Jemima Kiss of The Guardian report that two Israeli schools are being set up for the specific purpose of editing Wikipedia to correct what the schools' promoters consider to be unfair editing of topics related to Zionism and Israel, such as the status of Jerusalem and names for the West Bank/Cisjordan/Judaea & Samaria. The story quotes the school's leaders to the effect that they don't want to push a point of view onto Wikipedia and that they'll train their students to avoid the kind of disruptive or hostile behaviour that can lead to administrative sanctions.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups
I'm merely posting this to advise of possible waves of organized or mass editing in the future from a particular point of view on heavily-contested disputes. Whether the newly-trained editors merely correct existing biases, provide a helpful contrasting view, or contaminate articles, talk pages and noticeboards with partisan POV's that obliterate objective assessments and alternate views, is something that of course can't be foreseen without making biased assumptions of one's own. —— Shakescene ( talk) 05:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate on the talk page of the Derry article about the introduction there. Another editor and myself are concerned that some editors there do not seem to understand the introduction is presently deeply flawed so it would be helpful to get some feedback from some neutral admins, as at present i think the article introduction fails to meet a neutral point of view.
There is a compromise on wikipedia to call the city Derry and the County Londonderry in titles and throughout wikipedia. I accept this compromise although i do have concerns about it. The problem is, because wikipedia chooses to use the name Derry, we need to be very clear the status of the name Londonderry regarding the city. At present the introduction simply says "Derry or Londonderry.... " There is no mention at all in the introduction that the legal and official name of this city is Londonderry (something backed up by sources and covered in the name section on the article itself and the Derry/Londonderry name dispute article. The fact Derry is used throughout wikipedia and has the article title could easily mislead people into presuming Derry is the more official name if they do not read the rest of the article or the dispute article. So what i would like to know is.
1) Are we right to be concerned with the present introduction, and does leaving off the fact Londonderry is the legal/official name of the city there mean the introduction is not neutral by avoiding to mention important information simply to avoid upsetting one side of the community that oppose the term Londonderry.
2) Is it reasonable to want the first sentence of the article to clearly state this matter, in the same way many articles will say a name and then in brackets (Officially: *****) or something like that? The proposal which one editor has suggested about including a paragraph on the naming issue would certainly improve the introduction and make it more neutral, but i can not see any reasons other than to avoid offending one community not to state clearly in the lead sentence something like..
Any feedback would be very helpful thanks, there are other suggestions contained on the article talkpage itself. The main reason for bringing this matter here is just to make clear to certain editors there is a problem with the present introduction. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
“ | the elected council of the city has renamed it Derry- see all web sites etc. and is currently seeking to change its legal name. What is or is not an official name is thus an interesting question | ” |
“ | More than 9,000 people said they were broadly against the proposal; this was three times the number of people who said they were broadly in support of a move to change the city's name to 'Derry'. | ” |
One other problem though is how we deal with the description of the name Derry. At the moment the article reads..
"Derry or Londonderry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood ofColm Cille") is a... "
This is clearly problematic because it is giving the name definition after Londonderry but only talking about Derry (if i am following the original meaning correctly). Where this info would be included if we do just say (officially Londonderry) after Derry i am not too sure.
"Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood ofColm Cille") officially Londonderry' is a...
Seems to make the most sense to me but if all the information in that description is needed i am not sure as it takes up quite a bit of space and there may need to be one for Londonderry. If the paragraph explaining the names details what the meaning is, then it could be cut down and just say something like...
"Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille) officially Londonderry is a.."
Then more details about the meaning of the name and Londonderry can be explained in the new second paragraph on it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As a part-time webpage layout advisers I would like to state why having 'Derry officially Londonderry' is the best possible layout. Having the first sentence on any webpage explaining the in such great detail why the two names exist would prove very unsuccessfully in terms of keen readers coming on to the page. Someone who is not familiar with the situation on why some people in Northern Ireland leave out London in the cities name, will be approached by this title Derry, and will wonder why this page is being called Derry, they may even think they are on the wrong page as they will have never heard of this term maybe. Therefore it is crucial that this page straight away indentifies that the official naming of this city whatever it may be, be displayed as soon as possible. A source close to my organisation carried out research on web users behaviours, they concluded that on average a reader that ends up on a sudden webpage (let’s remember it is going to be a shock for the research having being landed on Derry in front of them) will read the first 10 words of the home page before exiting the page. Therefore I advice all editors that the ‘Derry’ page be worded as the following. First of all I advice that the first word be Londonderry and not Derry as by seeing Derry in the title (which will be the first word that is viewed) will produce a level of panic for web readers and there first action will be to look for the single word Londonderry. But the current way the names are doesn’t seem to be a problem with editors here. My second point is in response to what a few editors said above about the explanation of the royal character and Derry naming explanation etc. I would also like to confirm that this to would not prove to be an appropriate decision. This is because as I stated already the first 10 words are the most important and therefore it is not wise to prompt such history in an introduction as interesting as it may be. If this history/naming info is of such importance to people they should respect this paragraph and accept that it should be placed in the most appropriate section of the webpage which I believe there is already a section about the naming history. Lastly I would like to explain why I believe that just officially or legally (But the word official has more of a public known meaning) is the best word to be placed before Londonderry. When readers come on to the site and read Derry officially Londonderry followed by relevant information about Londonderry, (information that people actually want to know about, information that shouldn't be replaced with information regarding the name it's self) they will be able to see that there must be a clear dispute between the name of the city and therefore if they have an interest in knowing further information about why it is called Derry and vice versa they will be able to scroll down and read the section that gives these details. But I would like to point out that the majority of readers coming on to a site like this, the naming disagreement will not be their top concern and will want to know information like, is the second biggest city etc which is already in place. NOTE’’ this is only the views of an independent organisation and I have further views on a personally level of the naming. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbowsie 92.21.54.23 ( talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The point of bring the discussion here was to get a Neutral point of view. That isn't going to happen this looks like a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Derry. Can the involved editors wait 48 hours, and lets see if some uninvolved editors have an opinion. In the meantime, the discussion can freely return to the Derry Talk page. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In my uninvolved opinion in this debate. I would be tempted go with the officially one as it does still have the compromised common name but it also says what the name according to official mentions [7] [8] is while neither taking away credibility from one or the other. Allthough on the other hand, the courts have said the name is legally Londonderry [9] [10] so there is a case as well for legally. If I were to go out on a limb, I would go for the official one as it is used by government mentions of it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me why we should not inform the readers in the first sentence of the introduction that the city is officially called Londonderry? Why must we hide this fact from the reader and not follow standard practice as shown on things like France and Australia where the official name is clearly stated? I still have yet to understand how people can defend the status quo.
Perhaps we should seek more input from certain Wikiprojects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland , Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland and Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board?
The present introduction clearly lacks neutrality. It must be changed. Nowhere in the introduction does it inform the reader the city is officially called Londonderry. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This page was taken here for uninvolved input but seems to have the same editors, so anyone feel free to include your say! I'll repeat the issue as there's a lot of comments to read to get to this^.
"There is an ongoing debate as to include ‘officially’ before the word Londonderry in the introduction on the ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry' page. The disagreement is some editors believe officially is not necessary while other editors myself included believe that officially is quite appropriate for an introduction to inform the reader of the official status. Whether you agree or not with this word being in place add your opinion, the more the better so that a full and fair decision can proceed. Cbowsie ( talk) 22:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record - there is general agreement that Londonderry is the legal name, but "official" is less clear, especially given the Council's use.. I have attempted to put together a compromise with situates the legal name in its historical context here. -- Snowded TALK 01:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
These are some of the reasons why i feel the introductions first sentence should be changed.
The current introduction is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV and it needs to be changed. If those opposing a change to the first sentence could provide a similar list it would be helpful to all. We can then go through each point in both our lists. Thankyou BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I will now also be adding a POV tag to the Derry article. That tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone has removed the dispute tag i added. I would rather not revert incase it is considered as part of "the troubles" which has a 1RR imposed on all matters relating to it. But the template was justified to war the reader about potential problems with article, until it is resolved here. If it can not be re added then i need to raise this matter else where because i think there is justification for it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor is completely cherry picking and misrepresenting content to push a negative POV of the subject of this article. Additional help is needed. Spanish language background would be helpful. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a neutrality tag on a section of the Rangers article since June and some uninvolved feedback on its neutrality would be helpful. The section in question is Old Firm and sectarianism, which lists many examples of incidents of problems involving some fans. I believe it gives WP:UNDUE weight and lacks neutrality, especially when you compare it to the same section on the Celtic article which simply has a two paragraph summary. Considering there is a whole article dealing with Sectarianism in Glasgow, a summary like found on the Celtic page seems more reasonable than the long list found on the Rangers page. Is there justification for the section to be trimmed? or what else should be done? thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
See the following diffs: [15] [16] [17]. The issue seems to be that YouTube is not a reliable source. Now see the following diffs: [18] [19]... now that a reliable secondary source has been introduced, more and more excuses to remove this are piling up. It becomes more and more apparent on the talk page, where it's obvious that the "article keepers" will do anything to keep such information out of the article, even if deemed as reliable by any applicable policy. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes pretty easy on this group, which most in-depth reliable sources basically treat as a cult. Not really an important issue but maybe someone is interested in working on it. Prezbo ( talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
A few users have sought to restrict the content in the article Racism in the Palestinian territories to racism by Palestinians and have removed any reference to racism by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories or racist actions committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinians in the Palestinian territories. Is it "neutral" to restrict the scope of the article in such a way? nableezy - 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
RS101, I understand your concern about redefinition, but I come to this having worked extensively on
Racism in the United States, and having been won over to a respect for how the Category Racism by Country operates, which is how Sean.hoyland suggests. The spatial organization limits the degree that any one article becomes a "X People are racist" article.
On the substance of settlers and soldiers (and I haven't added any content on the issue of soldiers in the Palestinian territories yet), instances of their racist behavior (when sourced and substantiated) have a direct effect primarily on Palestinians in the territories, and therefore belong in an article on Racism in the Palestinian territories, more so than in an article on Racism in Israel. Examples may include (this is not the forum to debate whether they happen, that requires RSs on the page): humiliation at checkpoints of a racist nature, racially motivated attacks on persons and property (such as olive groves), racist hatred as an accompaniment or motivator to military violence or private violence by settlers against Palestianians in the territories, and yes, racially defined access to settlement housing, bypass roads, and building permits. All of these things may reasonably apply differently or uniquely to life in the Palestinian territories, directly affect Palestinian Arabs in the territories rather than Arabs in Israel, and are most honestly dealt with in the same article, rather than as a statement about life or attitudes in Israel.
That said, WP:Summary and sub-pages are always an option when the age gets too long. Indeed, Racism in Palestine ([by] Arab Palestinian regime, groups, population) seems like a subpage of Racism in Palestine, but given the surprising (to me) debate about what the Palestinian territories are--i.e., are the settlements in them?--I suspect that Racism in Palestine might provoke an even more tedious debate about what Palestine is.
In the mean time, must we move even the name of discussion on this page, or can we civilly seek consensus and understanding?-- Carwil ( talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Similar to what User:Shuki suggested on the article talk page, we could rename the article "Racism in the Palestinian National Authority". I'm not convinced that that is the better option, but it is one alternative. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 [32]
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in particular the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not only illegal under international law but are an obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population, without distinction as to national or ethnic origin. Actions that change the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are also of concern as violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. CERD/C/ISR/CO/13 [33]
“ | Wikifan, demonstrating both your ignorance of the subject under discussion and a short attention span is certainly no virtue. | ” |
— Harlan wilkerson, teaching Wikifan the concepts of WP:NPA |
1) As you back up the page to its origin it was always about Palestinian groups, regime & population ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Palestine_(Arab_Palestinian_regime,_groups,_population) ), as appose to a barrage, a ton of pages already on wikipedia with those claims of "apartheid" nd "racism" [propaganda] on Israel's defense. 2) Even in current redirected page, Palestinian territories are not yet defined, maybe in a future Palestine state (if there will be one) such "territories" can be defined, even occupied or disputed territories are not "Palestinian territories" , certainly not de-facto. Please don't add/insert new things before reaching a consensus. RS101 ( talk) 04:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone have a glance. A new article about a highly sensitive news topic, the recent Sialkot murders; I think it needs editorial oversight for neutrality, OR, etc. 86.172.143.220 ( talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best place to mention this is, but the above articles (and others close to the subject) are being edited by User:Harrybrunjes, who here claims to be her namesake's secretary. I suspect it may be Harry Brunjes himself, due to the user editing Folkington Manor - which is owned by Brunjes... but there's no proof of that. Just thought others should know as the Harry Brünjes article is in danger of becoming a vanity page. The subject is clearly influential in business, but that's not the same as notable in an encyclopaedia. Malick78 ( talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a repost of my summary of the issue in the talk page of Somalia:
I have looked through the revision history. This article has been edited in a blatantly biased fashion by Middayexpress in particular, but also by a few others as well. This user, and a number of others, carry a clear anarchist or Austrian economic bias. I understand their frustrations, because these ideas are generally left out of evaluations of relevant subject matter, which is not only unwarranted, but often done in a non-civil manner. Nonetheless, that does not justify this kind of misinformation.
On the other hand, a number of edits have also been made by those biased by government, indeed, those who may have never even considered any other viewpoint due to the prevalence of pro-government viewpoints in western cultures that surely dominate this English-speaking page.
Firstly, Somalia is indeed in abject poverty by modern standards ($600 per capita GDP). Economic growth rates are far slower than many other countries that also have less than lucrative economies. Evidently, the Somalian economy is not as strong as this article mentions. Of course, the economy is not a complete failure either, but that does not mean that abridging these facts is acceptable. Stating that the economy is relatively stable is fine, and indeed, more accurate. Certainly, it is also unacceptable to have the nation painted as a chaotic mess that consequently has economic failure (if any point along a pro-government viewpoint could be made, it is that a capitalist, national government system would produce more economic growth for the country as a whole).
At the very least, anarchists should acknowledge that Somalia has a failed state, because state is another word for government. On that note, the notion of the failure of a state being the measure of success of a society is also clearly fallacious. However, somalian society has also failed in the sense that there is war in the south, extreme poverty, and only mild growth. Accounts that do not acknowledge the partial success of the Somalian system are in error. Regardless, the society is not abdicated of its failures because its partial success.
A few other things to look into are: whether or not investment is low because most businesspeople do not believe in anarchy, and whether that could be a source of minimal growth; whether there is actual growth after accounting for inflation; whether there is any more in-depth analysis of the economy of Somalia, and not just from Austrian economists; and just how strong the economic growth is in the north.
A more accurate viewpoint than simply viewing Somalia as either a chaotic failed nation or an imperfect success story of anarchism with an only so far unresolved southern civil war would be to realize that it is more like two nations than one. We also should recognize that at the level of the entire world, there essentially is anarchy (no government that controls the whole world. The UN has very minor power, and that's it). There is no anarchy in Somalia, no more than the world, and we are really just talking about different levels of government on a hierarchy of size and power. Many other "nations" have had civil wars in parts of itself, systems sort of like anarchy, weak federal governments, economic prosperity in sections with failures somewhere else. In fact, central governments are not all encompassing, and the same kinds of divisions exist even in countries we see as run by a government. Often, even in highly centralized nations, the government is powerless in a number of ways. Limitations of government power written into law in many Western "democracies" also help to ensure that in those nations.
Still, there are major failures, and downplaying the failures of Somalia is obscuring the suffering of people in Somalia, preventing sympathy or action. Knowledge is in the first place something we have to benefit humanity. Obstructing that benefit in one case generalizes to all cases. Doing so for just for the sake of an argument on government systems is very selfish.
Further, regardless of whether or not this article is empathetic enough given the purpose of knowledge, the editorial standards of Wikipedia require neutrality. This article is not neutral. It needs to be made neutral. That means a solution that is neutral both to anarchist and government viewpoints, instead focusing more on empirical realities of Somalia. An editor that can see outside their own viewpoint needs to step up and revise this article, or a current editor needs to learn how to step outside their own viewpoint. Further biased edits by either side should be considered as vandalism.
To add to that, NPOV states that the most major viewpoints should comprise the page. Austrian economics is a fringe viewpoint, and should not dominate the Somalia page. It would be fair to have a section for the Austrian interpretation, though.
Nikurasu ( talk) 05:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This sort of thing happens a lot:
I cannot find a source that says "A majority of experts believe X." I can't find any reliable statements of prevalence at all. But, there sure seems to be a prevelance. What's the best way to report this in an article? Terms like "most" or "majority" are original research. Noloop ( talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that
an RfC is running at Libertarianism. Basically, the dispute seems to regard whether any mention of certain understandings of libertarianism are completely Undue within an article entitled "Libertarianism", versus the idea that policy demands that Due weight be given to the varying understandings of libertarianism which are found in reliable sources.
BigK HeX (
talk) 09:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Glenn Beck is referred to as a "conservative" yet there is no label for Chris Mathews. It seems to me that he should be labeled "liberal" if labels are being dished out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.204.56 ( talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Hooth contained only a single line for some quite time. but a paragraph has been added by an IP address.
The paragraph includes all Rind orgin tribes as Hooth origin without any references. It is well established that these tribes are of Rind origin.
Furthermore I want someone to look at the paragraph itself. the paragraph does not actually discuss Hooth tribe but some fictional characters. It is also written in a very non neutral and repitive tone.
OmerKhetran ( talk) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagreement over the presentation of Keio University's academic rankings. Please read discussion section for further details. This seems to be a long-standing dispute, as many sections within the talk page refer to possible academic boosterism. There exists 2 different versions of the edits that keep on getting reverted. I would like an expert on POV to review both versions, review the talk page, and provide input as to how to resolve this.-- ScorchingPheonix ( talk) 06:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been a continued attempt by various editors to use various polls to paint the Tea Party movement. It had reached a mostly stable version including most of the polls in order to avoid cherry picked specific polls to promote one point of view, however this section was still quite long and a violation of MOS.
Subsequentaly this section was condensed to Three polls in order to conform to MOS. However, this version was a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE focusing only on the most negative aspects. The synthesis was the reporting on a UW poll limited to the State of Washington and presenting the information as if it were representative of the entire population of the US. Washington State has less than 2.5% of the US population, thus the poll was representative of less than 2.5% of the US, yet it was given preference over national polling. A second UW poll/study (limited to 7 US states) was also included, again providing a view which does not neccessarily represent the majority of Tea Party impressions.
Thus the section was now limited to 3 polls, two of which were from the same source, and two of which were not even national polls, this is a violation of NPOV (in the information that is being taken from the polls and point of view from the polls), and Undue weight (Two polls from one source, and two polls which don't represent a majority of the US population). Arzel ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Could an Admin please comment on this discussion. One specific problem in the section that Xenophrenic continues to make is the following.
The following paragraph contains a patently untrue statement which is not backed up by the study which is being cited. (emphasis mine)
A number of polls have also been conducted to examine Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with just 11% of the general public and are more likely to believe President Obama was born outside the United States. [77] 74% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it."[79][80]
The highlighted sentence does not make the distinction that the survey was of Washington State Tea Party Supporters. The sourcing for the section does not really make it clear either, and to be fair Prof. Matt Barreto and Prof. Christopher Parker do an absolutely terrible job of pointing this out either. However from the actual poll you can clearly see that this is a poll of Washington State voters. I don't think that this poll should be used for the above reasons, however if it is to be in there in any capacity then it must be noted from who the poll was taken. The implication from the text as Xenophrenic has selected is that the poll is representative of Tea Party Supporters throughout the US. I am going to cross-post this at ANI as well. Arzel ( talk) 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get resolution on this section. I propose deleting the section entirely. This has been discussed on the talk section there is general consensus, appart from seemingly one person (who frequently posts not logged in, but this has been established), who considers removal of this section to be a slur on the FSF.
My reason for removal is that the patent warning originates from just one source, the FSF. There are other articles that comment on the FSF's statements but none which provide further evidence that this is an opinion held widely in the software community. In addition there are numerous other pieces of software and hardware that the FSF have made statements about however I have not been able to find any others that have a reference to this in their pages. For example: iPhone, Windows, Java_(programming_language)
Dave.hillier ( talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The wider problem is that section is the only bit (as far as I can see) that is sourced to independent reliable sources, the rest is to project pages and to blogs. If reliable sources aren't talking about large elements of this, why are we?-- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What is different about Mono, such that it requires commentary from the FSF in its article? There are plenty of other subjects the FSF has commented about, but there is no mention in their articles Dave.hillier ( talk) 21:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field), I have already tried to address this issue by both asking Colonel Warden (an editor with different views to me about how alternative names should be used in articles.) User_talk:Colonel_Warden#Alternative_names to find a way to create a more balanced view and starting a discussion on the Talk:Tree_shaping#Undue_weight. I didn't edit the article itself as I knew it would be contested and didn't want an edit war.
The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article to the number of reliable and verifiable references. Arborsculpture also has the issue in that it is not a neutral wording as it was created by a still living person (Richard Reames/self outed user Slowart) and strongly associated with him still. Google Arborsculpture and it leads to Richard Reames or his books.
Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet this is not reflected in the article. There are other alternative names with references, that are not even in the article yet [41]. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Article before the extra insertions of Arborsculpture. Please note how the word Arborsculpture has since been inserted though out the article. Article as last edit [42]
When it was pointed out with this list Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculpture that arborsculpture is not a neutral name. Martin replied with
Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it.
Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Martin was one of the editors for changing the title to Arborsculpture. For Martin's full comment go to the above link.
I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears to frequently throughout the article based on the number of reliable verifiable references. I have been unable to get the editors who created the changes to justify the amount of times Arborsculpture has been included WP:UNSOURCED I've asked that it be proven that Richard Reames is an expert and received no evidence that he is, yet the bulk of the references for arborsculpture hinge on Richard Reames being an expert.
What I am asking for is outside editors to look at the article before the survey and the article as it is now. Here is where I have been giving my reasoning that arborsculpture has to much weight. Please give an opinion about the amount of weight that has been given to Arborsculpture on Tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I have explained individually to editors that 'tree shaping' is a common term for the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain their natural shape. For those still in doubt have a look at these links, all found from a quick Google search of 'Tree shaping arborist'. Note the url of the first one one www.treeshapers.com [43] [44] [45] [46] search on each page for 'shaping'. There are plenty more.
As someone new to wiki, I am glad to see this on the noticeboard. I made three comments on the talk page and ended up being in a sockpuppet conflict.
There seems to be a group of editors that work like a tag team and attack editors who don't agree with them and have been successfully holding the page. Are these editors paid lobbists?
I came to wiki to seek knowledge about tree training as I have read Richard Reams books and have not had success with these projects.I have finally found what I've been looking for and it is in Blackash's sandbox. Good work - Blackash- Well done .
I believe that the article needs involved editors who are experts in the field and know what they are doing and have photos of their recent work to support the article. Drawings do not do this because drawings represent what people think trees will do or how they they would like trees to be shaped. The editors who state they are uninvolved need to learn about the subject so their edits are contain the right information, instead of creating misinformation for the encyclopeadia.
The article had great photos that I have mentioned on the discussion page but were removed and not posted back up. This inaction I feel is a put down to Blackash. Blackash has every right to use the talk page and Blackash has not edited for quite a while and has copped a far bit of colourful language.
Labelling the art form "arborsculpture " is similar to having your piece of artwork signed by another artist and it implies that all treetraining is done by the arborsculpture method which does'nt work as well as other methods, if at all(as there are no current photos of the arborsculpture. Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 07:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
After reading "How to grow a chair" I grew a tool handle in 2000. It was an axe. I harvested it in 2005. When I dried it the head was loose after a couple of chops the head fell off. Is bark soft? and Does drying wood shrink? Richard do your tool handles work? They are on the article as useful and given prominence.
Some facts that seem to keep being left out
Pro arborsculpture title team have changed this discussion yet again to be about the title, I'm specifically asking for opinions about the amount of weight given to the word the arborsculpture in the article considering:- Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet this is not reflected in the article. There are other alternative names with references, that are not even in the article yet [47]. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Article before the extra insertions of Arborsculpture. Please note how the word Arborsculpture has since been inserted though out the article. Article as last edit [48]
I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears too frequently throughout the article based on the number of reliable verifiable references. I have been unable to get the editors who created the changes to justify the amount of times Arborsculpture has been included WP:UNSOURCED I've asked that it be proven that Richard Reames is an expert and received no evidence that he is, yet the bulk of the references for arborsculpture hinge on Richard Reames being an expert.
What I am asking for is outside editors to look at the article before the survey and the article as it is now. Here is where I have been giving my reasoning that arborsculpture has to much weight. Please give an opinion about the amount of weight that has been given to Arborsculpture on Tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames's method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. Wikipedia Tree shaping You may be also interested in visiting this website tree shapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.
Hi this is Becky from Pooktre. In relpy to splatgirl about Formally, it's called "Arborsculpture" This is incorrect. Arborsculpture does not represent the art form as a whole. It relates to a tree shaping method of Richard Reames. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping Also the couple of books you mention on the subject of Arborsculpture are written by Richard Reames who created the word Arborsulpture. You may be also interested in visiting this website http://www.treeshapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.
Blue Rasberry----- Richard Reams/Griseum/Slowart, Duff, Colincbn, Martin Hogbin and Quiddity. This group of editors fully support Arborsculpture and have their eyes closed to the fact that Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reams, the gate keeper. Just google it to see Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 13:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
My behavior has been inappropriate and I have told Colincbn as much on my talk page. There must be a lot about this issue which I do not understand and I am feeling lost.
Here is part of what User:Colincbn said which stood out most to me above on this noticeboard.
( user:slowart) in not working on this article. He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content. Although he does (rarely) post to talk pages and discussions like this one. Blackash, one of his competitors, does work on the article. ... She has also brought up this article's name on other websites as "proof"...
I immediately took that to mean that User:Colincbn was asserting that user:slowart had not recently been editing the Wikipedia article in question but user:blackash had. My above stated interpretation of the page history for that article supports the opposite conclusion, and I was further convinced because the former user also had done edits which provided external links to his commercial website. I said as much above.
Especially because User:Colincbn said "He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content." and "Blackash ... does work on the article" I assumed that, despite Colincbn's assertion that Blackash was doing something on other websites, Colincbn was talking about those individuals making edits to the Wikipedia article. Colincbn, should I understand that this was not the conclusion which you wanted readers of your comment to have? If you were not referring to someone editing the Wikipedia article, then I misunderstood, and I am very sorry.
As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?
Besides this, the issue was that you said "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article." The links you provided are from mid 2009, as are all the other postings I checked. The links you provided as proof of blackash advertising also have slowart posting in the same forums pushing a POV whereas blackash just made a RfC; see here for an example.
I would be willing to write more about this, but I will be gone for a while. Colincbn, I am having difficulty understanding you. When you say "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article," are you referring to the Wikipedia article? If so, within what time period, and can you respond to my assertion that the article's history does not support your claim? Also, can you please explain how the off-site posting of user:blackash violates WP:CANVASSING or any other policy, but Richard/slowart's posting in the same places does not? I want to understand you. Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me just say, as someone who feels policy clearly states the article should have remained "Arborsculpture", I still agree with the closing of the move at that time as No consensus. That is very different from a consensus not to move. The fact seems clear that there are editors with vested interests involved in this debate and those editors will continue to disrupt the debate process until they voluntarily, or forcibly, refrain from involving themselves in this article. There was clearly no consensus either way during the move debate. However there was not only no consensus but no debate at all for the original move. Policy is clear, but that policy cannot be carried out in this atmosphere. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Your right Colincbn about consensus. As I'm one of the editors with a vested interest, I'm outa here, sorry. Please note this thread of the discussion I was trying to have with RegntsPark, was just moved over here, my apologizes. Slowart (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
User: Bachcell is attempting to use the Pamela Geller article to push Geller's FRINGE theories and views, including trying to claim that Geller was justified in linking Elena Kagan to Nazism in a blog post: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. It's obvious to me that Bachcell is attempting to actively promote Geller's views, rather than simply describe them (as the article used to do, and is supposed to do). Personally, I don't think Bachcell should be editing that article if he can't do so without pushing POV, as well as displaying a "chip on his shoulder" in his edit summaries and talk page comments: [57]. His bad attempt at canvassing (for which I warned him) is icing on the cake: [58]. What should the consequences be, if any? Or should we just tell Bachcell to stay away from Pamela Geller for the time being? Stonemason89 ( talk) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me that Stonemason89 is declaring war and campaigning for punishment over posting ONE message to ONE other user interested in the topic. There is nothing wrong with stating what one editor considers a fringe view, such as a conspiracy theory (see all of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists) as it cannot be accurately described merely as an attack page. Please live by WP:CIVIL instead of dropping what smells like the threat of block after already issuing an ominous warning. Bachcell ( talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I will encourage editors familiar with NPOV to pay close attention to everything that is going on at that article. More eyes are surely needed. Active Banana ( bananaphone 01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently over at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, we've been working on amendments to the Ireland Place Infobox. Whilst we have everything settled upon there is one issue i would like to bring to the attention of this board - does the use of the Ireland pipelink, rather than just using Republic of Ireland unpiped lead to confusion for readers who don't know the difference between the two?
The current Ireland Manual of Style is that if the state and island are being talked about in the same paragraph/context then the Republic of Ireland is to be used to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland - however the island in this case is not being explicitly stated, though it is depicted in the map - so does that qualify the use of Republic of Ireland unpiped?
Heres Rannpháirtí anaithnid's sandbox demo of the infobox for when it applies to Republic of Ireland counties:
County Mayo Contae Mhaigh Eo | ||
Motto: Dia is Muire Linn (
Irish) "God and Mary be with us" | ||
---|---|---|
Location | ||
| ||
Statistics | ||
State: | Ireland | |
Province: | Connacht | |
County seat: | Castlebar | |
Code: | MO | |
Area: | 5,585 km2 (2,156 sq mi) ( 3rd) | |
Population (2006) | 123,839 ( 17th) | |
Website: www.mayococo.ie |
Do you think stating just "Ireland" is confusing for readers who don't know the difference between the state and the island? Mabuska (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the bold step of reverting Richard Convertino to a version over 1 year and 40 edits old, to fix the massive POV rewrite of the article by the now-banned User:Furtive_admirer.
Most edits following the rewrite were attempts to remove POV content, though despite this, numerous POV statements and tone remained. For a few examples:
"He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."
"Jurors, for a second time, said that clearly these men were terrorists and that Convertino saved American lives by prosecuting them."
Note that the second statement is cited from [59] ( Debbie Schlussel's political blog), yet is actually a quote copied verbatim from that site.
While some actual information may be salvageable, it's not something I'm prepared to invest time doing, and the article as-is absolutely cannot remain.
The other primary reason for my posting this notice is to encourage some investigation into the edits of
User:Furtive_admirer before his ban. He (or perhaps she) authored or dramatically rewrote a number of biographies of (politically connected and sometimes controversial) living persons. Serious scrutiny should be brought to bear on a number of these edits, as several appear to troublesome, just from my cursory inspection. If this is not the proper forum for such a request (especially considering the potential time investment), please direct me to a more appropriate forum. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.75.30.225 (
talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
"He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."
A very recent RfC closed that deemed the current inclusion of certain viewpoints at Libertarianism was largely appropriate according to the many RS provided. However, editors still dissatisfied with the RfC have created proposals today which ultimately aim to have different content at the page called Libertarianism, as previous attempts have been unsuccessful at removing the content that has been deemed as WP:DUE for inclusion.
Outside opinion posted at the Libertarianism talk page would be greatly appreciated. BigK HeX ( talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I substantially rewrote this article. Here is the diff. [60] I applied the policy WP:V in my edits, specifically the section on self-published sources
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Almost all of the self-published sources which were in the original version violated 2) and 3). I retained those statements which were commented on by secondary sources. I would like input on whether other contributors think the article as it exists now is neutral. One editor (on the talk page) doesn't think so. BillMasen ( talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:I disagree with Bill's claims about the material he removed. Most of the deleted material involved neither claims about third parties, nor claims about events not directly related to the subject. The deleted material described LaRouche's theories about economics, all of which had been commented upon by secondary sources. According to most current press accounts, LaRouche is an economist by profession.
[61]
[62]
[63]. I should add that my efforts to discuss the neutrality of the article with Bill and the other editor who supports him have been met by evasion and stonewalling. I would appreciate it if other editors would look at the article talk page and respond.
Thomas Conneff (
talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I disagree entirely with Bill's account of what he removed. However, he does raise a relevant point. Prior to his re-write, the article was comprised of a broad selection of viewpoints, which as I understand it, is desirable. His re-write changed all that. Now the article is shaped in such a way as to emphasize only one particular source, which Bill describes as "a non-vanity-press, book-length treatment of him," published over 20 years ago. It is the most hostile caricature of LaRouche that I have seen; it purports to find nefarious hidden messages in his writings; and the author has been criticized by third parties for doing his own "conspiracy-mongering." To slant the whole article toward one source seems to me to be an ipso facto neutrality problem.
Earlier POV issue involving the lead
|
---|
In the lead of the article Manila hostage crisis there is a line that reads:
I wished to edit to the following or something like it
However, I've been reverted twice here and here. The reason given by the reverting editor is that it violates WP:SYN. I do not believe it does and although asked on the talk page to explain, no comment by the opposing editor has been given so far. My concern with the current version is that it makes a cause and effect statement with no source attribution, is factually incorrect, and is defamatory. It makes conclusive statements even though the formal investigations aren't even finished and the preliminary findings can be interpreted to contradict the statements or at least their suggestive implications. The hostages were not killed by the siege (they did not die of starvation for example), according to an eyewitness account two hostages were already shot by the time the assault began, so the pool of possible victims due to the assault is six at max and that is pushing it. A preliminary report is that all hostage victims were shot by the gunman and not the rescue assault mounted by the police. Given the foregoing I ask that a third party make the changes I was attempting to, thank you. Lambanog ( talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
A possibly new issue is developing revolving around appropriate See also links involving the same editor who previously blocked my edit regarding the above earlier issues with no explanation. I have therefore removed the resolved tag I had earlier put up and am awaiting further developments in case further mediation is necessary. Lambanog ( talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
In the article Manila hostage crisis I'd like to request another editor to remove the See also link 1998 Manila blackmail incident inserted by the same party who was also the one who tried to block my earlier edits to the lead. The link is unrelated, provocative, and unbalances the POV of the article. If it remains I might feel compelled to add another link to balance things out, but due to the possibly controversial nature of the article's subject, I'd rather a third party simply step in right now. Thank you. Lambanog ( talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
An edit has been made that addresses my concerns so this has been temporarily resolved. But I would like to see that it sticks for a little while before marking this request for neutral opinions as permanently resolved. Lambanog ( talk) 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears I was justified to believe this issue wasn't over yet. Still unresolved. Lambanog ( talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I am hopeful this issue is now fixed. But waiting for confirmation from opposing party before marking it resolved. Lambanog ( talk) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the past month, I’ve been assembling sources in my userspace here with the intention of creating an article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. (This link currently redirects to the article about the New Black Panther Party.) As can be seen from the page in my userspace, this topic has received a respectable amount of coverage from several well-known news sources, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, ABC, CNN, and NPR. So I don’t think there’s any question that it’s notable enough to deserve its own article here. However, before I create this article, there’s something that I’m having a hard time figuring out how to handle about it: this topic has received more coverage in the Washington Times than in all other news sources combined. When a topic has received coverage from a single news source that’s this disproportionate compared to all other sources, what’s the appropriate way to handle it in articles here?
I don’t think there’s any question that the Washington Times is a reliable source, so the coverage it’s given to this topic should definitely be included. But if I give each news article exactly the same amount of weight here, then the 50-odd articles that the Washington Times has published about this case will completely dominate the Wikipedia article, which doesn’t seem like it could be a neutral solution. But on the other hand, it also doesn’t seem reasonable to give each newspaper the same amount of weight regardless of how much coverage they’ve provided to this case, so that the 50 articles about it in the Washington Times would only have the combined weight of the single (and fairly short) Los Angeles Times article. I imagine that the appropriate solution probably lies somewhere between these two extremes, but I don’t know how to determine exactly where. Can anyone offer any advice about this? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Echoing TFD, above, one of the hallmarks of a political POV is the effort to "set the agenda." Isn't it possible that the reason why Washington Times goes into more detail might be because the editorial board is promoting a conservative cause? It might be possible as well that other newspapers have simply not decided to focus any attention on this issue because other issues seem more timely or important. WP:NOTNEWS. If after some initial attention, only certain newspapers are writing about this topic, and no one else, that's a pretty good indication that the topic really doesn't have historical significance, or at the very least that true secondary sources haven't yet digested the purported political controversy. Steveozone ( talk) 03:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
bbc310
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
I noticed that Christopher Hitchens was categorized as belonging to Category:Genital integrity activists. Looking at the category, I noticed that genital integrity was a redirect to Circumcision controversies. I naively changed the redirect to point to Female_genital_cutting#Attempts_to_end_the_practice, which seemed to me to be a more likely target. Soon after, User:Jakew left a message on my talk page pointing out that the term was more commonly used by opponents of male circumcision, so I have undone my change.
I have no issue with the use of the term "genital integrity" -- awkward though it is -- to suggest opposition to genital mutilation, but I believe there is a problem when it is applied solely to male circumcision. It is clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genital Integrity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intact Day that there is a history of POV-pushing with regard to male circumcision.
Adding to the problem, the members of Category:Genital integrity activists are a mixed bag of opponents to Female genital mutilation ( Molly Melching), Circumcision ( Tim Hammond (activist)), or both (Hitchens). Some of these can likely get deleted for lack of notability, and some can be removed since they hardly qualify as "activists" even if they are opposed to a practice, but there seems to be no one article which should serve as a redirect for Genital integrity. Perhaps the category is just badly misnamed?
As I am not terribly familiar with this particular issue, I may be misinterpreting things and would appreciate some other opinions on how to proceed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, here is my proposed solution:
Category | Links to | Purpose |
---|---|---|
Opponents of circumcision | Circumcision controversies#Medical advocacy and opposition | Persons with stated opposition to circumcision |
Opponents of female genital cutting | Female genital cutting#Attempts to end the practice | Persons with stated opposition to FGC |
Opponents of genital modification | Genital modification and mutilation or both of the above | (Optional) persons with stated opposition to any genital modification regardless of gender |
I believe this addresses the most important problems. Namely:
Comments? Jakew ( talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
POV Detective ( talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is that I've hit my 3-revert limit, so I'm looking for some outside voices to either corroborate my understanding of our policies or else to provide a good justification for immediate inclusion of the relevant material. I'm still a fairly new editor myself (~3000 edits), but all of the people forcing the bullying issue into the article are IP editors or single-purpose accounts, and I'm simply outnumbered. — Bill Price ( nyb) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Irisulip has been adding original research and POV at the Greta Berlin article. User:Truegreta was already banned months ago for COI and neutrality at Free Gaza Movement. Edits of concern:
The user has continued despite a warning and a more meaningful warning from an administrator might help. Cptnono ( talk) 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate some outside advice about what I perceive as a neutrality problem at the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I context of a recent high profile supreme court case, a group of editors there who all favor one significant point of view on the 2A topic have decided that the other significant point of view seen in reliable sourcing needs to be removed from the article. Personally, I am reading the WP:NPOV policy and I think it says that when determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. These editors are claiming that the significant point of view they personally don't like (and which 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices voted against) is now a 'fringe' point of view and must be removed. Is that how the policy works around here? Just asking. Thanks... SaltyBoatr get wet 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor here. When coming to this noticeboard, it would probably be more useful if you folks spelled out exactly what you're talking about, so that outside reviewers have a shot at contributing helpfully. Which is the disputed source? Is the issue really one of the reliability of a specific source, or is it one of recentism vs. history? What exactly is the neutrality issue here? Be specific ... about the issue, not about how much you dislike one another as people.
For what it's worth, I distrust the suggestion that a Wikipedia article about a point of constitutional law should only cover the most recent decisions or views about it. Legal history is how the common law is shaped; the law cannot be understood without reference to that history. For instance our First Amendment article deals with a whole lot of laws, precedents, legal tests (such as "clear and present danger"), and arguments which have since been stricken down or found unconstitutional.
An encyclopedia has history as one of its primary functions, especially in a matter as fundamentally history-based as the common law is. Historical facts, outdated views, and overturned precedents therefore must not be confined merely to "History of ..." articles. -- FOo ( talk) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter ( talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Rachel Shabi and Jemima Kiss of The Guardian report that two Israeli schools are being set up for the specific purpose of editing Wikipedia to correct what the schools' promoters consider to be unfair editing of topics related to Zionism and Israel, such as the status of Jerusalem and names for the West Bank/Cisjordan/Judaea & Samaria. The story quotes the school's leaders to the effect that they don't want to push a point of view onto Wikipedia and that they'll train their students to avoid the kind of disruptive or hostile behaviour that can lead to administrative sanctions.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups
I'm merely posting this to advise of possible waves of organized or mass editing in the future from a particular point of view on heavily-contested disputes. Whether the newly-trained editors merely correct existing biases, provide a helpful contrasting view, or contaminate articles, talk pages and noticeboards with partisan POV's that obliterate objective assessments and alternate views, is something that of course can't be foreseen without making biased assumptions of one's own. —— Shakescene ( talk) 05:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate on the talk page of the Derry article about the introduction there. Another editor and myself are concerned that some editors there do not seem to understand the introduction is presently deeply flawed so it would be helpful to get some feedback from some neutral admins, as at present i think the article introduction fails to meet a neutral point of view.
There is a compromise on wikipedia to call the city Derry and the County Londonderry in titles and throughout wikipedia. I accept this compromise although i do have concerns about it. The problem is, because wikipedia chooses to use the name Derry, we need to be very clear the status of the name Londonderry regarding the city. At present the introduction simply says "Derry or Londonderry.... " There is no mention at all in the introduction that the legal and official name of this city is Londonderry (something backed up by sources and covered in the name section on the article itself and the Derry/Londonderry name dispute article. The fact Derry is used throughout wikipedia and has the article title could easily mislead people into presuming Derry is the more official name if they do not read the rest of the article or the dispute article. So what i would like to know is.
1) Are we right to be concerned with the present introduction, and does leaving off the fact Londonderry is the legal/official name of the city there mean the introduction is not neutral by avoiding to mention important information simply to avoid upsetting one side of the community that oppose the term Londonderry.
2) Is it reasonable to want the first sentence of the article to clearly state this matter, in the same way many articles will say a name and then in brackets (Officially: *****) or something like that? The proposal which one editor has suggested about including a paragraph on the naming issue would certainly improve the introduction and make it more neutral, but i can not see any reasons other than to avoid offending one community not to state clearly in the lead sentence something like..
Any feedback would be very helpful thanks, there are other suggestions contained on the article talkpage itself. The main reason for bringing this matter here is just to make clear to certain editors there is a problem with the present introduction. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
“ | the elected council of the city has renamed it Derry- see all web sites etc. and is currently seeking to change its legal name. What is or is not an official name is thus an interesting question | ” |
“ | More than 9,000 people said they were broadly against the proposal; this was three times the number of people who said they were broadly in support of a move to change the city's name to 'Derry'. | ” |
One other problem though is how we deal with the description of the name Derry. At the moment the article reads..
"Derry or Londonderry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood ofColm Cille") is a... "
This is clearly problematic because it is giving the name definition after Londonderry but only talking about Derry (if i am following the original meaning correctly). Where this info would be included if we do just say (officially Londonderry) after Derry i am not too sure.
"Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood ofColm Cille") officially Londonderry' is a...
Seems to make the most sense to me but if all the information in that description is needed i am not sure as it takes up quite a bit of space and there may need to be one for Londonderry. If the paragraph explaining the names details what the meaning is, then it could be cut down and just say something like...
"Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille) officially Londonderry is a.."
Then more details about the meaning of the name and Londonderry can be explained in the new second paragraph on it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
As a part-time webpage layout advisers I would like to state why having 'Derry officially Londonderry' is the best possible layout. Having the first sentence on any webpage explaining the in such great detail why the two names exist would prove very unsuccessfully in terms of keen readers coming on to the page. Someone who is not familiar with the situation on why some people in Northern Ireland leave out London in the cities name, will be approached by this title Derry, and will wonder why this page is being called Derry, they may even think they are on the wrong page as they will have never heard of this term maybe. Therefore it is crucial that this page straight away indentifies that the official naming of this city whatever it may be, be displayed as soon as possible. A source close to my organisation carried out research on web users behaviours, they concluded that on average a reader that ends up on a sudden webpage (let’s remember it is going to be a shock for the research having being landed on Derry in front of them) will read the first 10 words of the home page before exiting the page. Therefore I advice all editors that the ‘Derry’ page be worded as the following. First of all I advice that the first word be Londonderry and not Derry as by seeing Derry in the title (which will be the first word that is viewed) will produce a level of panic for web readers and there first action will be to look for the single word Londonderry. But the current way the names are doesn’t seem to be a problem with editors here. My second point is in response to what a few editors said above about the explanation of the royal character and Derry naming explanation etc. I would also like to confirm that this to would not prove to be an appropriate decision. This is because as I stated already the first 10 words are the most important and therefore it is not wise to prompt such history in an introduction as interesting as it may be. If this history/naming info is of such importance to people they should respect this paragraph and accept that it should be placed in the most appropriate section of the webpage which I believe there is already a section about the naming history. Lastly I would like to explain why I believe that just officially or legally (But the word official has more of a public known meaning) is the best word to be placed before Londonderry. When readers come on to the site and read Derry officially Londonderry followed by relevant information about Londonderry, (information that people actually want to know about, information that shouldn't be replaced with information regarding the name it's self) they will be able to see that there must be a clear dispute between the name of the city and therefore if they have an interest in knowing further information about why it is called Derry and vice versa they will be able to scroll down and read the section that gives these details. But I would like to point out that the majority of readers coming on to a site like this, the naming disagreement will not be their top concern and will want to know information like, is the second biggest city etc which is already in place. NOTE’’ this is only the views of an independent organisation and I have further views on a personally level of the naming. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbowsie 92.21.54.23 ( talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The point of bring the discussion here was to get a Neutral point of view. That isn't going to happen this looks like a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Derry. Can the involved editors wait 48 hours, and lets see if some uninvolved editors have an opinion. In the meantime, the discussion can freely return to the Derry Talk page. -- HighKing ( talk) 11:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In my uninvolved opinion in this debate. I would be tempted go with the officially one as it does still have the compromised common name but it also says what the name according to official mentions [7] [8] is while neither taking away credibility from one or the other. Allthough on the other hand, the courts have said the name is legally Londonderry [9] [10] so there is a case as well for legally. If I were to go out on a limb, I would go for the official one as it is used by government mentions of it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me why we should not inform the readers in the first sentence of the introduction that the city is officially called Londonderry? Why must we hide this fact from the reader and not follow standard practice as shown on things like France and Australia where the official name is clearly stated? I still have yet to understand how people can defend the status quo.
Perhaps we should seek more input from certain Wikiprojects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland , Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland and Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board?
The present introduction clearly lacks neutrality. It must be changed. Nowhere in the introduction does it inform the reader the city is officially called Londonderry. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This page was taken here for uninvolved input but seems to have the same editors, so anyone feel free to include your say! I'll repeat the issue as there's a lot of comments to read to get to this^.
"There is an ongoing debate as to include ‘officially’ before the word Londonderry in the introduction on the ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry' page. The disagreement is some editors believe officially is not necessary while other editors myself included believe that officially is quite appropriate for an introduction to inform the reader of the official status. Whether you agree or not with this word being in place add your opinion, the more the better so that a full and fair decision can proceed. Cbowsie ( talk) 22:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record - there is general agreement that Londonderry is the legal name, but "official" is less clear, especially given the Council's use.. I have attempted to put together a compromise with situates the legal name in its historical context here. -- Snowded TALK 01:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
These are some of the reasons why i feel the introductions first sentence should be changed.
The current introduction is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV and it needs to be changed. If those opposing a change to the first sentence could provide a similar list it would be helpful to all. We can then go through each point in both our lists. Thankyou BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I will now also be adding a POV tag to the Derry article. That tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved. BritishWatcher ( talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone has removed the dispute tag i added. I would rather not revert incase it is considered as part of "the troubles" which has a 1RR imposed on all matters relating to it. But the template was justified to war the reader about potential problems with article, until it is resolved here. If it can not be re added then i need to raise this matter else where because i think there is justification for it. BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor is completely cherry picking and misrepresenting content to push a negative POV of the subject of this article. Additional help is needed. Spanish language background would be helpful. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been a neutrality tag on a section of the Rangers article since June and some uninvolved feedback on its neutrality would be helpful. The section in question is Old Firm and sectarianism, which lists many examples of incidents of problems involving some fans. I believe it gives WP:UNDUE weight and lacks neutrality, especially when you compare it to the same section on the Celtic article which simply has a two paragraph summary. Considering there is a whole article dealing with Sectarianism in Glasgow, a summary like found on the Celtic page seems more reasonable than the long list found on the Rangers page. Is there justification for the section to be trimmed? or what else should be done? thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
See the following diffs: [15] [16] [17]. The issue seems to be that YouTube is not a reliable source. Now see the following diffs: [18] [19]... now that a reliable secondary source has been introduced, more and more excuses to remove this are piling up. It becomes more and more apparent on the talk page, where it's obvious that the "article keepers" will do anything to keep such information out of the article, even if deemed as reliable by any applicable policy. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes pretty easy on this group, which most in-depth reliable sources basically treat as a cult. Not really an important issue but maybe someone is interested in working on it. Prezbo ( talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
A few users have sought to restrict the content in the article Racism in the Palestinian territories to racism by Palestinians and have removed any reference to racism by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories or racist actions committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinians in the Palestinian territories. Is it "neutral" to restrict the scope of the article in such a way? nableezy - 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
RS101, I understand your concern about redefinition, but I come to this having worked extensively on
Racism in the United States, and having been won over to a respect for how the Category Racism by Country operates, which is how Sean.hoyland suggests. The spatial organization limits the degree that any one article becomes a "X People are racist" article.
On the substance of settlers and soldiers (and I haven't added any content on the issue of soldiers in the Palestinian territories yet), instances of their racist behavior (when sourced and substantiated) have a direct effect primarily on Palestinians in the territories, and therefore belong in an article on Racism in the Palestinian territories, more so than in an article on Racism in Israel. Examples may include (this is not the forum to debate whether they happen, that requires RSs on the page): humiliation at checkpoints of a racist nature, racially motivated attacks on persons and property (such as olive groves), racist hatred as an accompaniment or motivator to military violence or private violence by settlers against Palestianians in the territories, and yes, racially defined access to settlement housing, bypass roads, and building permits. All of these things may reasonably apply differently or uniquely to life in the Palestinian territories, directly affect Palestinian Arabs in the territories rather than Arabs in Israel, and are most honestly dealt with in the same article, rather than as a statement about life or attitudes in Israel.
That said, WP:Summary and sub-pages are always an option when the age gets too long. Indeed, Racism in Palestine ([by] Arab Palestinian regime, groups, population) seems like a subpage of Racism in Palestine, but given the surprising (to me) debate about what the Palestinian territories are--i.e., are the settlements in them?--I suspect that Racism in Palestine might provoke an even more tedious debate about what Palestine is.
In the mean time, must we move even the name of discussion on this page, or can we civilly seek consensus and understanding?-- Carwil ( talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Similar to what User:Shuki suggested on the article talk page, we could rename the article "Racism in the Palestinian National Authority". I'm not convinced that that is the better option, but it is one alternative. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998 [32]
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in particular the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not only illegal under international law but are an obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population, without distinction as to national or ethnic origin. Actions that change the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are also of concern as violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. CERD/C/ISR/CO/13 [33]
“ | Wikifan, demonstrating both your ignorance of the subject under discussion and a short attention span is certainly no virtue. | ” |
— Harlan wilkerson, teaching Wikifan the concepts of WP:NPA |
1) As you back up the page to its origin it was always about Palestinian groups, regime & population ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Palestine_(Arab_Palestinian_regime,_groups,_population) ), as appose to a barrage, a ton of pages already on wikipedia with those claims of "apartheid" nd "racism" [propaganda] on Israel's defense. 2) Even in current redirected page, Palestinian territories are not yet defined, maybe in a future Palestine state (if there will be one) such "territories" can be defined, even occupied or disputed territories are not "Palestinian territories" , certainly not de-facto. Please don't add/insert new things before reaching a consensus. RS101 ( talk) 04:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Could someone have a glance. A new article about a highly sensitive news topic, the recent Sialkot murders; I think it needs editorial oversight for neutrality, OR, etc. 86.172.143.220 ( talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the best place to mention this is, but the above articles (and others close to the subject) are being edited by User:Harrybrunjes, who here claims to be her namesake's secretary. I suspect it may be Harry Brunjes himself, due to the user editing Folkington Manor - which is owned by Brunjes... but there's no proof of that. Just thought others should know as the Harry Brünjes article is in danger of becoming a vanity page. The subject is clearly influential in business, but that's not the same as notable in an encyclopaedia. Malick78 ( talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a repost of my summary of the issue in the talk page of Somalia:
I have looked through the revision history. This article has been edited in a blatantly biased fashion by Middayexpress in particular, but also by a few others as well. This user, and a number of others, carry a clear anarchist or Austrian economic bias. I understand their frustrations, because these ideas are generally left out of evaluations of relevant subject matter, which is not only unwarranted, but often done in a non-civil manner. Nonetheless, that does not justify this kind of misinformation.
On the other hand, a number of edits have also been made by those biased by government, indeed, those who may have never even considered any other viewpoint due to the prevalence of pro-government viewpoints in western cultures that surely dominate this English-speaking page.
Firstly, Somalia is indeed in abject poverty by modern standards ($600 per capita GDP). Economic growth rates are far slower than many other countries that also have less than lucrative economies. Evidently, the Somalian economy is not as strong as this article mentions. Of course, the economy is not a complete failure either, but that does not mean that abridging these facts is acceptable. Stating that the economy is relatively stable is fine, and indeed, more accurate. Certainly, it is also unacceptable to have the nation painted as a chaotic mess that consequently has economic failure (if any point along a pro-government viewpoint could be made, it is that a capitalist, national government system would produce more economic growth for the country as a whole).
At the very least, anarchists should acknowledge that Somalia has a failed state, because state is another word for government. On that note, the notion of the failure of a state being the measure of success of a society is also clearly fallacious. However, somalian society has also failed in the sense that there is war in the south, extreme poverty, and only mild growth. Accounts that do not acknowledge the partial success of the Somalian system are in error. Regardless, the society is not abdicated of its failures because its partial success.
A few other things to look into are: whether or not investment is low because most businesspeople do not believe in anarchy, and whether that could be a source of minimal growth; whether there is actual growth after accounting for inflation; whether there is any more in-depth analysis of the economy of Somalia, and not just from Austrian economists; and just how strong the economic growth is in the north.
A more accurate viewpoint than simply viewing Somalia as either a chaotic failed nation or an imperfect success story of anarchism with an only so far unresolved southern civil war would be to realize that it is more like two nations than one. We also should recognize that at the level of the entire world, there essentially is anarchy (no government that controls the whole world. The UN has very minor power, and that's it). There is no anarchy in Somalia, no more than the world, and we are really just talking about different levels of government on a hierarchy of size and power. Many other "nations" have had civil wars in parts of itself, systems sort of like anarchy, weak federal governments, economic prosperity in sections with failures somewhere else. In fact, central governments are not all encompassing, and the same kinds of divisions exist even in countries we see as run by a government. Often, even in highly centralized nations, the government is powerless in a number of ways. Limitations of government power written into law in many Western "democracies" also help to ensure that in those nations.
Still, there are major failures, and downplaying the failures of Somalia is obscuring the suffering of people in Somalia, preventing sympathy or action. Knowledge is in the first place something we have to benefit humanity. Obstructing that benefit in one case generalizes to all cases. Doing so for just for the sake of an argument on government systems is very selfish.
Further, regardless of whether or not this article is empathetic enough given the purpose of knowledge, the editorial standards of Wikipedia require neutrality. This article is not neutral. It needs to be made neutral. That means a solution that is neutral both to anarchist and government viewpoints, instead focusing more on empirical realities of Somalia. An editor that can see outside their own viewpoint needs to step up and revise this article, or a current editor needs to learn how to step outside their own viewpoint. Further biased edits by either side should be considered as vandalism.
To add to that, NPOV states that the most major viewpoints should comprise the page. Austrian economics is a fringe viewpoint, and should not dominate the Somalia page. It would be fair to have a section for the Austrian interpretation, though.
Nikurasu ( talk) 05:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This sort of thing happens a lot:
I cannot find a source that says "A majority of experts believe X." I can't find any reliable statements of prevalence at all. But, there sure seems to be a prevelance. What's the best way to report this in an article? Terms like "most" or "majority" are original research. Noloop ( talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that
an RfC is running at Libertarianism. Basically, the dispute seems to regard whether any mention of certain understandings of libertarianism are completely Undue within an article entitled "Libertarianism", versus the idea that policy demands that Due weight be given to the varying understandings of libertarianism which are found in reliable sources.
BigK HeX (
talk) 09:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that Glenn Beck is referred to as a "conservative" yet there is no label for Chris Mathews. It seems to me that he should be labeled "liberal" if labels are being dished out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.204.56 ( talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Hooth contained only a single line for some quite time. but a paragraph has been added by an IP address.
The paragraph includes all Rind orgin tribes as Hooth origin without any references. It is well established that these tribes are of Rind origin.
Furthermore I want someone to look at the paragraph itself. the paragraph does not actually discuss Hooth tribe but some fictional characters. It is also written in a very non neutral and repitive tone.
OmerKhetran ( talk) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagreement over the presentation of Keio University's academic rankings. Please read discussion section for further details. This seems to be a long-standing dispute, as many sections within the talk page refer to possible academic boosterism. There exists 2 different versions of the edits that keep on getting reverted. I would like an expert on POV to review both versions, review the talk page, and provide input as to how to resolve this.-- ScorchingPheonix ( talk) 06:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There has been a continued attempt by various editors to use various polls to paint the Tea Party movement. It had reached a mostly stable version including most of the polls in order to avoid cherry picked specific polls to promote one point of view, however this section was still quite long and a violation of MOS.
Subsequentaly this section was condensed to Three polls in order to conform to MOS. However, this version was a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE focusing only on the most negative aspects. The synthesis was the reporting on a UW poll limited to the State of Washington and presenting the information as if it were representative of the entire population of the US. Washington State has less than 2.5% of the US population, thus the poll was representative of less than 2.5% of the US, yet it was given preference over national polling. A second UW poll/study (limited to 7 US states) was also included, again providing a view which does not neccessarily represent the majority of Tea Party impressions.
Thus the section was now limited to 3 polls, two of which were from the same source, and two of which were not even national polls, this is a violation of NPOV (in the information that is being taken from the polls and point of view from the polls), and Undue weight (Two polls from one source, and two polls which don't represent a majority of the US population). Arzel ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Could an Admin please comment on this discussion. One specific problem in the section that Xenophrenic continues to make is the following.
The following paragraph contains a patently untrue statement which is not backed up by the study which is being cited. (emphasis mine)
A number of polls have also been conducted to examine Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with just 11% of the general public and are more likely to believe President Obama was born outside the United States. [77] 74% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it."[79][80]
The highlighted sentence does not make the distinction that the survey was of Washington State Tea Party Supporters. The sourcing for the section does not really make it clear either, and to be fair Prof. Matt Barreto and Prof. Christopher Parker do an absolutely terrible job of pointing this out either. However from the actual poll you can clearly see that this is a poll of Washington State voters. I don't think that this poll should be used for the above reasons, however if it is to be in there in any capacity then it must be noted from who the poll was taken. The implication from the text as Xenophrenic has selected is that the poll is representative of Tea Party Supporters throughout the US. I am going to cross-post this at ANI as well. Arzel ( talk) 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get resolution on this section. I propose deleting the section entirely. This has been discussed on the talk section there is general consensus, appart from seemingly one person (who frequently posts not logged in, but this has been established), who considers removal of this section to be a slur on the FSF.
My reason for removal is that the patent warning originates from just one source, the FSF. There are other articles that comment on the FSF's statements but none which provide further evidence that this is an opinion held widely in the software community. In addition there are numerous other pieces of software and hardware that the FSF have made statements about however I have not been able to find any others that have a reference to this in their pages. For example: iPhone, Windows, Java_(programming_language)
Dave.hillier ( talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The wider problem is that section is the only bit (as far as I can see) that is sourced to independent reliable sources, the rest is to project pages and to blogs. If reliable sources aren't talking about large elements of this, why are we?-- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What is different about Mono, such that it requires commentary from the FSF in its article? There are plenty of other subjects the FSF has commented about, but there is no mention in their articles Dave.hillier ( talk) 21:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field), I have already tried to address this issue by both asking Colonel Warden (an editor with different views to me about how alternative names should be used in articles.) User_talk:Colonel_Warden#Alternative_names to find a way to create a more balanced view and starting a discussion on the Talk:Tree_shaping#Undue_weight. I didn't edit the article itself as I knew it would be contested and didn't want an edit war.
The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article to the number of reliable and verifiable references. Arborsculpture also has the issue in that it is not a neutral wording as it was created by a still living person (Richard Reames/self outed user Slowart) and strongly associated with him still. Google Arborsculpture and it leads to Richard Reames or his books.
Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet this is not reflected in the article. There are other alternative names with references, that are not even in the article yet [41]. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Article before the extra insertions of Arborsculpture. Please note how the word Arborsculpture has since been inserted though out the article. Article as last edit [42]
When it was pointed out with this list Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculpture that arborsculpture is not a neutral name. Martin replied with
Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it.
Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Martin was one of the editors for changing the title to Arborsculpture. For Martin's full comment go to the above link.
I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears to frequently throughout the article based on the number of reliable verifiable references. I have been unable to get the editors who created the changes to justify the amount of times Arborsculpture has been included WP:UNSOURCED I've asked that it be proven that Richard Reames is an expert and received no evidence that he is, yet the bulk of the references for arborsculpture hinge on Richard Reames being an expert.
What I am asking for is outside editors to look at the article before the survey and the article as it is now. Here is where I have been giving my reasoning that arborsculpture has to much weight. Please give an opinion about the amount of weight that has been given to Arborsculpture on Tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I have explained individually to editors that 'tree shaping' is a common term for the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain their natural shape. For those still in doubt have a look at these links, all found from a quick Google search of 'Tree shaping arborist'. Note the url of the first one one www.treeshapers.com [43] [44] [45] [46] search on each page for 'shaping'. There are plenty more.
As someone new to wiki, I am glad to see this on the noticeboard. I made three comments on the talk page and ended up being in a sockpuppet conflict.
There seems to be a group of editors that work like a tag team and attack editors who don't agree with them and have been successfully holding the page. Are these editors paid lobbists?
I came to wiki to seek knowledge about tree training as I have read Richard Reams books and have not had success with these projects.I have finally found what I've been looking for and it is in Blackash's sandbox. Good work - Blackash- Well done .
I believe that the article needs involved editors who are experts in the field and know what they are doing and have photos of their recent work to support the article. Drawings do not do this because drawings represent what people think trees will do or how they they would like trees to be shaped. The editors who state they are uninvolved need to learn about the subject so their edits are contain the right information, instead of creating misinformation for the encyclopeadia.
The article had great photos that I have mentioned on the discussion page but were removed and not posted back up. This inaction I feel is a put down to Blackash. Blackash has every right to use the talk page and Blackash has not edited for quite a while and has copped a far bit of colourful language.
Labelling the art form "arborsculpture " is similar to having your piece of artwork signed by another artist and it implies that all treetraining is done by the arborsculpture method which does'nt work as well as other methods, if at all(as there are no current photos of the arborsculpture. Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 07:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
After reading "How to grow a chair" I grew a tool handle in 2000. It was an axe. I harvested it in 2005. When I dried it the head was loose after a couple of chops the head fell off. Is bark soft? and Does drying wood shrink? Richard do your tool handles work? They are on the article as useful and given prominence.
Some facts that seem to keep being left out
Pro arborsculpture title team have changed this discussion yet again to be about the title, I'm specifically asking for opinions about the amount of weight given to the word the arborsculpture in the article considering:- Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet this is not reflected in the article. There are other alternative names with references, that are not even in the article yet [47]. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Article before the extra insertions of Arborsculpture. Please note how the word Arborsculpture has since been inserted though out the article. Article as last edit [48]
I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears too frequently throughout the article based on the number of reliable verifiable references. I have been unable to get the editors who created the changes to justify the amount of times Arborsculpture has been included WP:UNSOURCED I've asked that it be proven that Richard Reames is an expert and received no evidence that he is, yet the bulk of the references for arborsculpture hinge on Richard Reames being an expert.
What I am asking for is outside editors to look at the article before the survey and the article as it is now. Here is where I have been giving my reasoning that arborsculpture has to much weight. Please give an opinion about the amount of weight that has been given to Arborsculpture on Tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames's method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. Wikipedia Tree shaping You may be also interested in visiting this website tree shapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.
Hi this is Becky from Pooktre. In relpy to splatgirl about Formally, it's called "Arborsculpture" This is incorrect. Arborsculpture does not represent the art form as a whole. It relates to a tree shaping method of Richard Reames. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping Also the couple of books you mention on the subject of Arborsculpture are written by Richard Reames who created the word Arborsulpture. You may be also interested in visiting this website http://www.treeshapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.
Blue Rasberry----- Richard Reams/Griseum/Slowart, Duff, Colincbn, Martin Hogbin and Quiddity. This group of editors fully support Arborsculpture and have their eyes closed to the fact that Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reams, the gate keeper. Just google it to see Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 13:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
My behavior has been inappropriate and I have told Colincbn as much on my talk page. There must be a lot about this issue which I do not understand and I am feeling lost.
Here is part of what User:Colincbn said which stood out most to me above on this noticeboard.
( user:slowart) in not working on this article. He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content. Although he does (rarely) post to talk pages and discussions like this one. Blackash, one of his competitors, does work on the article. ... She has also brought up this article's name on other websites as "proof"...
I immediately took that to mean that User:Colincbn was asserting that user:slowart had not recently been editing the Wikipedia article in question but user:blackash had. My above stated interpretation of the page history for that article supports the opposite conclusion, and I was further convinced because the former user also had done edits which provided external links to his commercial website. I said as much above.
Especially because User:Colincbn said "He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content." and "Blackash ... does work on the article" I assumed that, despite Colincbn's assertion that Blackash was doing something on other websites, Colincbn was talking about those individuals making edits to the Wikipedia article. Colincbn, should I understand that this was not the conclusion which you wanted readers of your comment to have? If you were not referring to someone editing the Wikipedia article, then I misunderstood, and I am very sorry.
As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?
Besides this, the issue was that you said "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article." The links you provided are from mid 2009, as are all the other postings I checked. The links you provided as proof of blackash advertising also have slowart posting in the same forums pushing a POV whereas blackash just made a RfC; see here for an example.
I would be willing to write more about this, but I will be gone for a while. Colincbn, I am having difficulty understanding you. When you say "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article," are you referring to the Wikipedia article? If so, within what time period, and can you respond to my assertion that the article's history does not support your claim? Also, can you please explain how the off-site posting of user:blackash violates WP:CANVASSING or any other policy, but Richard/slowart's posting in the same places does not? I want to understand you. Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me just say, as someone who feels policy clearly states the article should have remained "Arborsculpture", I still agree with the closing of the move at that time as No consensus. That is very different from a consensus not to move. The fact seems clear that there are editors with vested interests involved in this debate and those editors will continue to disrupt the debate process until they voluntarily, or forcibly, refrain from involving themselves in this article. There was clearly no consensus either way during the move debate. However there was not only no consensus but no debate at all for the original move. Policy is clear, but that policy cannot be carried out in this atmosphere. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Your right Colincbn about consensus. As I'm one of the editors with a vested interest, I'm outa here, sorry. Please note this thread of the discussion I was trying to have with RegntsPark, was just moved over here, my apologizes. Slowart (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
User: Bachcell is attempting to use the Pamela Geller article to push Geller's FRINGE theories and views, including trying to claim that Geller was justified in linking Elena Kagan to Nazism in a blog post: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. It's obvious to me that Bachcell is attempting to actively promote Geller's views, rather than simply describe them (as the article used to do, and is supposed to do). Personally, I don't think Bachcell should be editing that article if he can't do so without pushing POV, as well as displaying a "chip on his shoulder" in his edit summaries and talk page comments: [57]. His bad attempt at canvassing (for which I warned him) is icing on the cake: [58]. What should the consequences be, if any? Or should we just tell Bachcell to stay away from Pamela Geller for the time being? Stonemason89 ( talk) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me that Stonemason89 is declaring war and campaigning for punishment over posting ONE message to ONE other user interested in the topic. There is nothing wrong with stating what one editor considers a fringe view, such as a conspiracy theory (see all of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists) as it cannot be accurately described merely as an attack page. Please live by WP:CIVIL instead of dropping what smells like the threat of block after already issuing an ominous warning. Bachcell ( talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I will encourage editors familiar with NPOV to pay close attention to everything that is going on at that article. More eyes are surely needed. Active Banana ( bananaphone 01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently over at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, we've been working on amendments to the Ireland Place Infobox. Whilst we have everything settled upon there is one issue i would like to bring to the attention of this board - does the use of the Ireland pipelink, rather than just using Republic of Ireland unpiped lead to confusion for readers who don't know the difference between the two?
The current Ireland Manual of Style is that if the state and island are being talked about in the same paragraph/context then the Republic of Ireland is to be used to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland - however the island in this case is not being explicitly stated, though it is depicted in the map - so does that qualify the use of Republic of Ireland unpiped?
Heres Rannpháirtí anaithnid's sandbox demo of the infobox for when it applies to Republic of Ireland counties:
County Mayo Contae Mhaigh Eo | ||
Motto: Dia is Muire Linn (
Irish) "God and Mary be with us" | ||
---|---|---|
Location | ||
| ||
Statistics | ||
State: | Ireland | |
Province: | Connacht | |
County seat: | Castlebar | |
Code: | MO | |
Area: | 5,585 km2 (2,156 sq mi) ( 3rd) | |
Population (2006) | 123,839 ( 17th) | |
Website: www.mayococo.ie |
Do you think stating just "Ireland" is confusing for readers who don't know the difference between the state and the island? Mabuska (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the bold step of reverting Richard Convertino to a version over 1 year and 40 edits old, to fix the massive POV rewrite of the article by the now-banned User:Furtive_admirer.
Most edits following the rewrite were attempts to remove POV content, though despite this, numerous POV statements and tone remained. For a few examples:
"He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."
"Jurors, for a second time, said that clearly these men were terrorists and that Convertino saved American lives by prosecuting them."
Note that the second statement is cited from [59] ( Debbie Schlussel's political blog), yet is actually a quote copied verbatim from that site.
While some actual information may be salvageable, it's not something I'm prepared to invest time doing, and the article as-is absolutely cannot remain.
The other primary reason for my posting this notice is to encourage some investigation into the edits of
User:Furtive_admirer before his ban. He (or perhaps she) authored or dramatically rewrote a number of biographies of (politically connected and sometimes controversial) living persons. Serious scrutiny should be brought to bear on a number of these edits, as several appear to troublesome, just from my cursory inspection. If this is not the proper forum for such a request (especially considering the potential time investment), please direct me to a more appropriate forum. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.75.30.225 (
talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
"He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."
A very recent RfC closed that deemed the current inclusion of certain viewpoints at Libertarianism was largely appropriate according to the many RS provided. However, editors still dissatisfied with the RfC have created proposals today which ultimately aim to have different content at the page called Libertarianism, as previous attempts have been unsuccessful at removing the content that has been deemed as WP:DUE for inclusion.
Outside opinion posted at the Libertarianism talk page would be greatly appreciated. BigK HeX ( talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I substantially rewrote this article. Here is the diff. [60] I applied the policy WP:V in my edits, specifically the section on self-published sources
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Almost all of the self-published sources which were in the original version violated 2) and 3). I retained those statements which were commented on by secondary sources. I would like input on whether other contributors think the article as it exists now is neutral. One editor (on the talk page) doesn't think so. BillMasen ( talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
:I disagree with Bill's claims about the material he removed. Most of the deleted material involved neither claims about third parties, nor claims about events not directly related to the subject. The deleted material described LaRouche's theories about economics, all of which had been commented upon by secondary sources. According to most current press accounts, LaRouche is an economist by profession.
[61]
[62]
[63]. I should add that my efforts to discuss the neutrality of the article with Bill and the other editor who supports him have been met by evasion and stonewalling. I would appreciate it if other editors would look at the article talk page and respond.
Thomas Conneff (
talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
::::I disagree entirely with Bill's account of what he removed. However, he does raise a relevant point. Prior to his re-write, the article was comprised of a broad selection of viewpoints, which as I understand it, is desirable. His re-write changed all that. Now the article is shaped in such a way as to emphasize only one particular source, which Bill describes as "a non-vanity-press, book-length treatment of him," published over 20 years ago. It is the most hostile caricature of LaRouche that I have seen; it purports to find nefarious hidden messages in his writings; and the author has been criticized by third parties for doing his own "conspiracy-mongering." To slant the whole article toward one source seems to me to be an ipso facto neutrality problem.
Earlier POV issue involving the lead
|
---|
In the lead of the article Manila hostage crisis there is a line that reads:
I wished to edit to the following or something like it
However, I've been reverted twice here and here. The reason given by the reverting editor is that it violates WP:SYN. I do not believe it does and although asked on the talk page to explain, no comment by the opposing editor has been given so far. My concern with the current version is that it makes a cause and effect statement with no source attribution, is factually incorrect, and is defamatory. It makes conclusive statements even though the formal investigations aren't even finished and the preliminary findings can be interpreted to contradict the statements or at least their suggestive implications. The hostages were not killed by the siege (they did not die of starvation for example), according to an eyewitness account two hostages were already shot by the time the assault began, so the pool of possible victims due to the assault is six at max and that is pushing it. A preliminary report is that all hostage victims were shot by the gunman and not the rescue assault mounted by the police. Given the foregoing I ask that a third party make the changes I was attempting to, thank you. Lambanog ( talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
A possibly new issue is developing revolving around appropriate See also links involving the same editor who previously blocked my edit regarding the above earlier issues with no explanation. I have therefore removed the resolved tag I had earlier put up and am awaiting further developments in case further mediation is necessary. Lambanog ( talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
In the article Manila hostage crisis I'd like to request another editor to remove the See also link 1998 Manila blackmail incident inserted by the same party who was also the one who tried to block my earlier edits to the lead. The link is unrelated, provocative, and unbalances the POV of the article. If it remains I might feel compelled to add another link to balance things out, but due to the possibly controversial nature of the article's subject, I'd rather a third party simply step in right now. Thank you. Lambanog ( talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
An edit has been made that addresses my concerns so this has been temporarily resolved. But I would like to see that it sticks for a little while before marking this request for neutral opinions as permanently resolved. Lambanog ( talk) 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears I was justified to believe this issue wasn't over yet. Still unresolved. Lambanog ( talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I am hopeful this issue is now fixed. But waiting for confirmation from opposing party before marking it resolved. Lambanog ( talk) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the past month, I’ve been assembling sources in my userspace here with the intention of creating an article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. (This link currently redirects to the article about the New Black Panther Party.) As can be seen from the page in my userspace, this topic has received a respectable amount of coverage from several well-known news sources, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, ABC, CNN, and NPR. So I don’t think there’s any question that it’s notable enough to deserve its own article here. However, before I create this article, there’s something that I’m having a hard time figuring out how to handle about it: this topic has received more coverage in the Washington Times than in all other news sources combined. When a topic has received coverage from a single news source that’s this disproportionate compared to all other sources, what’s the appropriate way to handle it in articles here?
I don’t think there’s any question that the Washington Times is a reliable source, so the coverage it’s given to this topic should definitely be included. But if I give each news article exactly the same amount of weight here, then the 50-odd articles that the Washington Times has published about this case will completely dominate the Wikipedia article, which doesn’t seem like it could be a neutral solution. But on the other hand, it also doesn’t seem reasonable to give each newspaper the same amount of weight regardless of how much coverage they’ve provided to this case, so that the 50 articles about it in the Washington Times would only have the combined weight of the single (and fairly short) Los Angeles Times article. I imagine that the appropriate solution probably lies somewhere between these two extremes, but I don’t know how to determine exactly where. Can anyone offer any advice about this? -- Captain Occam ( talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Echoing TFD, above, one of the hallmarks of a political POV is the effort to "set the agenda." Isn't it possible that the reason why Washington Times goes into more detail might be because the editorial board is promoting a conservative cause? It might be possible as well that other newspapers have simply not decided to focus any attention on this issue because other issues seem more timely or important. WP:NOTNEWS. If after some initial attention, only certain newspapers are writing about this topic, and no one else, that's a pretty good indication that the topic really doesn't have historical significance, or at the very least that true secondary sources haven't yet digested the purported political controversy. Steveozone ( talk) 03:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
bbc310
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).