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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
FellGleaming ( talk · contribs) has written the following over at endocrine disruption:
The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid. [1]
However, that is not what the source FellGleaming quoted said. The source examined and presented both sides of the debate, not one side as Fell just did. The New York Times article wrote:
Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health. [2]
The article goes into more detail about both sides, and it is neither neutral nor accurate to summarize the source in the way it is presented in the article by FellGleaming. I've asked Fell to revisit the source and fix it, but he refuses. Viriditas ( talk) 11:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, regardless of who added the material, this is pretty clearly an inappropriate, slanted, and cherry-picked summary of this New York Times article. It seems FellGleaming accepts this point, maybe - at least he isn't defending the edit content, saying only that he reverted on general principles, I guess. So maybe the involved editors could work out a more suitable and neutral representation of the New York Times source on the article talk page, ideally with a minimum of posturing. MastCell Talk 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Rabbi Yishayahu Yosef Pinto - Help in reviewing ? Far from neutral
Labour Party (UK) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OK, I'll state upfront that - unlike the issue above - this is an article I could reasonably be said to being "involved" at. I can't recall how, I suspect through WP:RFPP (I've certainly protected the article before now), but I've had the article watchlisted for some time now and I've previously raised an issue at ANI.
There has for sometime been "genre-warring" over this political party's ideology. The party itself claims to be "democratic socialist". Historically (back in the dim past of October 2009) the article listed "democratic socialism", "social democracy" and "third way". This was changed by Riversider2008 ( talk) to include "neoliberalism". This was removed at some point (after, I think May 2010). As of today the article only includes "democratic socialism", so - obviously - "social democracy" and "third way" have been removed at some point. They don't, however, feature much in this report.
For the past few months there has been an up-tick in edit warring over the "ideology" field in the infobox, mostly with IPs adding uncited ideologies, however to be fair all additions could probably be cited from historical versions of the article. More recently, following semi-protection by your 'umble servant, a discussion has started on the article's talkpage. Riversider2008 has referred to several archived discussions in which sources of varying degrees of reliability had been provided in support of "neoliberalism".
I remain unconvinced by Riversider2008's arguments for inclusion, as I believe "neoliberalism" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary sources. However, Riversider2008 does make the argument that "democratic socialism" has only ever been sourced to the party itself.
So... what ideologies should be included in the infobox? TFOWR 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that, although it's designed to serve a useful and needed purpose, "ideology" shouldn't be in the InfoBox for political parties; in most cases, it's just too hard to compress the reality into a few words. A brief summary of a party's main ideological currents belongs in the introductory paragraphs. See a parallel edit war (or series of skirmishes) at Socialist Party USA and earlier ones at Social Democrats USA, both of which are as tadpoles to the whales of the SPD and the Labour Party. And at least all these parties, whatever their later evolutions, came out of a common heritage in the Second International. For a historically and consciously non-ideological party like the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties, or the various Gaullist and Giscardien parties of the French Fifth Republic, the only label that would fit would be sui generis. —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In the midst of extended debate about the scope of this article, Born2cycle reveals that his intent is to limit the scope of the article to those views espoused by the US Libertarian Party, which of course has its own article. Are there any editors here who could comment on this proposal? See this section and this section on the talk page. Yworo ( talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
See this comment where Born2cycle states "this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party". Yworo ( talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
A disagreement has been rumbling on The Four Major Rivers Project article. It seems this project is quite controversial in South Korea. Some editors have been accused of pushing government propoganda and other editors have replaced the article content with a different wording that seems to be entirely critical of the project; neither view is referenced. And so it goes back and forth for the last couple of months. I have tried to remind both sides of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and suggested there is room for both the official line and the criticism in the article. Maybe someone else can take a look at the slow-paced discussion on the talk page and make better suggestions (or correct me if I am the one in error), especially since I might soon be less able to visit Wikipedia as often as I have. Thanks. Astronaut ( talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The above article currently contains the word "idolatrous" as a description of Messianic Jews three times. This is because one group of outsiders to the movement, mainstream Jews, see the MJs as being this. I personally think the word probably falls within words to avoid as per WP:AVOID, and certainly I cannot see why the word has to be repeated three times in the article, particularly considering that it is the opinion of only one other outside group. I would appreciate any responses. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
After devolving into personal attacks and non-responses (see, for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories), the discussion of the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories has resumed at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories. At issue is whether acts and attitudes of racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong within the scope of the article. Please join the discussion there.-- Carwil ( talk) 18:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In the wuxia article, I've added information about the word's being derived from the Japanese term bukyo, a claim made by Stephen Teo in his Chinese Martial Arts Cinema: the Wuxia Tradition. Teo is a professionally published film scholar and academic who has contributed significant work on the wuxia genre, and thus should qualify as a reliable source, and as there doesn't appear to be anything contradicting Teo's claim, said etymology should be uncontroversial. However, editor Mythsearcher has deleted the claim, saying that as he can find no sources opposing the claim or apparently discussing etymology at all, that the etymology therefore falls under UNDUE. This seems to me to be the exact opposite of what Undue is meant to cover. Other arguments of Mythsearcher's (in Talk:Wuxia) rely upon his consulting unnamed dictionaries, his personal unfamiliarity with bukyo as a genre label, or insinuating ethnic bias on Teo's part, which I feel to be bordering on OR or NPOV. Ergative rlt ( talk) 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Short version:
Due to disputes like the British Isles naming dispute, does WP:NPOV allow the title of a navigation template like Template:British Isles to be changed using code, based on which article it is placed on, i.e., when placed on United Kingdom, it is called "The British Isles" (and linked to the article), but when placed on the Republic of Ireland, it is called "British-Irish Council area" (and not linked). I think this is a pretty obvious violation of NPOV, which calls for uniform neutral presentation of content on all articles for all readers, rather than changing what is presented to the reader on the flawed assumption that readers of particular articles hold particular views, and should be presented with a particular world view.
Long version:
Recently, after a discussion on the talk page of Template:British Isles, the coding of that template was altered, so that the diplayed title of the template changes if you put it on certain articles such as Ireland. Obviously, this is counter to the normal practice, the template's 'home' article is British Isles, which should be linked and displayed in the title bar on all pages where it is used.
This change is based on the dubious idea that the Ireland article is the property of Irish readers, and due to the British Isles naming dispute (which is itself a disputed article, of dubious accuracy or even reality), it was asserted that NPOV mandates that we present a different world view on those articles, one more palatable to the readers who supposedly make up the majority of readers of those article, rather than keep to the standard method, which is used on the majority of other articles the template is used. This is patently not neutral, and makes several faulty assumptions.
Nobody supporting this change wanted to prove their view was not a violation of NPOV by using outside input or any actual reference to the principles of NPOV, and instead just rehashed the actual naming dispute on the talk page, while in general, the supporting arguments given for the change were pretty weak, for example, that it had been like this for a long time, or that it should be like this otherwise people will make a fuss/remove it from 'Irish articles', or that the proposed alternate name(s) of the British Isles used in Ireland is an issue of WP:ENGVAR, like color and colour.
These weak arguments certainly do not outweigh the fact the template as is now violates NPOV, which does not mandate altering what the pedia says based on what article people are reading. (c.f. the NPOV resolution of disputes like what to call the city of Derry/Londonderry, which was that the city article is presented as Derry on all articles, and the county is presented as County Londonderry on all articles. Similarly, where there is risk of confusion, Republic of Ireland is presented as such on all articles, and where there is no risk of confusion, it is presented as Ireland on all articles.)
This is because the neutral point of view ensures that all articles are neutral, and instead of pandering to the controversy, it teaches the controversy, while presenting a consistent outlook based on logic, not emotion. This is already more than adequately acheived through the existence of the already aforementioned 'dispute' article, and its inclusion on the template. Writing from the NPOV quite obviously would not support a position where Irish readers reeading Irish articles will be presented with one world view, and presumably like that, and British readers reading British articles will be presented with another, and also presumably like that. And when reversed, Irish readers reading British articles, or vice versa, will then be presumably outraged. That's not the sign of a neutral reference work is it?
And while it cannot be disputed that some Irish people object to the term, they at least understand its current meaning outside of Ireland, even if they don't accept it, and there really is no commonly accepted alternative that could be used as a well understood universal replacement term for the displayed title of the template, that would best assist all readers in knowing what main article the template serves. (Not to delve too deeply into the dispute, but the commonly offered alternative of just 'Britain and Ireland' is not good at all - it is easily confused to mean ' UK and (Republic of) Ireland', rather than ' Great Britain and Ireland', and the fact that the entity of the 'British Isles' does infact encompass more territories, states, and topics, than just 'Great Britain and Ireland'.) And of course, the fact that article is actualy still called British Isles too makes it the obvious choice.
Before posting here, due to the fact this change could not apparently be reversed, therefore, according to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template number 4, violation of NPOV, I put the template up for deletion. That was less than succesful, due to the fact I think most of the people misunderstood the nomination, and presumed I was asking to rename the template, which I am pretty obviously not proposing. Many of the rest believe that it can be solved through further discussion. Some thought there was no issue, but I think that is wholy wrong, based on all the above. So, here I am, seeking more feedback on its appropriateness w.r.t WP:NPOV.
In my view, NPOV does not allow this coding, and if the template cannot be deleted and is thus still to being used, it should follow the principle of least surprise, and follow the format used on all other templates - the title should be displayed as " British Isles" on all articles where the template is used.
MickMacNee (
talk) 01:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As the Main Page is not really encyclopedic, should the NPOV principle be applied to it? One issue that leads to this question is whether to use a disclaimer warning before the appearance of controversial content (pictures of genitals, images of Muhammad, plot spoilers) on the Main Page. The main reason disclaimers aren't used is that whatever is controversial depends on the editor's point of view, and therefore adding a disclaimer violates NPOV, and so it cannot be used in an article.
Which brings us to the initial question: should the Main Page be subject to NPOV? Why? Why not?
The question can also be extended to censorship on the Main Page -- given the non-encyclopedic status of the Main Page, is it necessary to keep open the possibility of displaying a vagina on the Main Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 October 2010
After long discussions at talk User:Quantum666 deleted [5] previously added info from the reliable sources as he believes only in official version of events by Soviet KGB, while he is sure Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov is not a neutral source [6]. He deleted not only Sakharov's opinion about the events, but also the part about Moscow Helsinki Group official statement, information from Memorial's official site and reliable sources printed in USA (see [7], [8], [9]), as he believes noone of them made official investigations like KGB done. Another dubios edit with "Some people believe September 11 attacks were arranged by CIA" editsum [10], to support the version by KGB, while human rights activists in contrary made parralels between the 1977 Moscow bombings and the Burning of the Reichstag [11]. Quantum666 made dubious statements like "We can mention this information later but according to WP:WEIGHT we should leave only the major opinions summarizing the article. They are the official version and Moscow Helsinki Group statement which represents most of the dissidents" (later he deleted MHG statement too), see [12]). An uninvolved admin's help is appreciated. Andranikpasha ( talk) 06:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I've protected Nicosia because of a dispute as to whether it should mention/have the flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).. The argument against (copied from an editor's comments at my talk page) is that ". The TRNC is not a legal entity as far as the United Nations and all nations in the world are concerned (and according to international law). The only country that recognises the TRNC as a state is Turkey itself. Therefore, the flag of the TRNC should be removed from the article as this is in violation of international law and UN decisions. If one wishes to refer to the population statistics in the nothern part of the island he should refer to it in the following way: occupied territory/ nothern sector occupied by Turkey/ nothern sector not controlled by the sole internationally recognised government of the island which is the Republic of Cyprus." This dispute raises its head every few months. I'd appreciate comments here and/or the article talk page. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Given this, can we move from full protection to semi-protection to allow editors to continue to make non-controversial edits to the page that improve it. Now there is a discussion open and edit warring is unlikely to start again, but if it does, than I would support fully-protecting the page. Outback the koala ( talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I realise this might have cause some degree of up raw, and many debate on the various aspects of this article, as of course they do with many geopolitical situations. But the facts should remain. Wikipedia endeavours to promote pure facts and nothing more. I bring reference to the following phrase (and any subsequent phrases containing the name):
Nicosia (IPA: /ˌnɪkəˈsiːə/, NIK-ə-SEE-ə), known locally as Lefkosia (Greek: Λευκωσία, Turkish: Lefkoşa), is the capital and largest city of both Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Should be more accurate and indeed consistent with other Wiki articles to present like so:
is the capital and largest city of Cyprus
Or, as an added option:
is the capital and largest city of both the Republic of Cyprus and the separate Turkish Cypriot political entity in the north
No International organisation or NGO makes reference to the entity in the north as a “Republic”, neither the UN, NATO or the EU. I am sure Wikipedia should adopt a similar position, remain neutral until the situation is resolved and uphold its integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikettg ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Before I stop editing this article (due to it being overly contentious for a me to be allowed to assist) I wanted to post a note on the neutrality of this article. It seems to be locked in a stalemate of sorts, with a single group of editors including ( User:Hans Adler) keeping it from being improved. Now, I don't know all the circumstances or reasons behind all this, but what I perceive (and attempted to fix) was a strong WP:Systemic Bias against the subject in question. I would like the community to take a look at this article and see if it could be cleaned up and neutralized substantially. I am personally going to stop editing it, because certain editors involved felt that my efforts were to contentious, and I am currently dealing with an ANI report on my history and prior user accounts due to my interference in the "status quo". Good luck to all the editors who really desire to improve this article, and I hope it works out...-- Novus Orator 04:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello a wikipedia artical is being used to attack a living individual, notes have been made and suggestions have been given but the articial in question has not been cleaned up to give a neutral point of view, also a particular editor of the artical has been using this artical as a personal page to promote external web links and use them to attack the individual, why does wikipedia permit such behaviour, there must be a legal point to be considered upon the listed lack of neutral editing and personal attacks through defamation False_titles_of_nobility this artical needs to be cleaned up can someone help in making wikipedia a more friendly and neutral place to read and edit, thanks. Johnkennedy58 ( talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd very much appreciate some input on the Fathers' rights movement article. In particularity this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fathers%27_rights_movement&oldid=391552210 is what a user tends to revert the page to. It has significant and long standing POV problems. Some months ago User:67.170.133.232 using the name "CS" raised serious concerns in the talk section of the Father's Right article. Few of the concerns have been addressed since and other editors share the same view. CS states: "the FRM article is biased and doesn't have a neutral point of view. It seems like most paragraphs have a comment or citation from someone opposed to the FRM. Good examples are the "political and social views" section, and "Beliefs and Activities". More than half the paragraphs are peppered with attacks or comments about associations with violence and disorderly conduct (which is based on the actions of a few individuals that claim membership in the group). Honestly, in the "Demographics - Political and social view" section, do you really think it's appropriate to start a paragraph about transcending gender roles with "The movement has been described as part of a gender war in response to increasing female power in Western society", for example? This statement is used deceptively. It's source is an article in the Guardian that mentions that the idea was speculated in a book by Susan Faludi. Ultimately, when you track the statement down through these sources, it is purely the speculation of a Ms. Faladi. This is preposterously non-neutral editing. Every section contains mentions of the FRM's ideas followed by criticism and attacks, many of which are tenuous and from sources of dubious credibility. Another example is the section "Shared parenting" with the comment "Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children". Who on earth considers this scholarly? I can find feminist authors that assert that any heterosexual sex between men and women is sexual assault (Andrea Dworkin) or that maleness is a birth-defect comparable to blindness, that men are a 'biological accident' and the male sex should be destroyed (Valerie Solanas). In any other article, most of these criticisms would be included toward the end of the article in a seperate "Criticism" section, instead of being used to undermine the fair presentation of FRM's position in almost every paragraph."
Others have also noted the article is an attack piece in many sections and is "a coatrack for criticisms of the FRM" I agree with these views, certain sections of the article are especially problematic. My additional concerns are as follows:
I should add that I haven't yet identified who has added all the problematic material or issed any guidance. Others have attempted to make changes but these have mostly been reverted by user/administrator User:Slp1. She has contributed extensively to the piece and acknowledged one or two concerns but generally problems have been dismissed in the talk page with the defence that they're "cited to scholarly, academic books about the topic". As yet I haven't attempted any edits due to the attitude of denial of the problem in the talk page. Sorry this is so long and many thanks for your help.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am a new editor and I'm not all that familiar with practices yet. I've previously posted a request here but if you read it you can see that I'm not happy with the logic which is being displayed.
The issue is this: the article [Ulster Defence Regiment] contains a substantial number of references to Major John Potter, the author of "A Testament To Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment)". Although these references are attributed there is nothing in the article to suggest to a reader why this author has the authority to comment or state facts about the regiment. I wish to change this by reducing the number of comments attributed as opinion to the man and placing an informative paragraph to tell readers of the article why he (Potter) is qualified to make factual statements on the grounds that:
1. He compiled the official history of the regiment which is now held at the British Ministry of Defence under a time dependent release policy. 2. His book was vetted by and approved (although not endorsed - as is common) by the British Ministry of Defence. 3. His invitation by the Colonels Commandant to compile the official history entitles him to be referred to as "Official Historian". 4. His own extensive experience with the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment (22 years with the latter) and his rank of Major make him a qualified person to comment on aspects of the regiment's history as an informed and reliable source.
I am aware that in his own preface he informs readers that some of his opinions are his own and are unsupported elsewhere, although his text does contain many third party references. I believe I am sensible enough to avoid using his personal opinion as more than just that and properly attributing the opinion to him.
I need to advise anyone who wishes to assist that there is a long, detailed and at times very daunting, archive of previous discussion where the same names keep occuring over several years. This appears to have resulted in some people being banned from Wikipedia and others leaving. The article has been the result of at least one arbitration and is currently on editing restriction. I personally do not want to get drawn into the horrible and counterproductive bickering which seems to be associated with this (and other) articles on the Irish Troubles but I do think that sensible editing could improve the (already excellent) article.
I am also posting this request at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source to try and get as many neutral opinions as possible and avoid doing anything which is going to look as if I am trying to ram a point home and cause upset. All sensible comments appreciated. SonofSetanta ( talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel this is getting somewhere. Some of my own points are highlighted here, particulary the over attribution of Potter when he quotes facts. What I would like to do is remove those attributions where relevant and to include wording which attributes the compilation of the official history to Potter but which points out that the book is a NOT that official history. To me the sensible thing is to call Potter the "Official Historian" or "compiler of the official history". Am I on the right track? SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
During the dispute on the
Communist terrorism talk page many editors argued that in actuality the article tells mostly about Left wing terrorist groups, therefore, the article name should be changed to the more general
Leftist terrorism (which currently is just a redirect page). Their opponents argued that the term "Communist terrorism" is frequently used by various authors. To check what term is more frequently applied to the terrorist groups described in the article I made a systematic google scholar search for each article's topic. I found that the words "left wing terrorism" are applied much more frequently to these groups than the words "Communist terrorism" (for details, see
[28]: I demonstrated that much more articles use the words "Left wing terrorism" and do not use the words "Communist terrorism" to describe leftist terrorist groups, whereas the amount of the articles that use the words "Communist terrorism" and do not use the words "Left wing terrorism" in the same context is much smaller)). Obviously, this my activity cannot constitute original research because I do not propose to create a new content, just to find out what terminology is the most common among the scholars.
Obviously, the search result demonstrate that the article's name does not reflect the opinion of majority scholars, and therefore is not neutral. The neutrality issue can be easily fixed by switching redirects (instead of
Leftist terrorism ->
Communist terrorism to do vice versa). In connection to that, do I need to wait for consensus to rename the article, or, per
WP:NEUTRAL the consensus cannot take precedence over neutrality requirements?--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
WP does not use google to decide on article titles. Collect ( talk) 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
BC and AD have been accepted abbreviations to refer to periods of time before and after the birth of Christ for hundreds of years. Proponents of the absurd BCE/CE, which supposedly stands for 'before the common era' (common to whom we may ask) and 'of the common era' may claim that they are being 'neutral'. However, the decision to introduce these abbreviations is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention.
Where now does the argument of 'neutrality' lie?
Incidentally, these abbreviations can equally mean 'before the Christian era' and 'of the Christian era', hardly an escape into political correctness. If we wanted to be culturally neutral, we would have to introduce a new term with unambiguous abbreviations, such as OTR (older time reference) and MTR (modern time reference). See how that catches on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
[We should not] unreasonably make mainstream academic opinion the highest authority and set it above all other criteria such as moral and ethical considerations.... (1) mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories, and (2) in the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories just as previously it had allowed itself to be dominated by racist ones. This demonstrates that the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed.
Could editors please comment whether the above statement, which is part of the discussion at Talk:Communist terrorism, fairly represents the policy of neutrality. TFD ( talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that an RfC was instituted and almost immediately removed (due to answers obtained there?) by the person asking here. See also [29], [30] etc., [31] is particularly apt. The number of edits on the article talk page is getting absurd at this point as well, with only two editors accounting for over 420 edits to the talk page, it is time to simply say "basta". There is really a limit as to the number of forums used for essentially the same issues. Collect ( talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please allow me to point out that the reason that we give scholarly sources a higher level of credibility is not because scholarly sources are right, but because scholarly sources (unlike most of the rest of the world) are self-reflective, reasonable, and cautious. Yes, scholarly sources in the early twentieth century had some decided racist qualities - but they learned better. yes scholarly sources in the mid twentieth century had socialist leanings - but they have progressively eliminated the radical, unsupported elements of marxist theory and refined the useful elements of it into better theories. Scholarship is marked by the willingness to advance an opinion while retaining an open mind. I don't know what the conflict here is, but with anything in the 'socialism' topic area, one needs to very, very carefully distinguish between scholarly theory and the problematical uses that scholarly theories get put to by others. the classic example of this, of course, is the fact that Marx never advocated for revolution. He merely stated that he thought revolution would be an inevitable outcome of the capitalist system (as it was practiced in his time). other people read that and decided that if revolution were inevitable they might as well go and start one. People are inane. If you present the theory for what it is and separate out the politics of it, things should be less confusing. -- Ludwigs2 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please assist cleanup of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishayahu_Yosef_Pinto Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed Users are solely joining WIki for this purpose and should be banned
This dispute concerns an article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that discusses the American Academy of Financial Management. [32] It accused the AAFM of being a credentials mills. Some editors think that if this article is included, then all articles from the WSJ that mention the article should be included. [33] They also insist that a number of statement that I have removed were well-sourced; they did have citations, but the citations say nothing to the point (e.g., having the address listed in government directory to support that only the US version AAFM can grant certain credentials). The two different versions of the article this and this.
Some background. This article has a long history of COI, NPOV, ARTSPAM, and SOCK problems. The article was originally an advertisement that survived an AfD. I trimmed the advertising puffery and removed the advert template. Then there was a dispute within the AAFM that got fought out on this page (some members thought it had become a credentials mill and formed the International Academy of Financial Management, both sides claiming to be the "real" voice of the organization and thus lay claim to ownership of the page). In the meantime, the puffery that I had removed crept back in. The person who initially added the WSJ criticism of the AAFM was almost certainly part of the splinter IAFM, happy to embarrass his former colleagues, but the source was reliable and the criticism notable. This article needs regular policing, and I would appreciate some help. RJC Talk Contribs 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Several images have recently been added to this article in the Transportation Security Administration#2010 screening procedures section. Two of the images I've got no problem with - they illustrate what the TSA agent will see on their screen. One of the others I don't think should be in the article. One of the images [34] is from 2007 and shows the backscatter technology, but it's not what the TSA uses. There is no blurring algorithm. I don't think that image is an accurate portrayal of what the TSA uses and pushes a POV. For the main Backscatter X-ray article it's absolutely helpful, but on the TSA article, it's misrepresenting what a TSA agent can see. The other editor and I have gotten in a WP:LAME slow edit-war on this. We've had one other editor comment on the talk page that the image should not be included, but I'd like more comments on this issue. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This section may have NPOV issues. Someone is out to make a point; I removed numerous instances of bold syntax that were inserted to put emphasis on negative coverage, as well as unrelated images with undue weight captions, some potentially libelous, others obviously provocative. If someone who knows the subject a bit more can check it out... diff. [CharlieEchoTango] 18:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the very serious economic difficulties that Ireland is suffering (with knock on effect for all of Europe) it is envitable that the Irish banking sector and the serious regulatory failings this organisation is guilty of, will generate adverse comment. The facts are not in dispute and are accepted by the new management, all politicians in the country, the media, the European Commission and its ultimate parent the European Central Bank. The article is well referenced and while damning is unfortunately true and accurate. Great things are expected from the new management and in time they should be able to generate positive content to balance the article.
Glic16 ( talk) 21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead sentence of Analytical engine is "The analytical engine, an important step in the history of computers, was the design of a mechanical general-purpose computer by English mathematician Charles Babbage." (Emphasis added.) There are two problems, as I see it, with the unattributed subjective statement in the middle. (Actually three, the third being that it's just non-substantive filler that keeps the reader from getting to the important stuff, but that's not an issue for this forum.) The first problem is that it's not in line with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guideline. (We would never permit an article to begin "George Washington, an important U.S. president..." or "Tom Hanks, an important American actor...") The second problem is that it's not true, or in any case could give a false impression in that it could lead a reader to think that the analytical engine was diligently pursued and led eventually to the creation of modern computers, or in some way inspired the inventors of modern electronic computers, when the reality is that the machine was never built and was more or less forgotten until rediscovered by historians looking for anticipating work in the wake of the success of modern electronic computers. My suggestion is simple--excise the offending phrase from the lead and describe any controversy fuller and with proper attribution later in the article. This proposal has been met with resistance. The relevant talk section is here. Thanks, Robert K S ( talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to report that Death panel is again giving problems.
Some editors have been rather selective as to which alleged real life "death panels" the article can mention. An editor (not me) added text sourced from this article] from the journal Foreign Policy. As with my previous complain about POV pushing at this article, this time again the editors have again tried to edit IN reference to Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as "death panel" identified by the authors (which they scored as only 15 out of 100 for meeting the criteria of being a "death panel"). They also included several others that were rated. But missing from the WP article was reference to Foreign Policy magazine's TOP death panel, which they identified as government ordered executions in cases of murder and treason (which only 2 out of the OECD's 34 countries still endorse). So I added it to the article. Now two editors have deleted this on the grounds that FP magazine's definition of "death panel" does not meet their own preferred definition. The argument about this can be read [ here].
Palin was not exactly trying to get us to think about the complexities of medical ethics when she conjured up an image of her elderly parents and her disabled son having to beg for their very existence before "Obama's death panel". She wanted the emotional recoil of a death squad to be associated with the new law. Now I am NOT arguing that THAT argument be inserted into the article. That would not be right unless there is a proper source for that. BUT including SOME alleged death panels from the FP article with a LOW rating but excluding the TOP rated death panel with the highest rating does seem to me to be a little bit like POV pushing. I think we have to include FPs top death panel.
There is a good deal of POV pushing and something of an editing cabal at work at this article. I am therefore asking, VERY KINDLY for comments ONLY from experienced editors who HAVE NOT previously edited Death Panel or Sarah Palin, excepting of course the two editors who deleted my insertion into the article. Others who HAVE edited these two articles can by all means leave your comments in the appropriate section of the TALK page. I am sure NPOVN reviewers will wish to see your comments there. If anyone breeches this request I will simply flag up their comments so that independent reviewers are aware of which comments may potentially be from Palin followers or opponents. Hauskalainen ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This article definitely needs to be tagged for NPOV, but I don't know how to do it, and I don't know enough about the subject to fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.239.157 ( talk) 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
{pov} but with {{ }} is the general tag. Before tagging an article, you should take your issue to the
discussion page or editors responsible for most of the article's content. See
WP:TAGGING for clarity.
Wikifan12345 (
talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Non Neutral point of view
The article as written is non neutral giving the reader the assumption that Thomas Jefferson agrees with a modern interpretation of “Separation of Church and state” attempts to give a balanced version of Jefferson’s view has been censored, and I am told the Library of Congress is not a valid source to quote from.
Also no one wants to discuss the obvious slanted “Father of a university” statement “specifically one free of church influences” which shows a non neutral point of view that is opposed to historical documents. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Prior to the University of Virginia many institutions had a Professor of Divinity who taught a specific Christian sect. Jefferson wanted all Christian sects on a equal footing.
If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why would he then establish the duty of the Professor of Ethics to teach Christian values in a way that does not hold one Christian sect above another.
“In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics; to which adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, a basis will be formed common to all sects. Proceeding thus far without offence to the Constitution, we have thought it proper -442-“ _________________________________________________________
Further prove religious study was taught…
It was not, however, to be understood that instruction in religious opinions and duties was meant to be precluded by the public authorities as indifferent to the interests of society. On the contrary, the relations which exist between man and his Maker – and the duties resulting from those relations – are the most interesting and important to every human being and the most incumbent on his study and investigation.
Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, p. 414, Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822. http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ___________________________________________________________
If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why didn’t he object to this prayer being said at the laying of the cornerstone for the University of Virginia?
“May allmighty God, without invocation to whom, no work of importance should be begun, bless this undertaking and enable us to carry it on with success -- protect this College, the object of which institution, is to instill into the minds of Youth principles of sound knowledge. To inspire them with the love of religion & virtue, and prepare them for filling the various situations in society with credit to themselves and benefit to their country”
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Jef1Gri.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=47&division=div1 ___________________________________________________________
If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why did he order the University Rotunda be used for several things including religious worship and why was it “expected” that students attend religious worship services of their respective sects?
Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, pp. 449-450, “A Meeting of the Visitors of the University of Virginia on Monday the 4th of October, 1824.” http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) ____________________________________________________ -MarkGlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
So since I proved your wrong your argument is I didn’t write it right? Still claim to be non bias?
Citing someone who’s cites others with the same bias and not historical documents related to the point in question is a self fulfilling prophecy, which is probably just what you wanted.-- Markglad ( talk) 04:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
A user recently put the neutrality dispute template on Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia article beacuse of the infobox, [35]. Can a infobox violate the neutrality rules on wikipedia? Spongie555 ( talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article reads more like a lecture or rant against Egypt's political system in general than a neutral, encyclopedic article about a political party. While this page abounds in notes about how corrupt Egypt's system is, it fails to even have a section on the party's ideology - something even authoritarian parties like the Communist Party of China include. Toa Nidhiki 05 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
He deletes information from one certain article, but when is reminded that this information is also in another article - he does nothing about it, he only doesn't like it when it's in certain article as if he's guarding this article from "unfavored" information. Later on, here (the case was closed before I could reply to the latter posts), I proved that the link, on which this information is based, is reliable (comment signed at 17:07, 28 January 2011). A blame can't be laid on a simple user for not following the neutral policy (aka not applying double standards), but when an admin, who while acquiring admin rights also acquires the responsibility before wikipedia, violates this policy - he (an admin) should be hold accountable, but if you're ok with a hypocrite admin, ok then.
tl;dr the admin deleted one info from Palin's article, and when was told that the same information is in another article and that he should first delete it from there, as it first appeared there, he did nothing, nor he did anything after 7 days lasted since he was reminded about it and the info is still in that, another article. I told it already, it's not a problem for myself to delete it from there, but I didn't do it so that it will prove what I said, the admin Horologium is hypocrite. He didn't like this info to be in Palin's article but he's ok with being it in another article. Userpd ( talk) 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Would someone in charge use this teaching opportunity to inform a certain editor NOT to interject his reply WITHIN another editors comments. While those of us watching will know that editing eti1uette was NOT followed, future editors will be confused. They say that experience is the best teacher. Sometimes I'm not so sure. Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
A problem has again risen at the Unite Against Fascism article. This is over inclusion of the phrase “they have been represented as left wing or far left by certain elements of the press” [ [36]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This has long since been resolved in prior discussions at RSN; there is no serious question that there are multiple, reliable sources that describe UAF as "left wing". What NPOV requires is that the Wikipedia article accurately reflect what reliable sources say on the subject. It is appropriate that the article state, with attribution, that these reliable sources characterize UAF as left wing; it is also appropriate that, in counterpoint, and with sources, that UAF simply characterizes itself as anti-fascist, and claims support by politicians across the political spectrum (excepting fascists, I would guess). This should not be controversial in the least, and I confess to being utterly baffled as to why this debate should slog on month after month across multiple noticeboards. Fladrif ( talk) 16:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Now, I am not saying that all the edits on this page are meant to tilt the POV one way or another, but in the last week or so (of the last 500 edits on the page dating back to Feb 2009, about 300 are from the last 7 or 8 days) there seems to be a lot of changing and removal of sources and changing/removal/rewriting of recent events (notably the casualty count, including something about '10 Thai military bases [being] destroyed' that keeps appearing and disappearing, and back-and-forth rewriting of a a part about Cambodian soldiers occupying contested ruins. I tried to revert what I felt were some suspicious edits by an IP user yesterday (the edits made seemed to inflate the Thai casualties, without sources), but this was reverted by another user who seems to have a contribution history consisting of focusing on this article and Cambodia-related items. I'm not going to stick my nose in the article again, but I felt that I should let someone know that this should probably be looked into, and possibly get stricter enforcement on this article (especially since its linked on the recent events on the main page).-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS issue at the above article... background: Last week subject (a notable Muslem Israeli politician) was scheduled to give a speech at Edinburgh University, but the speech was interrupted by protesters.
Discussion of this "incident" currently takes up over a third of the article, which I think is excessive given the context of a bio article. I removed the section as giving Undue weight to what I view as a relatively minor event ... and because it happened so recently that mentioning it amounts to a NOTNEWS violation. Unfortunately, I was reverted with the usual NOTNEWS rebuttal of "discussed by reliable sources" (ie a few newspapers). Second opinions are requested. 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm having some trouble with a dispute with User:143.188.101.65 (IP seems to be stable) at Vang Vieng. Over the past several weeks, he/she has repeatedly (six times I believe) tried to add this text to the article:
It is my opinion that, without reference to any sources of any kind, describing a town as "full of western tourists nursing their hangovers from both alcohol and opium," having "changed drastically - for the worse," "no longer a magical place," and "a rather depressing place" is a substantial violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Essentially none of this is encyclopedic. Portions could be included if they are backed by citations to reliable sources (e.g. news reports of increased crime statistics, published academic papers on the disillusionment of locals in the face of increased tourism, etc...), but without any sources, it's simply an opinion piece and a derogatory one to boot.
I made some efforts to discuss the issue with the user on my talk page at User talk:Zachlipton#Vang Vieng. I attempted to explain the basics of NPOV and encouraged the editor to look for reliable sources that address these issues, as they could then potentially be woven into the article. His response is that he has spent a lot of time there and the information is accurate based on his own experiences, and that (apparently referring to me) "But then you cant educate a fool, because they just dont listen."
Several other editors have also mentioned this issue at Talk:Vang Vieng and reverted this content, but this user continues to add it. I feel I've done all I reasonably can to educate, so I'm hoping other editors here have other ideas. Zachlipton ( talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a policy or guideline that applies to labeling of organizations and individuals? For example, the American Enterprise Institute is labeled as "conservative." Should it be if multiple prominent reliable sources label it as such? Should it be if a majority of reliable sources label it as such (I know that is virtually impossible to determine, but one way to loosely gauge this is to consult Google News results)? Or should labeling in Wikipedia's voice be avoided entirely? Labeling is fairly common in WP, but not with any consistent standards. Drrll ( talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The section titled "Crisis Pregnancy Centres" is terribly biased, based on opinion, not fact. This is it in its entirety: "Crisis Pregnancy Centres and other offices provide counselling to pregnant women. They have been established by organizations such as Birthright. These organizations, as part of their "counselling", they often use fraudulent means to convince women not to have abortions, and neglect to tell women that they do not offer abortions[34]. Under government legislation, the counsellors are not permitted to directly advise an individual to not obtain an abortion, although many Crisis pregnancy centres will not train volunteers who believe that abortion is acceptable. They are known for giving women false information[35], using scare tactics[36], and making false promises[37] to convince them not to have abortions. After a woman has had her baby, she will often never hear from the crisis pregnancy centre again, despite any help they may have promised her. If a woman chooses to abort after visiting a crisis pregnancy centre, she will often be stalked or harassed by the staff"
The citations are all to sites that, again, are horribly biased and this article clearly has an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.162.110.34 ( talk) 01:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is in urgent need of improvement. It was proposed for deletion, which I declined, but despite definitely being notable ( books, scholarly articles) it appears to be non-neutral and to have sourcing issues. Fences& Windows 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The addition of the following is being contested: In The Wall Street Journal, columnist and deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens commented that the Arab world's proclivity for believing in Zionist conspiracy theories like the Mossad shark to explain their problems points to "the debasement of the Arab mind." source.
To me, there appears to be a number of issues, "the debasement of the Arab mind." has been characterized as racist by at least 2 editors, the writer of the piece seems to have a strong predisposition which is not made clear, and the factual accuracy of his statement seems to be undermined by other sources; it is unclear if the "Mossad Shark" was ever seriously subscribed to. A small edit war (necessarily so as the article is under 1rr) is brewing involving a number of editors. Comments invited. u n☯ mi 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute at the Jerusalem article over whether Wikipedia can describe it as "the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." It is stated in many RS that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, or not recognized as the capital (everyone agrees on that), and thus the question is whether Wikipedia can state that it is the capital even though these RS contradict that statement. An alternate text has been proposed, which says "Today Jerusalem is controlled by the state of Israel, which claims it as its capital. That status has been rejected by the international community, which considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation." Please comment. BE——Critical__ Talk 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
LightSquared ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As mentioned by another editor on the talk page, this topic is contentious and vulnerable to POV edits from both those with an interest in GPS technology and those with an interest in the company. At this point probably just increasing the visibility of the article on uninvolved watchlists and getting additional editors involved may be enough, but it does appear to merit attention. VQuakr ( talk) 05:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This material, in various forms, has been repeatedly removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article:
"More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation."
This line is supported by four references:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/ http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
Here is a diff of the latest deletion:
Here is a link to the latest discussion on the article talk page:
The previous extensive discussion from the talk page archive is here:
Here is the recent discussion from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which was apparently archived without resolution:
It is not neutral point of view to omit this highly relevant material from the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the article. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you arguing that it's not notable that 1,000 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation into the building collapses, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Ghostofnemo ( talk)
Uomi, that is not what the source says. 9/11 truther group claims that 1,000 engineers and architects has signed its petition. (cite Washington post). Now, we apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE: who cares if a fringe group claims that 1,000 imaginary architects and engineers have signed their petition? (Flat Earth Society claims that 1,000 physicists have signed their petition. Yeah right.) This fact is only relevant to an article about the truther group, or possibly in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, to demonstrate the delusional nature of the claims. Nobody has verified that 1,000 engineers and architects have signed the petition. Quite likely this is pure posturing by a fringe group. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Time Magazine calls the 9/11 Truth Movement a "mainstream political reality" giving their views notability. A press conference to announce the petition was held in major cities in countries around the world. The petition itself as far as I know is not promoting any conspiracy theory but is simply a call for an independent investigation, an action that is supported by the majority of the public not to mention some of the members of the 911 commission which makes it undue not to mention it. The petition is signed by notable people speaking in their area of expertise which is notable. Despite the large number of engineers and architects, the vast majority have not taken a position on 911 and it is quite possible that the signers of the petition form the majority of engineers and architects who have have commented on 911. I have not read the petition but if it does not promote any specific conspiracy then I cant see any legitimate reason not to mention it. Wayne ( talk) 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat hesitantly, I created the article " Bunga bunga". (I comment on my hesitation here.) An inexperienced user slapped a "Neutrality" tag on it and commented in its talk page, but didn't mention the matter here. Unsurprisingly, nothing much has happened since. So perhaps one or two people reading this could come along to the article and take a look. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Two possible edits for the lede are afforded by one source. One possible choice is:
The other using the exact same source has:
The first was rejected by one editor as a That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the source. I am 'absolutely certain' of your good faith, of course. I ask totally disinterested editors to examine the cite "^ McLean, Iain; McMilan, Alistair, eds (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Stephen Fisher, contributor of entry for "right(–wing)." (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5 (Paperback). http://books.google.com/books?id=KQXLgP6CZBkC&pg=PA465. Alternate ID for this edition: ISBN 978-0-19-920780-0 (Hardback). " and see if the first represents the entry fairly, if the first is a "ridiculous misrepresentation" of the entry, and similarly of the second presentation of the dictionary entry. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus and I have stated on the article's talk page that, per NPOV, the article's title is not neutral and should be changed. I also pointed out that the article content needs to change to include both positive and negative views of Wikipedia. IanMacM opposes these changes, apparently wanting the article to be considered an acceptable exception to NPOV. I would appreciate any feedback you could give. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to what was said above, the little known essay WP:Criticism (about 30 page views per day) does not say that there should be no articles with titles of the form "Criticism of X" but merely discourages them and stresses that such articles should be about positive and negative reception. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad have the same problem that Criticism of Wikipedia has and must also be fixed, not taken as examples. The fact that articles of such relative prominence can have this POV problem for such a long time (I couldn't even find corresponding articles on positive criticism), suggests that perhaps we should make "Criticism of" titles illegal just to be clear. While combined articles of positive and negative reception might become too big, there are usually other, better, ways of splitting them. Hans Adler 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Judith: FWIW I don't actually think that is the process by which most of these articles come about. Perhaps editors at Talk:Muhammad saw one day that the article was a bit long and decided the most sensible and least contentious thing to would be to create Criticism of Muhammad. On the other hand, perhaps someone wanted there to be a Criticism if Muhammad article so they created one. Criticism of Israel was created by a user who had failed to get consensus for a section under that title in Israel. It's under AfD, which it will probably survive because predictable ITEXISTS and IMPROVE arguments have been made.
The impossibility of NPOV isn't the only problem, although its a big one. NPOV applies to all articles and it is one policy, so it won't do to say, as JJ suggests, "well, this articles a little different because we've restricted its scope". Negative criticism always needs balancing with positive criticism, per NPOV. What if the subject of the article is a genius and has led an exemplary life, but have five points of noteworthy criticism on which he bang-to-rights. To the extent that any attempted defence would be WP:FRINGE? Would it then be okay to create an article which was a pure character assassination? Negative criticism should be balanced by positive criticism. Trying to balance it with defence against the negative criticism doesn't give neutrality, because the defence may be genuinely weak. Particularly a problem where BLP is concerned. The other problem is with divorcing criticism from context by putting into an article which does not give an overall picture of the subject.
In Criticism of Noam Chomsky, nearly all the criticism is divorced from the relevant contextual information which is contained in other articles, so that all we can ascertain is that this laundry list of people have had a pop at Chomsky at some point, but we don't know why. Various people have had trouble with "Chomskyan linguistics", but what is this? What aspect of it did they object to? Because the "Criticism" article is obliged not to spend any time on these details, we're not left any wiser about very much for having read it. In 1969, Chomsky wrote a book it seems and someone suggested that he misquoted someone and maybe he did but it may not have been very important anyway. But what was the book about? How did it fit with his other work? What was the particular issue and why might it have mattered? Again, the article requires economy as far as details go, so it is not very enlightening. Steven Pinker is presented here amongst Chomsky's critics. The reader won't appreciate from this that Pinker is one of Chomsky's foremost acolytes and they have one really significant point of disagreement. Again, because the context is stripped away. These articles seem to me to focus on laundry-listing POV. They're just not good for encyplopedic writing. -- FormerIP ( talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal 1 Thanks for the feedback so far! Here is one proposal for how to name the article, how to scope it and how to deal with the overlap between this article and three related ones: Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia in Culture. (There's also an Academic studies about Wikipedia article with overlap that needs to be dealt with.)
I might also develop a second proposal which would involve additional splitting up of the Criticism of Wikipedia content. Let me know what you think. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus and I have completed the merge and redirect, except that I decided to use a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Since the Criticism of Wikipedia content was split up among four articles, it seemed that a disambiguation page should be used to guide the readers. Although Reliability of Wikipedia would probably be the most common choice, I don't know that it would be more popular than all the others combined. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
On
Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia,
QuackGuru wrote the following complaint, which I copied here to keep as much of the discussion as possible in one place:
There is clearly no consensus to essentially delete (or merge) Criticism of Wikipedia. This topic is extrememly notable.
For the consensus issue, I would point out that WP:CONSENSUS says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions". In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, II was the last person to oppose the change, but later agreed to a change. There were no other complaints about changing the article for 28 days before the changes were made. Why wouldn't this constitutes consensus per Wikipedia policy?
For the notability issue, I agree that Criticism of Wikipedia is a notable subject. However, WP:N says that notability in and of itself does not necessarily justify the existance of an article. In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, the issues that led to its merge and replacement with a disambiguation page were lack of neutrality and redundancy with other articles. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Mind sports world championship has been flagged NPOV but without any comment left on the on the discussion page over an hour since it was tagged. I assume that this might be simply a problem with the wording of the opening sentence or naming, but I would like to know how to start a conversation to fix this issue?
I was using mind sports in its widely used sense such as for example the bridge (card game) official body who use it on their home page [44]. There is the problem there is no other conventient term that distinguishes sports from games of skill without controversy as it covers more than just card and board games. The reason for creating a longer list was as a result of the world championships page.
Tetron76 ( talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Tetron76 ( talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system. [3] In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. [4] However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states). [5]
This has been suggested as a new lede for the Communist terrorism article as the current one has failed verification and citation needed tags on it. It has been suggested that this proposal is not neutral, so I would like the opinions of some uninvolved editors on it. Tentontunic ( talk) 10:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
(out) None of the sources can be used to support the first sentence of your claim, "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". The rest of the sources read as follows:
It seems that this does not support a consistent definition - is it communist-inspired or communist-supported? Communists of course supported non-communist terrorism as well. Also, the third source, which was written by Brian Crozier, a military historian, for Transaction Publishers, may not be an ideal source.
TFD ( talk) 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This page is currently stuck over a dispute on including how many wives Mr. Bryant allegedly has had (he is a member of a "fundamentalist" Mormon sect which may or may not practice polygamy). There is an IP with an alleged conflict of interest who is trying to remove the information; there is a question over the veracity of the source (which is provided by an admin BTW). I encourage everyone to take a look and post any comments directly related to the dispute there (comments not directly related to the dispute, I suppose you can post here). Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Duke_lacrosse_case deviates substantially from anything close to encyclopaedic, a balanced or reasonable perspective, in short it lacks a NPOV and is substantially biased. It makes some outrageous claims that are unsubstantiated, for example it states that an allegation of rape was false as a fact. It conflates Stripper with Escort with Prostitute in apparent attempt to denigrate the alleged victim and imply a prostitute cannot be raped. Attempts to even make minor improvements such are removing the unsubstantiated claims have been repeatedly reverted by sock puppet with an apparent vested interest, attempts to raise a NPOV discussion was removed. Article needs to be investigated via appropriate policy/authority. 77.86.81.199 ( talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate another set of eyes on Letitia Youmans. The discussion at Talk:Letitia Youmans#Autobiographies as Reliable Sources revolves around the use of large amounts of text copy-pasted from an autobiography. (I initially arrived at the page to investigate a G12 speedy tag, but determined the copied text was published in 1893 and therefore public domain -- so copyvio is not an problem.) The issue is whether the extensive use of autobiographical text alone constitutes a problem of NPOV. Additionally, whether the lack of any secondary sources referring to the copied text also is a NPOV problem as well as OR. — CactusWriter (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Willfults ( talk · contribs) has been trying to push a SDA POV in the Waldensians article to make them appear older than they themselves claim they are.
He has been using outdated and biased sources (Protestant journals and books from the 1800s), even something by Uriah Smith, trying to pass it off as "mainstream opinion" (see diff 2).
The Waldensians say that they started with Peter Waldo, contemporary sources say they started with Peter Waldo, modern secular academia says they started with Peter Waldo, it is only select groups such as certain Baptists, Methodists, and Seventh Day Adventists, who make any claim that they are older. As anti-Catholic bias has left English speaking academia, the idea that the Waldensians are older than Waldo has come to be rejected (because the only reason anyone pushed for it was such a bias).
We have discussed this on my talk page, and in edit summaries for the Waldensian article. When it appears I'm the only one, he's happy to revert me, but when I state that I'm going to get anyone else involved, he quits, which kinda indicates he knows that others aren't going to support his axe-grinding. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I welcome a third party. I actually took a vacation, I didn't get scared lol. I'm simply trying to add that the founding date of the Waldensians is disputed, however Ian has been well, somewhat angry at this. As he himself mentions there is two interpretations, Protestant and Catholic. Both are rather mainstream. Both opinions are still held by a large quantity of people in modern academia. It just seems more neutral if we can say that their founding is disputed, as it is disputed. Willfults ( talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want comments from uninvolved users, it would be helpful if you could reformulate the question. If you can keep user conduct out of it for the time being, that would help too. To me on the face of it it would seem that historians, of any religious background or none, would be suitable sources, and so would theologians from various Christian denominations. I don't know if that advances things at all. It might be worth contacting WikiProject Christianity on this one. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it is simply wrong to describe the sides of the "dispute" as "Catholics" and "Protestants" when the article itself ( [50]) says: "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants claim that the Waldenses' history extends back to the Apostles.". That is, one side is not "Protestants", but only a small subset of Protestants (Seventh-day Adventists and the like), while the other side is not "Catholics", but "the rest of the world". For example, Britannica (hardly a Catholic publication) simply writes: "Waldenses, [...] members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, [...]" ( [51]) with no qualification. So, how much weight should the views of Seventh-day Adventists be given in an article concerning views of all Christians (the article like Waldensians, that should take secular views into account, could be expected to give even less weight to them)? Well, it is estimated that there are about 2 billions of Christians ( Christianity#Demographics - [52]) and about 15 millions of them are Seventh-day Adventists ( Seventh-day Adventist Church#Membership - [53]). Thus about 15 / 2000 * 100 = 0.75% of weight could be expected to be given to the views of Seventh-day Adventists (of course, that is just an estimate - the actual weight given in the reliable sources will be different in different cases)... So, the part about their views could probably be shortened - and, perhaps, given a better plan. Perhaps it would be enough to say that "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants" believe Waldensians are more ancient, and to note why do those groups find it to be important (because they see themselves as successors of Waldensians). Everything else can probably go to a separate article about this fringe theory (there will be enough sources to prove its notability, right?). -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 18:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There are many issues with neutrality in this article at this time. User:CLL80 describes some of them very well in Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity. In addition, other users have attempted to contribute, but are being shut out. I have placed a NPOV notice on this page, and it has been removed without consensus. I feel that this should be posted here in order to alert other editors to this problem and possibly get some neutral editors involved. Xrin ( talk) 04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it customary to remove {{ peacock}} banners from the top of the page simply because there is none in the article? That's what has been happening here Special:Contributions/Editor2020, and for in one of the articles which I checked out Brunis Rubess, they still exist as in "he made the transition from the turmoil in Europe to the life of a very successful businessman in Canada." Thanks, Spencer T♦ C 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Potter's House Christian Fellowship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like some attention drawn here. The article has always been a mess but recently I have noticed some edit waring and nasty talk page discussion between some probable COI editors and opponets. THink some extra eyes and people cleaning up would be helpful to the over all situation. The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk + contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel that in the entire article that there is undue weight given to the Pro-homosexuality side. In the first section out of the opening titled "Homosexuality in the Bible" there is an outline that shows questions that pro-homosexual scholars have been asking. It feels as if it's an outline on what the author thinks Christians should do when researching biblical views on homosexuality. There is also a lack of talk about Homosexuality in the Bible except for, "There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior."
Through out the article prominent people favorable to homosexuality are listed by name. Few people critical of homosexuality as it pertains to religion are named and the ones that are aren't very prominent while there are prominent individuals known that are critical of homosexuality as it pertains to the Christian religion. The article does do alot to point out the reasonings behind the favorable sides points of view while neglecting the critical sides reasonings. In light of this I ask also that articles referring to other religions views on homosexuality be checked for neutrality.
This should neither be a pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality and religion piece. It should a neutral article about homosexuality and Christianity. Neutral and verifiable to the letter of wikipedias guidelines. Thanks for your time. 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 10:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Very sorry to have put you thru the trouble and thank you for the assistance. :) 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 13:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Per user Anthaenara, Gianfranco Chiarini'a Wikipedia article is written with bias and as a promotional. However, the article has been written and re-written several times utlizing references to source the statements. This discussion has been posted so that the article may be read, and so that contributors may make editing suggestions.
Beverly Wehmer Johnson ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Please find corrections to the Gianfranco Chiarini Wiki Article, which has been revised several times. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Chiarini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevwb1220 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Gianfranco Chiarini Hi Athaenara the Gianfranco Chiarni page has been re-written to Wikipedia standards, can you please review so that we can take the advert down? Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It's still quite promotional and appears to be one of the products at two single-purpose accounts, yours and Andrea D'Angelico (talk · contribs), across multiple wikipedias. You can open a discussion on the article talk page prior to posting on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or ask for assistance on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. – Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Athaenara per Wiki adminstration I was given info that our article was in the context of an advertisement. Therefore I changed, and restructured sentences to meet with Wikipedia guideline. Regarding Andrea D'Angelico, I am not certain what has been translated from the English version but will confer with him as for the aforementioned. Please give specifics as to what needs to be corrected to meet encyclopedic standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Gianfranco Chiarini We have been in direct contact with Wikipedia Adminstration, and they have been assisting us with Common Usage of Photos and determining correct verbiage to use in the Gianfranco Chiarini articles. However, you have not assisted us with what needs to be changed per sentence guidelines or structure in order to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. We have followed the guidelines as per the Wikipedia Administrative, and would like very much if you would assist with neutrality of the subject at hand. Furthermore, quoting Wikipedia guidelines is not helping us to achieve our goal of a flawlessly written article. Please assist with providing direction in composing a non-biased article.
Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)(talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Any one or all of you may ask for assistance on the article talk page and the NPOV and COI noticeboards (linked above in my previous reply) as I previously suggested. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is another appropriate venue. – Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Per your previous discussion, I've added the discussion to the Gianfranco Chiarini talk page. I will also add the the NPOV, and COI as you've requested. Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Beverly Wehmer Johnson ( talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
FellGleaming ( talk · contribs) has written the following over at endocrine disruption:
The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid. [1]
However, that is not what the source FellGleaming quoted said. The source examined and presented both sides of the debate, not one side as Fell just did. The New York Times article wrote:
Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health. [2]
The article goes into more detail about both sides, and it is neither neutral nor accurate to summarize the source in the way it is presented in the article by FellGleaming. I've asked Fell to revisit the source and fix it, but he refuses. Viriditas ( talk) 11:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Secondly, regardless of who added the material, this is pretty clearly an inappropriate, slanted, and cherry-picked summary of this New York Times article. It seems FellGleaming accepts this point, maybe - at least he isn't defending the edit content, saying only that he reverted on general principles, I guess. So maybe the involved editors could work out a more suitable and neutral representation of the New York Times source on the article talk page, ideally with a minimum of posturing. MastCell Talk 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Rabbi Yishayahu Yosef Pinto - Help in reviewing ? Far from neutral
Labour Party (UK) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
OK, I'll state upfront that - unlike the issue above - this is an article I could reasonably be said to being "involved" at. I can't recall how, I suspect through WP:RFPP (I've certainly protected the article before now), but I've had the article watchlisted for some time now and I've previously raised an issue at ANI.
There has for sometime been "genre-warring" over this political party's ideology. The party itself claims to be "democratic socialist". Historically (back in the dim past of October 2009) the article listed "democratic socialism", "social democracy" and "third way". This was changed by Riversider2008 ( talk) to include "neoliberalism". This was removed at some point (after, I think May 2010). As of today the article only includes "democratic socialism", so - obviously - "social democracy" and "third way" have been removed at some point. They don't, however, feature much in this report.
For the past few months there has been an up-tick in edit warring over the "ideology" field in the infobox, mostly with IPs adding uncited ideologies, however to be fair all additions could probably be cited from historical versions of the article. More recently, following semi-protection by your 'umble servant, a discussion has started on the article's talkpage. Riversider2008 has referred to several archived discussions in which sources of varying degrees of reliability had been provided in support of "neoliberalism".
I remain unconvinced by Riversider2008's arguments for inclusion, as I believe "neoliberalism" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary sources. However, Riversider2008 does make the argument that "democratic socialism" has only ever been sourced to the party itself.
So... what ideologies should be included in the infobox? TFOWR 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that, although it's designed to serve a useful and needed purpose, "ideology" shouldn't be in the InfoBox for political parties; in most cases, it's just too hard to compress the reality into a few words. A brief summary of a party's main ideological currents belongs in the introductory paragraphs. See a parallel edit war (or series of skirmishes) at Socialist Party USA and earlier ones at Social Democrats USA, both of which are as tadpoles to the whales of the SPD and the Labour Party. And at least all these parties, whatever their later evolutions, came out of a common heritage in the Second International. For a historically and consciously non-ideological party like the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties, or the various Gaullist and Giscardien parties of the French Fifth Republic, the only label that would fit would be sui generis. —— Shakescene ( talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In the midst of extended debate about the scope of this article, Born2cycle reveals that his intent is to limit the scope of the article to those views espoused by the US Libertarian Party, which of course has its own article. Are there any editors here who could comment on this proposal? See this section and this section on the talk page. Yworo ( talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
See this comment where Born2cycle states "this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party". Yworo ( talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
A disagreement has been rumbling on The Four Major Rivers Project article. It seems this project is quite controversial in South Korea. Some editors have been accused of pushing government propoganda and other editors have replaced the article content with a different wording that seems to be entirely critical of the project; neither view is referenced. And so it goes back and forth for the last couple of months. I have tried to remind both sides of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and suggested there is room for both the official line and the criticism in the article. Maybe someone else can take a look at the slow-paced discussion on the talk page and make better suggestions (or correct me if I am the one in error), especially since I might soon be less able to visit Wikipedia as often as I have. Thanks. Astronaut ( talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The above article currently contains the word "idolatrous" as a description of Messianic Jews three times. This is because one group of outsiders to the movement, mainstream Jews, see the MJs as being this. I personally think the word probably falls within words to avoid as per WP:AVOID, and certainly I cannot see why the word has to be repeated three times in the article, particularly considering that it is the opinion of only one other outside group. I would appreciate any responses. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 23:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
After devolving into personal attacks and non-responses (see, for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Racism_in_the_Palestinian_territories), the discussion of the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories has resumed at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories. At issue is whether acts and attitudes of racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong within the scope of the article. Please join the discussion there.-- Carwil ( talk) 18:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In the wuxia article, I've added information about the word's being derived from the Japanese term bukyo, a claim made by Stephen Teo in his Chinese Martial Arts Cinema: the Wuxia Tradition. Teo is a professionally published film scholar and academic who has contributed significant work on the wuxia genre, and thus should qualify as a reliable source, and as there doesn't appear to be anything contradicting Teo's claim, said etymology should be uncontroversial. However, editor Mythsearcher has deleted the claim, saying that as he can find no sources opposing the claim or apparently discussing etymology at all, that the etymology therefore falls under UNDUE. This seems to me to be the exact opposite of what Undue is meant to cover. Other arguments of Mythsearcher's (in Talk:Wuxia) rely upon his consulting unnamed dictionaries, his personal unfamiliarity with bukyo as a genre label, or insinuating ethnic bias on Teo's part, which I feel to be bordering on OR or NPOV. Ergative rlt ( talk) 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Short version:
Due to disputes like the British Isles naming dispute, does WP:NPOV allow the title of a navigation template like Template:British Isles to be changed using code, based on which article it is placed on, i.e., when placed on United Kingdom, it is called "The British Isles" (and linked to the article), but when placed on the Republic of Ireland, it is called "British-Irish Council area" (and not linked). I think this is a pretty obvious violation of NPOV, which calls for uniform neutral presentation of content on all articles for all readers, rather than changing what is presented to the reader on the flawed assumption that readers of particular articles hold particular views, and should be presented with a particular world view.
Long version:
Recently, after a discussion on the talk page of Template:British Isles, the coding of that template was altered, so that the diplayed title of the template changes if you put it on certain articles such as Ireland. Obviously, this is counter to the normal practice, the template's 'home' article is British Isles, which should be linked and displayed in the title bar on all pages where it is used.
This change is based on the dubious idea that the Ireland article is the property of Irish readers, and due to the British Isles naming dispute (which is itself a disputed article, of dubious accuracy or even reality), it was asserted that NPOV mandates that we present a different world view on those articles, one more palatable to the readers who supposedly make up the majority of readers of those article, rather than keep to the standard method, which is used on the majority of other articles the template is used. This is patently not neutral, and makes several faulty assumptions.
Nobody supporting this change wanted to prove their view was not a violation of NPOV by using outside input or any actual reference to the principles of NPOV, and instead just rehashed the actual naming dispute on the talk page, while in general, the supporting arguments given for the change were pretty weak, for example, that it had been like this for a long time, or that it should be like this otherwise people will make a fuss/remove it from 'Irish articles', or that the proposed alternate name(s) of the British Isles used in Ireland is an issue of WP:ENGVAR, like color and colour.
These weak arguments certainly do not outweigh the fact the template as is now violates NPOV, which does not mandate altering what the pedia says based on what article people are reading. (c.f. the NPOV resolution of disputes like what to call the city of Derry/Londonderry, which was that the city article is presented as Derry on all articles, and the county is presented as County Londonderry on all articles. Similarly, where there is risk of confusion, Republic of Ireland is presented as such on all articles, and where there is no risk of confusion, it is presented as Ireland on all articles.)
This is because the neutral point of view ensures that all articles are neutral, and instead of pandering to the controversy, it teaches the controversy, while presenting a consistent outlook based on logic, not emotion. This is already more than adequately acheived through the existence of the already aforementioned 'dispute' article, and its inclusion on the template. Writing from the NPOV quite obviously would not support a position where Irish readers reeading Irish articles will be presented with one world view, and presumably like that, and British readers reading British articles will be presented with another, and also presumably like that. And when reversed, Irish readers reading British articles, or vice versa, will then be presumably outraged. That's not the sign of a neutral reference work is it?
And while it cannot be disputed that some Irish people object to the term, they at least understand its current meaning outside of Ireland, even if they don't accept it, and there really is no commonly accepted alternative that could be used as a well understood universal replacement term for the displayed title of the template, that would best assist all readers in knowing what main article the template serves. (Not to delve too deeply into the dispute, but the commonly offered alternative of just 'Britain and Ireland' is not good at all - it is easily confused to mean ' UK and (Republic of) Ireland', rather than ' Great Britain and Ireland', and the fact that the entity of the 'British Isles' does infact encompass more territories, states, and topics, than just 'Great Britain and Ireland'.) And of course, the fact that article is actualy still called British Isles too makes it the obvious choice.
Before posting here, due to the fact this change could not apparently be reversed, therefore, according to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Reasons to delete a template number 4, violation of NPOV, I put the template up for deletion. That was less than succesful, due to the fact I think most of the people misunderstood the nomination, and presumed I was asking to rename the template, which I am pretty obviously not proposing. Many of the rest believe that it can be solved through further discussion. Some thought there was no issue, but I think that is wholy wrong, based on all the above. So, here I am, seeking more feedback on its appropriateness w.r.t WP:NPOV.
In my view, NPOV does not allow this coding, and if the template cannot be deleted and is thus still to being used, it should follow the principle of least surprise, and follow the format used on all other templates - the title should be displayed as " British Isles" on all articles where the template is used.
MickMacNee (
talk) 01:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As the Main Page is not really encyclopedic, should the NPOV principle be applied to it? One issue that leads to this question is whether to use a disclaimer warning before the appearance of controversial content (pictures of genitals, images of Muhammad, plot spoilers) on the Main Page. The main reason disclaimers aren't used is that whatever is controversial depends on the editor's point of view, and therefore adding a disclaimer violates NPOV, and so it cannot be used in an article.
Which brings us to the initial question: should the Main Page be subject to NPOV? Why? Why not?
The question can also be extended to censorship on the Main Page -- given the non-encyclopedic status of the Main Page, is it necessary to keep open the possibility of displaying a vagina on the Main Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 October 2010
After long discussions at talk User:Quantum666 deleted [5] previously added info from the reliable sources as he believes only in official version of events by Soviet KGB, while he is sure Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov is not a neutral source [6]. He deleted not only Sakharov's opinion about the events, but also the part about Moscow Helsinki Group official statement, information from Memorial's official site and reliable sources printed in USA (see [7], [8], [9]), as he believes noone of them made official investigations like KGB done. Another dubios edit with "Some people believe September 11 attacks were arranged by CIA" editsum [10], to support the version by KGB, while human rights activists in contrary made parralels between the 1977 Moscow bombings and the Burning of the Reichstag [11]. Quantum666 made dubious statements like "We can mention this information later but according to WP:WEIGHT we should leave only the major opinions summarizing the article. They are the official version and Moscow Helsinki Group statement which represents most of the dissidents" (later he deleted MHG statement too), see [12]). An uninvolved admin's help is appreciated. Andranikpasha ( talk) 06:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I've protected Nicosia because of a dispute as to whether it should mention/have the flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).. The argument against (copied from an editor's comments at my talk page) is that ". The TRNC is not a legal entity as far as the United Nations and all nations in the world are concerned (and according to international law). The only country that recognises the TRNC as a state is Turkey itself. Therefore, the flag of the TRNC should be removed from the article as this is in violation of international law and UN decisions. If one wishes to refer to the population statistics in the nothern part of the island he should refer to it in the following way: occupied territory/ nothern sector occupied by Turkey/ nothern sector not controlled by the sole internationally recognised government of the island which is the Republic of Cyprus." This dispute raises its head every few months. I'd appreciate comments here and/or the article talk page. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Given this, can we move from full protection to semi-protection to allow editors to continue to make non-controversial edits to the page that improve it. Now there is a discussion open and edit warring is unlikely to start again, but if it does, than I would support fully-protecting the page. Outback the koala ( talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I realise this might have cause some degree of up raw, and many debate on the various aspects of this article, as of course they do with many geopolitical situations. But the facts should remain. Wikipedia endeavours to promote pure facts and nothing more. I bring reference to the following phrase (and any subsequent phrases containing the name):
Nicosia (IPA: /ˌnɪkəˈsiːə/, NIK-ə-SEE-ə), known locally as Lefkosia (Greek: Λευκωσία, Turkish: Lefkoşa), is the capital and largest city of both Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Should be more accurate and indeed consistent with other Wiki articles to present like so:
is the capital and largest city of Cyprus
Or, as an added option:
is the capital and largest city of both the Republic of Cyprus and the separate Turkish Cypriot political entity in the north
No International organisation or NGO makes reference to the entity in the north as a “Republic”, neither the UN, NATO or the EU. I am sure Wikipedia should adopt a similar position, remain neutral until the situation is resolved and uphold its integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikettg ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Before I stop editing this article (due to it being overly contentious for a me to be allowed to assist) I wanted to post a note on the neutrality of this article. It seems to be locked in a stalemate of sorts, with a single group of editors including ( User:Hans Adler) keeping it from being improved. Now, I don't know all the circumstances or reasons behind all this, but what I perceive (and attempted to fix) was a strong WP:Systemic Bias against the subject in question. I would like the community to take a look at this article and see if it could be cleaned up and neutralized substantially. I am personally going to stop editing it, because certain editors involved felt that my efforts were to contentious, and I am currently dealing with an ANI report on my history and prior user accounts due to my interference in the "status quo". Good luck to all the editors who really desire to improve this article, and I hope it works out...-- Novus Orator 04:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello a wikipedia artical is being used to attack a living individual, notes have been made and suggestions have been given but the articial in question has not been cleaned up to give a neutral point of view, also a particular editor of the artical has been using this artical as a personal page to promote external web links and use them to attack the individual, why does wikipedia permit such behaviour, there must be a legal point to be considered upon the listed lack of neutral editing and personal attacks through defamation False_titles_of_nobility this artical needs to be cleaned up can someone help in making wikipedia a more friendly and neutral place to read and edit, thanks. Johnkennedy58 ( talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd very much appreciate some input on the Fathers' rights movement article. In particularity this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fathers%27_rights_movement&oldid=391552210 is what a user tends to revert the page to. It has significant and long standing POV problems. Some months ago User:67.170.133.232 using the name "CS" raised serious concerns in the talk section of the Father's Right article. Few of the concerns have been addressed since and other editors share the same view. CS states: "the FRM article is biased and doesn't have a neutral point of view. It seems like most paragraphs have a comment or citation from someone opposed to the FRM. Good examples are the "political and social views" section, and "Beliefs and Activities". More than half the paragraphs are peppered with attacks or comments about associations with violence and disorderly conduct (which is based on the actions of a few individuals that claim membership in the group). Honestly, in the "Demographics - Political and social view" section, do you really think it's appropriate to start a paragraph about transcending gender roles with "The movement has been described as part of a gender war in response to increasing female power in Western society", for example? This statement is used deceptively. It's source is an article in the Guardian that mentions that the idea was speculated in a book by Susan Faludi. Ultimately, when you track the statement down through these sources, it is purely the speculation of a Ms. Faladi. This is preposterously non-neutral editing. Every section contains mentions of the FRM's ideas followed by criticism and attacks, many of which are tenuous and from sources of dubious credibility. Another example is the section "Shared parenting" with the comment "Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children". Who on earth considers this scholarly? I can find feminist authors that assert that any heterosexual sex between men and women is sexual assault (Andrea Dworkin) or that maleness is a birth-defect comparable to blindness, that men are a 'biological accident' and the male sex should be destroyed (Valerie Solanas). In any other article, most of these criticisms would be included toward the end of the article in a seperate "Criticism" section, instead of being used to undermine the fair presentation of FRM's position in almost every paragraph."
Others have also noted the article is an attack piece in many sections and is "a coatrack for criticisms of the FRM" I agree with these views, certain sections of the article are especially problematic. My additional concerns are as follows:
I should add that I haven't yet identified who has added all the problematic material or issed any guidance. Others have attempted to make changes but these have mostly been reverted by user/administrator User:Slp1. She has contributed extensively to the piece and acknowledged one or two concerns but generally problems have been dismissed in the talk page with the defence that they're "cited to scholarly, academic books about the topic". As yet I haven't attempted any edits due to the attitude of denial of the problem in the talk page. Sorry this is so long and many thanks for your help.-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am a new editor and I'm not all that familiar with practices yet. I've previously posted a request here but if you read it you can see that I'm not happy with the logic which is being displayed.
The issue is this: the article [Ulster Defence Regiment] contains a substantial number of references to Major John Potter, the author of "A Testament To Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment)". Although these references are attributed there is nothing in the article to suggest to a reader why this author has the authority to comment or state facts about the regiment. I wish to change this by reducing the number of comments attributed as opinion to the man and placing an informative paragraph to tell readers of the article why he (Potter) is qualified to make factual statements on the grounds that:
1. He compiled the official history of the regiment which is now held at the British Ministry of Defence under a time dependent release policy. 2. His book was vetted by and approved (although not endorsed - as is common) by the British Ministry of Defence. 3. His invitation by the Colonels Commandant to compile the official history entitles him to be referred to as "Official Historian". 4. His own extensive experience with the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment (22 years with the latter) and his rank of Major make him a qualified person to comment on aspects of the regiment's history as an informed and reliable source.
I am aware that in his own preface he informs readers that some of his opinions are his own and are unsupported elsewhere, although his text does contain many third party references. I believe I am sensible enough to avoid using his personal opinion as more than just that and properly attributing the opinion to him.
I need to advise anyone who wishes to assist that there is a long, detailed and at times very daunting, archive of previous discussion where the same names keep occuring over several years. This appears to have resulted in some people being banned from Wikipedia and others leaving. The article has been the result of at least one arbitration and is currently on editing restriction. I personally do not want to get drawn into the horrible and counterproductive bickering which seems to be associated with this (and other) articles on the Irish Troubles but I do think that sensible editing could improve the (already excellent) article.
I am also posting this request at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source to try and get as many neutral opinions as possible and avoid doing anything which is going to look as if I am trying to ram a point home and cause upset. All sensible comments appreciated. SonofSetanta ( talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel this is getting somewhere. Some of my own points are highlighted here, particulary the over attribution of Potter when he quotes facts. What I would like to do is remove those attributions where relevant and to include wording which attributes the compilation of the official history to Potter but which points out that the book is a NOT that official history. To me the sensible thing is to call Potter the "Official Historian" or "compiler of the official history". Am I on the right track? SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
During the dispute on the
Communist terrorism talk page many editors argued that in actuality the article tells mostly about Left wing terrorist groups, therefore, the article name should be changed to the more general
Leftist terrorism (which currently is just a redirect page). Their opponents argued that the term "Communist terrorism" is frequently used by various authors. To check what term is more frequently applied to the terrorist groups described in the article I made a systematic google scholar search for each article's topic. I found that the words "left wing terrorism" are applied much more frequently to these groups than the words "Communist terrorism" (for details, see
[28]: I demonstrated that much more articles use the words "Left wing terrorism" and do not use the words "Communist terrorism" to describe leftist terrorist groups, whereas the amount of the articles that use the words "Communist terrorism" and do not use the words "Left wing terrorism" in the same context is much smaller)). Obviously, this my activity cannot constitute original research because I do not propose to create a new content, just to find out what terminology is the most common among the scholars.
Obviously, the search result demonstrate that the article's name does not reflect the opinion of majority scholars, and therefore is not neutral. The neutrality issue can be easily fixed by switching redirects (instead of
Leftist terrorism ->
Communist terrorism to do vice versa). In connection to that, do I need to wait for consensus to rename the article, or, per
WP:NEUTRAL the consensus cannot take precedence over neutrality requirements?--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
WP does not use google to decide on article titles. Collect ( talk) 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
BC and AD have been accepted abbreviations to refer to periods of time before and after the birth of Christ for hundreds of years. Proponents of the absurd BCE/CE, which supposedly stands for 'before the common era' (common to whom we may ask) and 'of the common era' may claim that they are being 'neutral'. However, the decision to introduce these abbreviations is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention.
Where now does the argument of 'neutrality' lie?
Incidentally, these abbreviations can equally mean 'before the Christian era' and 'of the Christian era', hardly an escape into political correctness. If we wanted to be culturally neutral, we would have to introduce a new term with unambiguous abbreviations, such as OTR (older time reference) and MTR (modern time reference). See how that catches on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
[We should not] unreasonably make mainstream academic opinion the highest authority and set it above all other criteria such as moral and ethical considerations.... (1) mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories, and (2) in the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories just as previously it had allowed itself to be dominated by racist ones. This demonstrates that the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed.
Could editors please comment whether the above statement, which is part of the discussion at Talk:Communist terrorism, fairly represents the policy of neutrality. TFD ( talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that an RfC was instituted and almost immediately removed (due to answers obtained there?) by the person asking here. See also [29], [30] etc., [31] is particularly apt. The number of edits on the article talk page is getting absurd at this point as well, with only two editors accounting for over 420 edits to the talk page, it is time to simply say "basta". There is really a limit as to the number of forums used for essentially the same issues. Collect ( talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please allow me to point out that the reason that we give scholarly sources a higher level of credibility is not because scholarly sources are right, but because scholarly sources (unlike most of the rest of the world) are self-reflective, reasonable, and cautious. Yes, scholarly sources in the early twentieth century had some decided racist qualities - but they learned better. yes scholarly sources in the mid twentieth century had socialist leanings - but they have progressively eliminated the radical, unsupported elements of marxist theory and refined the useful elements of it into better theories. Scholarship is marked by the willingness to advance an opinion while retaining an open mind. I don't know what the conflict here is, but with anything in the 'socialism' topic area, one needs to very, very carefully distinguish between scholarly theory and the problematical uses that scholarly theories get put to by others. the classic example of this, of course, is the fact that Marx never advocated for revolution. He merely stated that he thought revolution would be an inevitable outcome of the capitalist system (as it was practiced in his time). other people read that and decided that if revolution were inevitable they might as well go and start one. People are inane. If you present the theory for what it is and separate out the politics of it, things should be less confusing. -- Ludwigs2 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please assist cleanup of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishayahu_Yosef_Pinto Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed Users are solely joining WIki for this purpose and should be banned
This dispute concerns an article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that discusses the American Academy of Financial Management. [32] It accused the AAFM of being a credentials mills. Some editors think that if this article is included, then all articles from the WSJ that mention the article should be included. [33] They also insist that a number of statement that I have removed were well-sourced; they did have citations, but the citations say nothing to the point (e.g., having the address listed in government directory to support that only the US version AAFM can grant certain credentials). The two different versions of the article this and this.
Some background. This article has a long history of COI, NPOV, ARTSPAM, and SOCK problems. The article was originally an advertisement that survived an AfD. I trimmed the advertising puffery and removed the advert template. Then there was a dispute within the AAFM that got fought out on this page (some members thought it had become a credentials mill and formed the International Academy of Financial Management, both sides claiming to be the "real" voice of the organization and thus lay claim to ownership of the page). In the meantime, the puffery that I had removed crept back in. The person who initially added the WSJ criticism of the AAFM was almost certainly part of the splinter IAFM, happy to embarrass his former colleagues, but the source was reliable and the criticism notable. This article needs regular policing, and I would appreciate some help. RJC Talk Contribs 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Several images have recently been added to this article in the Transportation Security Administration#2010 screening procedures section. Two of the images I've got no problem with - they illustrate what the TSA agent will see on their screen. One of the others I don't think should be in the article. One of the images [34] is from 2007 and shows the backscatter technology, but it's not what the TSA uses. There is no blurring algorithm. I don't think that image is an accurate portrayal of what the TSA uses and pushes a POV. For the main Backscatter X-ray article it's absolutely helpful, but on the TSA article, it's misrepresenting what a TSA agent can see. The other editor and I have gotten in a WP:LAME slow edit-war on this. We've had one other editor comment on the talk page that the image should not be included, but I'd like more comments on this issue. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This section may have NPOV issues. Someone is out to make a point; I removed numerous instances of bold syntax that were inserted to put emphasis on negative coverage, as well as unrelated images with undue weight captions, some potentially libelous, others obviously provocative. If someone who knows the subject a bit more can check it out... diff. [CharlieEchoTango] 18:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the very serious economic difficulties that Ireland is suffering (with knock on effect for all of Europe) it is envitable that the Irish banking sector and the serious regulatory failings this organisation is guilty of, will generate adverse comment. The facts are not in dispute and are accepted by the new management, all politicians in the country, the media, the European Commission and its ultimate parent the European Central Bank. The article is well referenced and while damning is unfortunately true and accurate. Great things are expected from the new management and in time they should be able to generate positive content to balance the article.
Glic16 ( talk) 21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The lead sentence of Analytical engine is "The analytical engine, an important step in the history of computers, was the design of a mechanical general-purpose computer by English mathematician Charles Babbage." (Emphasis added.) There are two problems, as I see it, with the unattributed subjective statement in the middle. (Actually three, the third being that it's just non-substantive filler that keeps the reader from getting to the important stuff, but that's not an issue for this forum.) The first problem is that it's not in line with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guideline. (We would never permit an article to begin "George Washington, an important U.S. president..." or "Tom Hanks, an important American actor...") The second problem is that it's not true, or in any case could give a false impression in that it could lead a reader to think that the analytical engine was diligently pursued and led eventually to the creation of modern computers, or in some way inspired the inventors of modern electronic computers, when the reality is that the machine was never built and was more or less forgotten until rediscovered by historians looking for anticipating work in the wake of the success of modern electronic computers. My suggestion is simple--excise the offending phrase from the lead and describe any controversy fuller and with proper attribution later in the article. This proposal has been met with resistance. The relevant talk section is here. Thanks, Robert K S ( talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to report that Death panel is again giving problems.
Some editors have been rather selective as to which alleged real life "death panels" the article can mention. An editor (not me) added text sourced from this article] from the journal Foreign Policy. As with my previous complain about POV pushing at this article, this time again the editors have again tried to edit IN reference to Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as "death panel" identified by the authors (which they scored as only 15 out of 100 for meeting the criteria of being a "death panel"). They also included several others that were rated. But missing from the WP article was reference to Foreign Policy magazine's TOP death panel, which they identified as government ordered executions in cases of murder and treason (which only 2 out of the OECD's 34 countries still endorse). So I added it to the article. Now two editors have deleted this on the grounds that FP magazine's definition of "death panel" does not meet their own preferred definition. The argument about this can be read [ here].
Palin was not exactly trying to get us to think about the complexities of medical ethics when she conjured up an image of her elderly parents and her disabled son having to beg for their very existence before "Obama's death panel". She wanted the emotional recoil of a death squad to be associated with the new law. Now I am NOT arguing that THAT argument be inserted into the article. That would not be right unless there is a proper source for that. BUT including SOME alleged death panels from the FP article with a LOW rating but excluding the TOP rated death panel with the highest rating does seem to me to be a little bit like POV pushing. I think we have to include FPs top death panel.
There is a good deal of POV pushing and something of an editing cabal at work at this article. I am therefore asking, VERY KINDLY for comments ONLY from experienced editors who HAVE NOT previously edited Death Panel or Sarah Palin, excepting of course the two editors who deleted my insertion into the article. Others who HAVE edited these two articles can by all means leave your comments in the appropriate section of the TALK page. I am sure NPOVN reviewers will wish to see your comments there. If anyone breeches this request I will simply flag up their comments so that independent reviewers are aware of which comments may potentially be from Palin followers or opponents. Hauskalainen ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This article definitely needs to be tagged for NPOV, but I don't know how to do it, and I don't know enough about the subject to fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.239.157 ( talk) 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
{pov} but with {{ }} is the general tag. Before tagging an article, you should take your issue to the
discussion page or editors responsible for most of the article's content. See
WP:TAGGING for clarity.
Wikifan12345 (
talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Non Neutral point of view
The article as written is non neutral giving the reader the assumption that Thomas Jefferson agrees with a modern interpretation of “Separation of Church and state” attempts to give a balanced version of Jefferson’s view has been censored, and I am told the Library of Congress is not a valid source to quote from.
Also no one wants to discuss the obvious slanted “Father of a university” statement “specifically one free of church influences” which shows a non neutral point of view that is opposed to historical documents. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Prior to the University of Virginia many institutions had a Professor of Divinity who taught a specific Christian sect. Jefferson wanted all Christian sects on a equal footing.
If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why would he then establish the duty of the Professor of Ethics to teach Christian values in a way that does not hold one Christian sect above another.
“In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics; to which adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, a basis will be formed common to all sects. Proceeding thus far without offence to the Constitution, we have thought it proper -442-“ _________________________________________________________
Further prove religious study was taught…
It was not, however, to be understood that instruction in religious opinions and duties was meant to be precluded by the public authorities as indifferent to the interests of society. On the contrary, the relations which exist between man and his Maker – and the duties resulting from those relations – are the most interesting and important to every human being and the most incumbent on his study and investigation.
Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, p. 414, Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822. http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ___________________________________________________________
If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why didn’t he object to this prayer being said at the laying of the cornerstone for the University of Virginia?
“May allmighty God, without invocation to whom, no work of importance should be begun, bless this undertaking and enable us to carry it on with success -- protect this College, the object of which institution, is to instill into the minds of Youth principles of sound knowledge. To inspire them with the love of religion & virtue, and prepare them for filling the various situations in society with credit to themselves and benefit to their country”
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Jef1Gri.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=47&division=div1 ___________________________________________________________
If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why did he order the University Rotunda be used for several things including religious worship and why was it “expected” that students attend religious worship services of their respective sects?
Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, pp. 449-450, “A Meeting of the Visitors of the University of Virginia on Monday the 4th of October, 1824.” http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) ____________________________________________________ -MarkGlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
So since I proved your wrong your argument is I didn’t write it right? Still claim to be non bias?
Citing someone who’s cites others with the same bias and not historical documents related to the point in question is a self fulfilling prophecy, which is probably just what you wanted.-- Markglad ( talk) 04:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
A user recently put the neutrality dispute template on Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia article beacuse of the infobox, [35]. Can a infobox violate the neutrality rules on wikipedia? Spongie555 ( talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This article reads more like a lecture or rant against Egypt's political system in general than a neutral, encyclopedic article about a political party. While this page abounds in notes about how corrupt Egypt's system is, it fails to even have a section on the party's ideology - something even authoritarian parties like the Communist Party of China include. Toa Nidhiki 05 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
He deletes information from one certain article, but when is reminded that this information is also in another article - he does nothing about it, he only doesn't like it when it's in certain article as if he's guarding this article from "unfavored" information. Later on, here (the case was closed before I could reply to the latter posts), I proved that the link, on which this information is based, is reliable (comment signed at 17:07, 28 January 2011). A blame can't be laid on a simple user for not following the neutral policy (aka not applying double standards), but when an admin, who while acquiring admin rights also acquires the responsibility before wikipedia, violates this policy - he (an admin) should be hold accountable, but if you're ok with a hypocrite admin, ok then.
tl;dr the admin deleted one info from Palin's article, and when was told that the same information is in another article and that he should first delete it from there, as it first appeared there, he did nothing, nor he did anything after 7 days lasted since he was reminded about it and the info is still in that, another article. I told it already, it's not a problem for myself to delete it from there, but I didn't do it so that it will prove what I said, the admin Horologium is hypocrite. He didn't like this info to be in Palin's article but he's ok with being it in another article. Userpd ( talk) 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(undent) Would someone in charge use this teaching opportunity to inform a certain editor NOT to interject his reply WITHIN another editors comments. While those of us watching will know that editing eti1uette was NOT followed, future editors will be confused. They say that experience is the best teacher. Sometimes I'm not so sure. Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
A problem has again risen at the Unite Against Fascism article. This is over inclusion of the phrase “they have been represented as left wing or far left by certain elements of the press” [ [36]]. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This has long since been resolved in prior discussions at RSN; there is no serious question that there are multiple, reliable sources that describe UAF as "left wing". What NPOV requires is that the Wikipedia article accurately reflect what reliable sources say on the subject. It is appropriate that the article state, with attribution, that these reliable sources characterize UAF as left wing; it is also appropriate that, in counterpoint, and with sources, that UAF simply characterizes itself as anti-fascist, and claims support by politicians across the political spectrum (excepting fascists, I would guess). This should not be controversial in the least, and I confess to being utterly baffled as to why this debate should slog on month after month across multiple noticeboards. Fladrif ( talk) 16:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Now, I am not saying that all the edits on this page are meant to tilt the POV one way or another, but in the last week or so (of the last 500 edits on the page dating back to Feb 2009, about 300 are from the last 7 or 8 days) there seems to be a lot of changing and removal of sources and changing/removal/rewriting of recent events (notably the casualty count, including something about '10 Thai military bases [being] destroyed' that keeps appearing and disappearing, and back-and-forth rewriting of a a part about Cambodian soldiers occupying contested ruins. I tried to revert what I felt were some suspicious edits by an IP user yesterday (the edits made seemed to inflate the Thai casualties, without sources), but this was reverted by another user who seems to have a contribution history consisting of focusing on this article and Cambodia-related items. I'm not going to stick my nose in the article again, but I felt that I should let someone know that this should probably be looked into, and possibly get stricter enforcement on this article (especially since its linked on the recent events on the main page).-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS issue at the above article... background: Last week subject (a notable Muslem Israeli politician) was scheduled to give a speech at Edinburgh University, but the speech was interrupted by protesters.
Discussion of this "incident" currently takes up over a third of the article, which I think is excessive given the context of a bio article. I removed the section as giving Undue weight to what I view as a relatively minor event ... and because it happened so recently that mentioning it amounts to a NOTNEWS violation. Unfortunately, I was reverted with the usual NOTNEWS rebuttal of "discussed by reliable sources" (ie a few newspapers). Second opinions are requested. 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm having some trouble with a dispute with User:143.188.101.65 (IP seems to be stable) at Vang Vieng. Over the past several weeks, he/she has repeatedly (six times I believe) tried to add this text to the article:
It is my opinion that, without reference to any sources of any kind, describing a town as "full of western tourists nursing their hangovers from both alcohol and opium," having "changed drastically - for the worse," "no longer a magical place," and "a rather depressing place" is a substantial violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Essentially none of this is encyclopedic. Portions could be included if they are backed by citations to reliable sources (e.g. news reports of increased crime statistics, published academic papers on the disillusionment of locals in the face of increased tourism, etc...), but without any sources, it's simply an opinion piece and a derogatory one to boot.
I made some efforts to discuss the issue with the user on my talk page at User talk:Zachlipton#Vang Vieng. I attempted to explain the basics of NPOV and encouraged the editor to look for reliable sources that address these issues, as they could then potentially be woven into the article. His response is that he has spent a lot of time there and the information is accurate based on his own experiences, and that (apparently referring to me) "But then you cant educate a fool, because they just dont listen."
Several other editors have also mentioned this issue at Talk:Vang Vieng and reverted this content, but this user continues to add it. I feel I've done all I reasonably can to educate, so I'm hoping other editors here have other ideas. Zachlipton ( talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a policy or guideline that applies to labeling of organizations and individuals? For example, the American Enterprise Institute is labeled as "conservative." Should it be if multiple prominent reliable sources label it as such? Should it be if a majority of reliable sources label it as such (I know that is virtually impossible to determine, but one way to loosely gauge this is to consult Google News results)? Or should labeling in Wikipedia's voice be avoided entirely? Labeling is fairly common in WP, but not with any consistent standards. Drrll ( talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The section titled "Crisis Pregnancy Centres" is terribly biased, based on opinion, not fact. This is it in its entirety: "Crisis Pregnancy Centres and other offices provide counselling to pregnant women. They have been established by organizations such as Birthright. These organizations, as part of their "counselling", they often use fraudulent means to convince women not to have abortions, and neglect to tell women that they do not offer abortions[34]. Under government legislation, the counsellors are not permitted to directly advise an individual to not obtain an abortion, although many Crisis pregnancy centres will not train volunteers who believe that abortion is acceptable. They are known for giving women false information[35], using scare tactics[36], and making false promises[37] to convince them not to have abortions. After a woman has had her baby, she will often never hear from the crisis pregnancy centre again, despite any help they may have promised her. If a woman chooses to abort after visiting a crisis pregnancy centre, she will often be stalked or harassed by the staff"
The citations are all to sites that, again, are horribly biased and this article clearly has an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.162.110.34 ( talk) 01:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is in urgent need of improvement. It was proposed for deletion, which I declined, but despite definitely being notable ( books, scholarly articles) it appears to be non-neutral and to have sourcing issues. Fences& Windows 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The addition of the following is being contested: In The Wall Street Journal, columnist and deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens commented that the Arab world's proclivity for believing in Zionist conspiracy theories like the Mossad shark to explain their problems points to "the debasement of the Arab mind." source.
To me, there appears to be a number of issues, "the debasement of the Arab mind." has been characterized as racist by at least 2 editors, the writer of the piece seems to have a strong predisposition which is not made clear, and the factual accuracy of his statement seems to be undermined by other sources; it is unclear if the "Mossad Shark" was ever seriously subscribed to. A small edit war (necessarily so as the article is under 1rr) is brewing involving a number of editors. Comments invited. u n☯ mi 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute at the Jerusalem article over whether Wikipedia can describe it as "the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." It is stated in many RS that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, or not recognized as the capital (everyone agrees on that), and thus the question is whether Wikipedia can state that it is the capital even though these RS contradict that statement. An alternate text has been proposed, which says "Today Jerusalem is controlled by the state of Israel, which claims it as its capital. That status has been rejected by the international community, which considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation." Please comment. BE——Critical__ Talk 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
LightSquared ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) As mentioned by another editor on the talk page, this topic is contentious and vulnerable to POV edits from both those with an interest in GPS technology and those with an interest in the company. At this point probably just increasing the visibility of the article on uninvolved watchlists and getting additional editors involved may be enough, but it does appear to merit attention. VQuakr ( talk) 05:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This material, in various forms, has been repeatedly removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article:
"More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation."
This line is supported by four references:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/ http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
Here is a diff of the latest deletion:
Here is a link to the latest discussion on the article talk page:
The previous extensive discussion from the talk page archive is here:
Here is the recent discussion from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which was apparently archived without resolution:
It is not neutral point of view to omit this highly relevant material from the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the article. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you arguing that it's not notable that 1,000 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation into the building collapses, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Ghostofnemo ( talk)
Uomi, that is not what the source says. 9/11 truther group claims that 1,000 engineers and architects has signed its petition. (cite Washington post). Now, we apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE: who cares if a fringe group claims that 1,000 imaginary architects and engineers have signed their petition? (Flat Earth Society claims that 1,000 physicists have signed their petition. Yeah right.) This fact is only relevant to an article about the truther group, or possibly in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, to demonstrate the delusional nature of the claims. Nobody has verified that 1,000 engineers and architects have signed the petition. Quite likely this is pure posturing by a fringe group. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Time Magazine calls the 9/11 Truth Movement a "mainstream political reality" giving their views notability. A press conference to announce the petition was held in major cities in countries around the world. The petition itself as far as I know is not promoting any conspiracy theory but is simply a call for an independent investigation, an action that is supported by the majority of the public not to mention some of the members of the 911 commission which makes it undue not to mention it. The petition is signed by notable people speaking in their area of expertise which is notable. Despite the large number of engineers and architects, the vast majority have not taken a position on 911 and it is quite possible that the signers of the petition form the majority of engineers and architects who have have commented on 911. I have not read the petition but if it does not promote any specific conspiracy then I cant see any legitimate reason not to mention it. Wayne ( talk) 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat hesitantly, I created the article " Bunga bunga". (I comment on my hesitation here.) An inexperienced user slapped a "Neutrality" tag on it and commented in its talk page, but didn't mention the matter here. Unsurprisingly, nothing much has happened since. So perhaps one or two people reading this could come along to the article and take a look. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Two possible edits for the lede are afforded by one source. One possible choice is:
The other using the exact same source has:
The first was rejected by one editor as a That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the source. I am 'absolutely certain' of your good faith, of course. I ask totally disinterested editors to examine the cite "^ McLean, Iain; McMilan, Alistair, eds (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Stephen Fisher, contributor of entry for "right(–wing)." (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5 (Paperback). http://books.google.com/books?id=KQXLgP6CZBkC&pg=PA465. Alternate ID for this edition: ISBN 978-0-19-920780-0 (Hardback). " and see if the first represents the entry fairly, if the first is a "ridiculous misrepresentation" of the entry, and similarly of the second presentation of the dictionary entry. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus and I have stated on the article's talk page that, per NPOV, the article's title is not neutral and should be changed. I also pointed out that the article content needs to change to include both positive and negative views of Wikipedia. IanMacM opposes these changes, apparently wanting the article to be considered an acceptable exception to NPOV. I would appreciate any feedback you could give. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to what was said above, the little known essay WP:Criticism (about 30 page views per day) does not say that there should be no articles with titles of the form "Criticism of X" but merely discourages them and stresses that such articles should be about positive and negative reception. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad have the same problem that Criticism of Wikipedia has and must also be fixed, not taken as examples. The fact that articles of such relative prominence can have this POV problem for such a long time (I couldn't even find corresponding articles on positive criticism), suggests that perhaps we should make "Criticism of" titles illegal just to be clear. While combined articles of positive and negative reception might become too big, there are usually other, better, ways of splitting them. Hans Adler 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Judith: FWIW I don't actually think that is the process by which most of these articles come about. Perhaps editors at Talk:Muhammad saw one day that the article was a bit long and decided the most sensible and least contentious thing to would be to create Criticism of Muhammad. On the other hand, perhaps someone wanted there to be a Criticism if Muhammad article so they created one. Criticism of Israel was created by a user who had failed to get consensus for a section under that title in Israel. It's under AfD, which it will probably survive because predictable ITEXISTS and IMPROVE arguments have been made.
The impossibility of NPOV isn't the only problem, although its a big one. NPOV applies to all articles and it is one policy, so it won't do to say, as JJ suggests, "well, this articles a little different because we've restricted its scope". Negative criticism always needs balancing with positive criticism, per NPOV. What if the subject of the article is a genius and has led an exemplary life, but have five points of noteworthy criticism on which he bang-to-rights. To the extent that any attempted defence would be WP:FRINGE? Would it then be okay to create an article which was a pure character assassination? Negative criticism should be balanced by positive criticism. Trying to balance it with defence against the negative criticism doesn't give neutrality, because the defence may be genuinely weak. Particularly a problem where BLP is concerned. The other problem is with divorcing criticism from context by putting into an article which does not give an overall picture of the subject.
In Criticism of Noam Chomsky, nearly all the criticism is divorced from the relevant contextual information which is contained in other articles, so that all we can ascertain is that this laundry list of people have had a pop at Chomsky at some point, but we don't know why. Various people have had trouble with "Chomskyan linguistics", but what is this? What aspect of it did they object to? Because the "Criticism" article is obliged not to spend any time on these details, we're not left any wiser about very much for having read it. In 1969, Chomsky wrote a book it seems and someone suggested that he misquoted someone and maybe he did but it may not have been very important anyway. But what was the book about? How did it fit with his other work? What was the particular issue and why might it have mattered? Again, the article requires economy as far as details go, so it is not very enlightening. Steven Pinker is presented here amongst Chomsky's critics. The reader won't appreciate from this that Pinker is one of Chomsky's foremost acolytes and they have one really significant point of disagreement. Again, because the context is stripped away. These articles seem to me to focus on laundry-listing POV. They're just not good for encyplopedic writing. -- FormerIP ( talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposal 1 Thanks for the feedback so far! Here is one proposal for how to name the article, how to scope it and how to deal with the overlap between this article and three related ones: Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia in Culture. (There's also an Academic studies about Wikipedia article with overlap that needs to be dealt with.)
I might also develop a second proposal which would involve additional splitting up of the Criticism of Wikipedia content. Let me know what you think. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus and I have completed the merge and redirect, except that I decided to use a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Since the Criticism of Wikipedia content was split up among four articles, it seemed that a disambiguation page should be used to guide the readers. Although Reliability of Wikipedia would probably be the most common choice, I don't know that it would be more popular than all the others combined. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
On
Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia,
QuackGuru wrote the following complaint, which I copied here to keep as much of the discussion as possible in one place:
There is clearly no consensus to essentially delete (or merge) Criticism of Wikipedia. This topic is extrememly notable.
For the consensus issue, I would point out that WP:CONSENSUS says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions". In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, II was the last person to oppose the change, but later agreed to a change. There were no other complaints about changing the article for 28 days before the changes were made. Why wouldn't this constitutes consensus per Wikipedia policy?
For the notability issue, I agree that Criticism of Wikipedia is a notable subject. However, WP:N says that notability in and of itself does not necessarily justify the existance of an article. In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, the issues that led to its merge and replacement with a disambiguation page were lack of neutrality and redundancy with other articles. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Mind sports world championship has been flagged NPOV but without any comment left on the on the discussion page over an hour since it was tagged. I assume that this might be simply a problem with the wording of the opening sentence or naming, but I would like to know how to start a conversation to fix this issue?
I was using mind sports in its widely used sense such as for example the bridge (card game) official body who use it on their home page [44]. There is the problem there is no other conventient term that distinguishes sports from games of skill without controversy as it covers more than just card and board games. The reason for creating a longer list was as a result of the world championships page.
Tetron76 ( talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Tetron76 ( talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system. [3] In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. [4] However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states). [5]
This has been suggested as a new lede for the Communist terrorism article as the current one has failed verification and citation needed tags on it. It has been suggested that this proposal is not neutral, so I would like the opinions of some uninvolved editors on it. Tentontunic ( talk) 10:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
(out) None of the sources can be used to support the first sentence of your claim, "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". The rest of the sources read as follows:
It seems that this does not support a consistent definition - is it communist-inspired or communist-supported? Communists of course supported non-communist terrorism as well. Also, the third source, which was written by Brian Crozier, a military historian, for Transaction Publishers, may not be an ideal source.
TFD ( talk) 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This page is currently stuck over a dispute on including how many wives Mr. Bryant allegedly has had (he is a member of a "fundamentalist" Mormon sect which may or may not practice polygamy). There is an IP with an alleged conflict of interest who is trying to remove the information; there is a question over the veracity of the source (which is provided by an admin BTW). I encourage everyone to take a look and post any comments directly related to the dispute there (comments not directly related to the dispute, I suppose you can post here). Magog the Ogre ( talk) 22:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Duke_lacrosse_case deviates substantially from anything close to encyclopaedic, a balanced or reasonable perspective, in short it lacks a NPOV and is substantially biased. It makes some outrageous claims that are unsubstantiated, for example it states that an allegation of rape was false as a fact. It conflates Stripper with Escort with Prostitute in apparent attempt to denigrate the alleged victim and imply a prostitute cannot be raped. Attempts to even make minor improvements such are removing the unsubstantiated claims have been repeatedly reverted by sock puppet with an apparent vested interest, attempts to raise a NPOV discussion was removed. Article needs to be investigated via appropriate policy/authority. 77.86.81.199 ( talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate another set of eyes on Letitia Youmans. The discussion at Talk:Letitia Youmans#Autobiographies as Reliable Sources revolves around the use of large amounts of text copy-pasted from an autobiography. (I initially arrived at the page to investigate a G12 speedy tag, but determined the copied text was published in 1893 and therefore public domain -- so copyvio is not an problem.) The issue is whether the extensive use of autobiographical text alone constitutes a problem of NPOV. Additionally, whether the lack of any secondary sources referring to the copied text also is a NPOV problem as well as OR. — CactusWriter (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Willfults ( talk · contribs) has been trying to push a SDA POV in the Waldensians article to make them appear older than they themselves claim they are.
He has been using outdated and biased sources (Protestant journals and books from the 1800s), even something by Uriah Smith, trying to pass it off as "mainstream opinion" (see diff 2).
The Waldensians say that they started with Peter Waldo, contemporary sources say they started with Peter Waldo, modern secular academia says they started with Peter Waldo, it is only select groups such as certain Baptists, Methodists, and Seventh Day Adventists, who make any claim that they are older. As anti-Catholic bias has left English speaking academia, the idea that the Waldensians are older than Waldo has come to be rejected (because the only reason anyone pushed for it was such a bias).
We have discussed this on my talk page, and in edit summaries for the Waldensian article. When it appears I'm the only one, he's happy to revert me, but when I state that I'm going to get anyone else involved, he quits, which kinda indicates he knows that others aren't going to support his axe-grinding. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually I welcome a third party. I actually took a vacation, I didn't get scared lol. I'm simply trying to add that the founding date of the Waldensians is disputed, however Ian has been well, somewhat angry at this. As he himself mentions there is two interpretations, Protestant and Catholic. Both are rather mainstream. Both opinions are still held by a large quantity of people in modern academia. It just seems more neutral if we can say that their founding is disputed, as it is disputed. Willfults ( talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want comments from uninvolved users, it would be helpful if you could reformulate the question. If you can keep user conduct out of it for the time being, that would help too. To me on the face of it it would seem that historians, of any religious background or none, would be suitable sources, and so would theologians from various Christian denominations. I don't know if that advances things at all. It might be worth contacting WikiProject Christianity on this one. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it is simply wrong to describe the sides of the "dispute" as "Catholics" and "Protestants" when the article itself ( [50]) says: "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants claim that the Waldenses' history extends back to the Apostles.". That is, one side is not "Protestants", but only a small subset of Protestants (Seventh-day Adventists and the like), while the other side is not "Catholics", but "the rest of the world". For example, Britannica (hardly a Catholic publication) simply writes: "Waldenses, [...] members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, [...]" ( [51]) with no qualification. So, how much weight should the views of Seventh-day Adventists be given in an article concerning views of all Christians (the article like Waldensians, that should take secular views into account, could be expected to give even less weight to them)? Well, it is estimated that there are about 2 billions of Christians ( Christianity#Demographics - [52]) and about 15 millions of them are Seventh-day Adventists ( Seventh-day Adventist Church#Membership - [53]). Thus about 15 / 2000 * 100 = 0.75% of weight could be expected to be given to the views of Seventh-day Adventists (of course, that is just an estimate - the actual weight given in the reliable sources will be different in different cases)... So, the part about their views could probably be shortened - and, perhaps, given a better plan. Perhaps it would be enough to say that "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants" believe Waldensians are more ancient, and to note why do those groups find it to be important (because they see themselves as successors of Waldensians). Everything else can probably go to a separate article about this fringe theory (there will be enough sources to prove its notability, right?). -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 18:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
There are many issues with neutrality in this article at this time. User:CLL80 describes some of them very well in Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity. In addition, other users have attempted to contribute, but are being shut out. I have placed a NPOV notice on this page, and it has been removed without consensus. I feel that this should be posted here in order to alert other editors to this problem and possibly get some neutral editors involved. Xrin ( talk) 04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it customary to remove {{ peacock}} banners from the top of the page simply because there is none in the article? That's what has been happening here Special:Contributions/Editor2020, and for in one of the articles which I checked out Brunis Rubess, they still exist as in "he made the transition from the turmoil in Europe to the life of a very successful businessman in Canada." Thanks, Spencer T♦ C 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Potter's House Christian Fellowship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like some attention drawn here. The article has always been a mess but recently I have noticed some edit waring and nasty talk page discussion between some probable COI editors and opponets. THink some extra eyes and people cleaning up would be helpful to the over all situation. The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk + contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel that in the entire article that there is undue weight given to the Pro-homosexuality side. In the first section out of the opening titled "Homosexuality in the Bible" there is an outline that shows questions that pro-homosexual scholars have been asking. It feels as if it's an outline on what the author thinks Christians should do when researching biblical views on homosexuality. There is also a lack of talk about Homosexuality in the Bible except for, "There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior."
Through out the article prominent people favorable to homosexuality are listed by name. Few people critical of homosexuality as it pertains to religion are named and the ones that are aren't very prominent while there are prominent individuals known that are critical of homosexuality as it pertains to the Christian religion. The article does do alot to point out the reasonings behind the favorable sides points of view while neglecting the critical sides reasonings. In light of this I ask also that articles referring to other religions views on homosexuality be checked for neutrality.
This should neither be a pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality and religion piece. It should a neutral article about homosexuality and Christianity. Neutral and verifiable to the letter of wikipedias guidelines. Thanks for your time. 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 10:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Very sorry to have put you thru the trouble and thank you for the assistance. :) 70.15.191.119 ( talk) 13:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Per user Anthaenara, Gianfranco Chiarini'a Wikipedia article is written with bias and as a promotional. However, the article has been written and re-written several times utlizing references to source the statements. This discussion has been posted so that the article may be read, and so that contributors may make editing suggestions.
Beverly Wehmer Johnson ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Please find corrections to the Gianfranco Chiarini Wiki Article, which has been revised several times. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Chiarini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevwb1220 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Gianfranco Chiarini Hi Athaenara the Gianfranco Chiarni page has been re-written to Wikipedia standards, can you please review so that we can take the advert down? Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It's still quite promotional and appears to be one of the products at two single-purpose accounts, yours and Andrea D'Angelico (talk · contribs), across multiple wikipedias. You can open a discussion on the article talk page prior to posting on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or ask for assistance on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. – Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Athaenara per Wiki adminstration I was given info that our article was in the context of an advertisement. Therefore I changed, and restructured sentences to meet with Wikipedia guideline. Regarding Andrea D'Angelico, I am not certain what has been translated from the English version but will confer with him as for the aforementioned. Please give specifics as to what needs to be corrected to meet encyclopedic standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Gianfranco Chiarini We have been in direct contact with Wikipedia Adminstration, and they have been assisting us with Common Usage of Photos and determining correct verbiage to use in the Gianfranco Chiarini articles. However, you have not assisted us with what needs to be changed per sentence guidelines or structure in order to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. We have followed the guidelines as per the Wikipedia Administrative, and would like very much if you would assist with neutrality of the subject at hand. Furthermore, quoting Wikipedia guidelines is not helping us to achieve our goal of a flawlessly written article. Please assist with providing direction in composing a non-biased article.
Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson ( talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)(talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Any one or all of you may ask for assistance on the article talk page and the NPOV and COI noticeboards (linked above in my previous reply) as I previously suggested. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is another appropriate venue. – Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Per your previous discussion, I've added the discussion to the Gianfranco Chiarini talk page. I will also add the the NPOV, and COI as you've requested. Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Beverly Wehmer Johnson ( talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)