This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article T.B. Joshua has recently been edited. I found it in the Newbie RC and I don't know exactly how far I can go about editing it to make it neutral again. Can somebody take a look? Thanks! DreamHaze ( talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should be more specific. To specify, the article notes that he is "a man of uncompromising holiness and exposes a power so great that can never be compared to any known man of God on earth today", which is undoubtedly an opinion, not a fact. The entire section listed as "Practice" says that he raises the dead, heals with prayer, and has the power of Prophecy. Obviously I don't know the truth of the matter, and I believe that this is going to be a controversial article, but without sources being cited I don't know how to change this to a more neutral tone. DreamHaze ( talk) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a current RFC here in which an editor has insisted on including a gross amount of criticism from persons wholly unconnected to the book, the administration, or the events surrounding the book, to the point that the criticism section outweighs the content of the article (both of which violates WP:UNDUE). Outside opinions are requested (preferably at the article talk page). Said editor has openly stated that his intent is to neutralize what he believes to be "either declared or undeclared pro-Obama viewpoints." Thanks. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV A number of changes are being discussed that involve NPOV and it needs more heads to look into the arguments and come up with good consensus. Ward20 ( talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The article linked might not be neutral. I'm not really much involved with editing the article but I have it on my watchlist and I tagged what I believe to my not following NPOV. Please try changing its tone and removing any bias if possible. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at soy milk on whether or not a controversial claim made in a commercial advertisement is encyclopedic material. There is currently a RfC under progress concerning this issue among others. Please help resolve this dispute. Thank you. Cydevil38 ( talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Notice: this interpretation of Neutral Point of View is thriving while the projects encyclopedians are standing idly by. Skomorokh 05:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Some homerish editors are refusing to see this article as POV. The article essentially describes him as a god, is chock full of weasel words and unattributed statements. I've made an effort to tag 'citation needed' where necessary, and tried starting a fruitful discussion on the talk page, but editors (one South Korean, and one Russian) keep removing the POV tag, and refuse to engage in serious debate. WikiKingOfMishawaka ( talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to place two sentences in the Nietzsche article, in the section entitled "Nietzsche's Reading". The sentences read as follows:
"It is also possible that he read and was significantly influenced by Max Stirner. However, this theory has a long and controversial history and, while such influence cannot be ruled out, it appears impossible to conclusively establish."
One editor on the page suggested that these two sentences gave undue weight to the theory of Stirner influence on Nietzsche and removed them. I provided some 20 citations on the talk page. These citations showed that the theory has a long history, a controversial history, and that it has been debated in both popular and academic settings. At least of six of these references showed clearly that the idea that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner is still current, though it is a view held by a significant minority (including such well known figures as Deleuze).
I do not feel that the inclusion of one sentence mentioning the possibility of influence, and another providing caveats about controversy and the fact that it cannot be established conclusively constitutes undue weight. Can anyone provide me with suggestions or guidance here regarding determining whether or not these two sentences constitute undue weight? -- Picatrix ( talk) 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi I was wondering if someone could assist us at Talk:Great power#Potential Superpower. The there is currently a disagreement that is akin to a little edit war. Some input would be great, thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair The entire piece is one sided, more or less taken straight out of Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation". No attempt is made to give Harlow's real explanations for his experiments, or the impact his research had on modern knowledge of psychosis and depression.
This controversial church is loathed by many but that is no reason for the article to be a smear piece. More attention should be given to trimming off the POV-pushing especially as this church's income is derived, in part, from suing it's perceived opponents. Let's keep Wikipedia out of that drama please. Banje boi 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A short paragraph summarising this news article ( "Pro-'surge' group is almost all Jewish". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 2007-08-24.) is being deleted on the grounds of undue weight. This source (a news agency) is reliable, and I believe weight should follow the weight given by the source (devoting a news article to the topic), and the source should be fairly summarised. — Ashley Y 00:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This needs a complete rewrite. Making claims of Indian "occupation" of Kashmir and such words as "Civilised and educated", "liberated", etc. need to go. Corvus cornix talk 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, talk about a biased article. Just look at the last paragraph and you can see that it seems like it was written by the party itself! There are not even any mentions of its (many) controversies and downsides. The article seems more like party propaganda than a description of the party.
The lead of this article has hook facts addressing both the past success and the largely unsuccessful history of the baseball team; the negative aspects are being glossed over and made to appear less important historically than more current events. User:Killervogel5 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a dispute with User:UKPhoenix79 at Great power / Talk:Great power. In the article we have a map of great powers, that presents the United States as superpower. And in a list of great powers that includes other countries, a mention that it is referred to as superpower. I don't dispute the latter, but belief that the current presentation doesn't reflect all significant views, while it should according to WP:NPOV. The two versions are in this diff.
Most of the talk is at Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers and Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers 2.0
I belief instead of this:
We should have this:
With as optional extra sources for "described as no longer a superpower": 1 2 3
We previously had a third opinion on that, that proposed sidestepping the issue of superpowers in the great power article.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to look at this. =Species8473= (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Could I get some extra eyes on this page. It's a well sourced page on a rather odd subject. And apparently there is some real life controversy over it that is spilling over onto the project. A number of times the page has been edited to add a very POV slant to it. Not only are the edits POV, they are unsourced, unlike the rest of the page. This has gotten the page's author to a very frustrated state, where he has requested speedy deletion of the article a couple of times because of the vandalism. I've declined that speedy, and there is enough other editing that IMHO G7 is no longer valid. The article still is well enough sourced that I at least think it deserves to stay. More eyes on it may help to keep the POV out of it, or if the POV pusher can come up with sources, to get their side of things worked in within a NPOV way. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The article "Safety of the Large Hadron Collider" focuses primarily on the possibility that operation of the Large Hadron Collider could create micro black holes that might be capable of destroying our planet Earth, and how strong the safety arguments are. A lawsuit is currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii seeking to require reasonable proof of safety before operations begin. CERN is currently in default before the US Federal Court and editors including employees of CERN are acting in concert to remove opposition view points that have been part of the article for months.
The safety opposition seeks only to present references to published peer reviewed papers containing main stream science by Professors and PHDs of Math, Physics and other theoretical sciences that dispute or question CERN's safety arguments.
The following statements and references have been removed and efforts to restore them are being blocked:
About the references:
-- Jtankers ( talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My objections to Otto E. Rössler's material are laid out in full at Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider#Otto E. Rössler. I believe his references are not credible and do not satisfy standard WP:VERI & WP:SOURCE standards. In summary:
By contrast, CERN's most recent safety review [17], nearly a hundred pages long, presents explicit and detailed calculations showing that BHs, if they are produced at all, and if they are stable, will still not affect the Earth for millions or billions of years; and/or would have resulted in the destruction of commonly observed objects (Earth, stars, and especially neutron stars) in cosmically short times due to the effects of cosmic rays with energies many orders of magnitude higher than the maximum LHC energy.
Several of the references Jtankers cites, notably those by Adam Helfer, Belinski, and Unruh, are in my opinion acceptable, but they address only the question of the reality of Hawking radiation (which Rössler lately announces that "he alone" knows how to disprove! -- see the discussion on the talk page). But BH evaporation is only a small part of the safety debate, sufficient but not necessary to the argument. To date the only sources that address the entire safety issue in a comprehensive way are those from CERN.
Re. Jtankers's plaint that Rössler's references have been there for long: indeed they have. We have been going around in circles about all this for many weeks in the LHC discussion page, largely about the maintaining reasonable balance within that article. Now that we at last have a separate article focused on the safety issue, I believe we can and must be much more careful than heretofore about the details of the WP:OR, WP:VERI, WP:SYN, etc. issues. There is much to criticize on both sides of the argument in those respects, and I have tried to point some of those out, on both sides, for discussion, and to give notice and warning that these core Wiki issues cannot be deferred indefinitely. I think there are likely to be many further disputes of this kind now that we are unstuck from the balance issue. I hope that a fair and useful article will result. Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 08:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Bookworm857158367 and User:Nunh-huh are repeatedly adding unsourced claims on the Russian Royal Family articles that they were "murdered". -- 81.79.158.57 ( talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Anti-communists are not the arbiters of truth. It is a blatant propaganda statement and unbecoming of a neutral encyclopedia. The Russian Royal Family brought untold misery to the Russian people and to Jews in particular. It was not surprising therefore that the chief executioner Yakov Yurovsky was Jewish himself. His article establishes that he acted as an officer of his government and was not a murderer. -- 62.136.16.134 ( talk) 12:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your obfuscations. Execution is the neutral term to describe it, as it can be applied to both lawful and unlawful killing. The Soviet government regarded it as a lawful execution. -- 90.241.58.137 ( talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"And who says the Soviet POV is the neutral POV?" I didn't, the Soviet government is clearly not a neutral source on this issue. However, no sensible observer would regard a bunch of reactionary monarchist writers whining "murder" as neutral either. As I said, "execution" describes both lawful and unlawful killing - that is surely a compromise here. -- 90.241.58.137 ( talk) 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Nicholas Werth a well known historian writes: “The question of whether the 1932-33 famine constitutes a genocide is a matter of disagreement among historians studying the calamity, whether Russians, Ukrainians, or their Western counterparts. There are basically two schools of thought.
Many Wikipedia editors for the Holodomor and related articles endorse the second POV however constantly delete or block well referenced material that supports the first POV. Neutrality tags are summarily removed often with uncivil comments. This editing clearly violates the NPOV policy for Wikipedia.
Tags to initiate a NPOV discussion are immediately deleted. Bobanni ( talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Article is being accused of 'Corporate Vanity', although the article is trying to reflect that there are two unofficial flags available to the general populace of Dorset, England. An editor keeps removing one of the flags(Dorset Cross), citing POV, SOAP and Corporate Vanity - but the Dorset Cross should be included as it began the whole thing and is a real tangible flag, sold to people in Dorset AS a flag of Dorset, the same as the other flag. White43 ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the three following statements too POV and OR?
"During this period the Broncos had only two losing seasons, were AFC champions five times and Super Bowl champions for two consecutive years".
"They did not make the playoffs and had only two winning seasons".
"They also experienced their two worst seasons ever, winning only two of fourteen games in both 1963 and 1964". Buc ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Pritzker was the subject of a long article today in the Wall Street Journal about her association with a major bank failure in 2001. Surprisingly, her article had nothing about it, so I added a new section.
Pritzker's the chief fundraiser for the Obama campaign; as I looked over her article's history, I noticed a recurring problem with "peacock terms". I'm going out of Internet range for a week -- can someone keep an eye on this? The story of Pritzker's involvement in the bank is complex and nuanced; I'd hate to see that get lost by either POV-editing from either direction. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The National Autistic Society article appears biased. The General Public Help section appears to be written like an advertisement too. There isn't any coverage on opinions of the press as well, or third opinions if applicable. Telephone numbers and email address are not supposed to be put into an article too. I think it may need complete revision as it has multiple issues which I have explained here. -- Marianian ( talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
A dispute among three of us over whether a certain criticism is described in proportion to its importance or whether it is given undue weight. Edit-warred and discussed on the talk page with little movement. Suggestions welcome. -- EmbraceParadox ( talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit war started at Druze and spreading now to Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. User:GreenEcho is warring with me and refuses to "come to the table", so to speak, and has been rather cold and hostile from the start (as an IP addy). He admits to having followed my edits on other pages and starting trouble. I don't know how to get him talking rather than just reverting (his last 3RR missed the window by three minutes). I've asked for compromise: ignored.
Another user, User:Hiram111 has been involved in a spreading edit war with him as well; I am not entangled with that issue although it also started at Druze. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that
iTunes article is written like and advertisement or brochure and is not neutral. Any edits making it more neutral (like adding criticisms section) are reverted by apple fans. This problem persists for a long time already and is described on the
Talk:ITunes by me and other editors. If you take a look on the edit history you will see that criticisms section as well as warning boxes were added and removed many times.
Criticisms section is currently in place, but any additions are promtly deleted. I've offered these additions at bottom of the
Talk:ITunes page.
Please read
Talk:ITunes#Advertisement and
Talk:ITunes#Criticisms.3F first.
--
Varnav (
talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This guy was the Grateful Dead music archivist (deceased 1999). He held this job for 15 years. He archived and released approx 20 albums of music, and posted 100s of pages of notes and internet posts.
Latvala wrote all sorts of crazy stuff online including one post that was construed by some, as being anti-Semitic. At the same time, the post condemned all racism.
This one "anti Semitic" post is repeated in its entirety in the wiki biography. I just think it is way out of proportion. He had no notable anti-Semitic leanings. This was one internet post, and quite ambiguous. As I said, his public record includes dozens of writings all on the topic of music (his notability).
I think one user on Wikipedia is grinding an axe by maintaining this anti-Semite rant thing as hugely notable. I have deleted it 3x but the user keeps putting it back, and I get the feeling he is masturbating about the power he gets from doing this to somebody's grave. Please help.-- Jangles1 ( talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
User:Miyokan Is constantly reverting any criticism from that article.
[1] After time he asked another user to help with that
[2]. And now they are trying to push theirs view through constant reverting. Discussion with them seem to be stuck. Please see
talk page for details. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.110.13.68 (
talk •
contribs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Task_Force_on_Palestine
The (currently) fifth section of this article, "Support for ATFP", seems to me to be at best excessive and at worst blatant advertising. Any topic related to Israel/Palestine has the potential to blow up (har har) into a big mess, so I'm not editing it myself. Also I am not sure of Wikipedia's stance on this kind of section; obviously "Criticism" is an important section for many articles, and is appropriate, so maybe a reasonable "Support" section is also appropriate? I leave that to more experienced editors.
That being said, eleven substantial quotes praising the group about which the article was written is hardly neutral. Furthermore, it seems to me that none of these quotes are at all informative in the way that Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. This is the kind of stuff you get from the organization's own web site, not from an encyclopedia. Even if a "Support" section is appropriate to balance a "Criticism" section, this one needs significant pruning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.14.70 ( talk • contribs)
I've written this article to improve the quality, provide a balanced view from both the sceptics and promoters view and provide multiple references from acceptable sources. As a professional and author working in this area I believe that this new article now warrants the removal of the neutrality and clean up flags put in place by the Wikipedia editors. Can you please advise? Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 10:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Can the neutrality and clean up flags be removed now. 82.26.16.3 ( talk) 10:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is strongly biased throughout. The Shugden practitioners position is supported over and over again while HHDL's position is hardly presented in any detail.
I first encountered this new-to-me content on the Harvey Milk bio which I'm pretty familiar. I have been reading about Milk for years. An editor kept adding in a "Milk's Support for People's Temple" even though there seemed to be little support for this content in reliable sources. I did my own research of what any RS's had to state and inserted several neutral sentences but this alone did not appease their desire to see an entire section devoted to the subject. After an RfC, ANI report and full page protection, Wikidemo came to the rescue and started an article to house much of the content that was seen as undue in this and other articles. They have just now reintroduced this twice again [4] and [5].
I'm not greatly familiar with all the other players and politicians in the Jim Jones/People's Temple universe so I only commented on what I see as POV and, IMHO, questionably sourced items in the Political Alliances of the People's Temple#Harvey Milk section. I detailed these out on the talk page in hopes that the main editors there would look into the concerns and hopefully address them. Now I'm being told that I am acting in bad faith and my asking for reliable sourcing is disingenuous in some fashion. It took me 2.5 months to get the "bonus" undue content off the Milk article but now I feel by having an article just on this subject the editors are emboldened to present information without regards to neutrality. I may be over-reacting to this however there seems to be some agenda of painting Milk as a major pro-Jones/People's Temple supporter when my looking into sources shows almost the opposite. Milk stated at the beginning he thought they were weird and dangerous. As a politician he basically did what all the politicians were doing. This letter is the lone piece of evidence that is being used to support Milk as being aligned with Jones in some fashion. In it, if we are to accept it at face value, Milk also details that Jones/People's Temple got widespread support including from the California Senate. This is also the kind of letter that politicians routinely write for a variety of reasons. I'm concerned that editors are cherry-picking information to somehow add scandal where little to none exists. Just in the past hour they have re-added a section devoted to this subject back into the Milk article without consensus. I'd appreciate someone else looking at this as I don't thing anything I say will be received well at this point. Banjeboi 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
For the last six months, proponents of alternative medicine have been wanting to see particular mention of homeopathic uses of atropa belladonna included in the article about the plant. The problem is that there are no reliable sources which say that homeopathy is a prominent use of this particular plant. There are sources which indicate that all homeopathic remedies do not contain any molecules or atoms from the plants/compounds from which they are supposedly created. There are sources which mention that homeopathic remedies that homeopaths claim are "based" on this particular plant exist. Some fringe journals have done tests on those remedies to see if they have any efficacy, but like all tests of homeopathic remedies have come up short. There is one sentence in a book on "Health Foods" which mentions, off-handedly that there are some homoepathic uses for the plant, but don't explain whether that is relevant to the plant itself, nor does the book itself seem to care enough to even define homeopathy. So we have editors basically POV-pushing to get mention of the homeopathic "use" of this particular plant on the page devoted to this plant. How do we resist their incursion and attempts to give homeopathy undue weight in an article that should be mostly about botany? I've looked at dozens of sources and can say that if we count the number of words written about this plant and compare to the number of words that are about homeopathy and this plant, the ratio would be something like less than one word for the article to be appropriately weighted. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> I'd be more concerned that the article contains a comment on Recreational drug use. I agree the discussion on homeopathy is too long, but most of it is the rebuking discussion. I would handle it more like the Oxford source did. Just mention it once in passing in the same sentence with the disclaimer that "there is no experimental evidence of it's effectiveness and to be clear; all parts of deady nightshade are poisonous and should not be ingested." -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The section Concerns and controversies has questionable NPOV (reads like Chinese propaganda). Since the page is semi-protected, I can't flag it. I've highlighted my concerns on the Talk page.
CompSciChris ( talk) 12:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC) CompSciChris
I happen to think the following line in Oliver Sacks is something that is being given undue weight, at least with regard to the Oliver Sacks article:
I don't have a problem with the criticism/source being included in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, to which it is specific. Does anyone agree or disagree?-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To put literary criticism in a broader context, I've now expanded it to two sentences and four sources. For a well known author, that's not a lot of critical review; more can be included if desired. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the article on Individualism is not NPOV, and in particular that a phrase ("man is a social animal"), which runs counter to the main tenor of the article has been removed twice. Statements justifying the reference to "social animal" have not been responded to.
I seek the opinion of more experienced editors than myself. Doc Richard ( talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a NPOV dispute regarding the articles Taiwanese American and Template:Chinese American. Would greatly appreciate if people not associated with the dispute come and mediate. Roadrunner ( talk) 13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A couple of IPs are using this article to argue about their lawsuits. I made one attempt to remove the cruft, which was immediately reverted by one of them. Looie496 ( talk) 05:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading through the article I get a strong feeling that it is more of an advertisement listing the benefits of Organic Farming than an actual overview of the concept/topic. Could someone please read over it and give a second opinion?
Note the "Economics" section and the "Organic Farming and associated biodiversity" section.
The whole article is just from the point of view of Bosniak victims. It is a matter of fact that in the Bosniak and Croat war there were cca. 100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley but yet it is nowhere mentioned. It just utilizes a limited point of view to further its own agenda. Therefore, it cannot be a neutral point of view.
I read the article. The whole article is based purely on WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are hundred of sources, references from ICTY verdicts, HRW reports, BBC etc. So it is not "point of view of Bosniak victims". This is one of the best war related articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. According to the sources, there is nothing about "100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley" suggested by anon. However the ICTY concluded: Based on the evidence of numerous Croat forces (HVO) attacks at that time, the ICTY Trial Chamber concluded that by April 1993 Croat leadership had a common design or plan conceived and executed to ethnically cleanse Bosniaks from the Lašva Valley. Dario Kordić, as the local political leader, was found to be the planner and instigator of this plan. ICTY-Kordic verdict. Historičar ( talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Empty citation (
help)It has been asserted that the use of only three skeptical authors being given 48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) on the page (Frankfurter 11, Victor 24, LaFontaine 13 - as of three days ago) is a violation of the NPOV policy, where it is stated "none of the views should be given undue weight" and at WP:UNDUE it is stated "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The complaint is that these three authors are not nearly that prominent. Another complaint is that there is too much weight given to what one editor calls "an extremely skeptical" position and that reliable sources that are neutral or pro-SRA on the topic are being deleted from the article. The other side states that the skeptical view is the majority view and other views are minority ones. Information on the debate is here. ResearchEditor ( talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
←This is a valid request to the NPOV noticeboard. I have no idea why Arthur Rubin chose to make it personal about the poster of the request, but whatever his reasons, that is off-topic. I'm an occasional editor of the article in question, though I don't have much of a stance about the content either way - my interest is in fair and proper editing, and fair treatment of all editors according to policy; so I welcome input from this noticeboard without prejudice to any personal issues that may exist between the various editors who have been working on that page. Also, I see no forum-shopping issue: ResearchEditor posted a bona-fide NPOV question on the NPOV noticeboard, and that good-faith request deserves the same quality of response as any other good-faith request posted here. Thanks. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps we are talking about (1) this, (2) or this (3) or maybe this one? (Note that ResearchEditor was previously known as "AbuseTruth"). — Cesar Tort 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the problem with this article, like many others on similar topics, is that ResearchEditor / User:Abuse truth clearly either fails to understand clear policies or is purposely ignoring them to try to push his very clear agenda. HE showed up on Wikipedia with the stated goal of providing "truth" on topics and ever since has twisted small, nonnotable publications by those with extremist views as if they were big, professional, well-respected journals that not only stand toe to toe with well-respected expert research but even overshadows them. I really think the first step toward sanity on all the articles in question is to get his old ban on pushing his POV reinstated, as the only thing he learned from his last blocks was how to game the system. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In the social work profession, a debate commenced which has crystallised into two poles: 'believer' in the existence of satanic abuse of children and 'skeptic'. Presently this part of hte discussion is at an impasse and coverage has subsided. (from Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P, 1. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.)
When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). But responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998) (The most damning for me; from Faller, KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 29-33. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1.)
Satanism and Ritual Abuse-The Panic Collapses, 1992-1995. While the Satanic Panic can be taken as beginning with the publicity over the McMartin charges, no single comparable event marks its end. A convenient turning point is marked by the child abuse case that got underway in 1994 in the town of Wenatchee, Washington, a case that initially threatened to become a witch-hunt as grotesque as any of the previous decade. Yet it did not, since on this occasion media expectations were utterly different. (from Jenkins, Philip (2004). in James R. Lewis: The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 221-242. ISBN 0195149866.)
So far, there has been no comment from noticeboard editors; this request is becoming a continuation of the arguments on the talk page, with comments by editors directly involved in a content dispute with ResearchEditor, who opened this request on the NPOV noticeboard to request outside opinions. I am not defending the content of what RE has written on the page in question, but I do defend the right of an editor to seek outside opinion, and that is the purpose of the post on this noticeboard. And there is another editor who has been quite vocal on the talk page and with a view not so dissimiar to RE's view, so as far as I can tell, RE's views are not completely solitary. (I am not including myself on either side of this debate, because I don't take an either-or position on the topic.)
I suggest that the personal comments about RE be left out of this discussion, as they arise from a content dispute, and let the content dispute speak for itself. That's what the NPOV noticeboard is for. While several editors have complained about RE, yet here we see RE following proper procedure by requesting outside input from uninvolved editors. That's a good idea. The parts of the posts above that discuss sources and content are appropriate. Let's focus on those parts, so the noticeboard process can work and so the uninvolved editors can review the situation and present their opinions. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should comment on content only. It would be good to find a neutral editor to look at the data objectively. Unfortunately, this has not occurred yet. ResearchEditor ( talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The section below clearly shows that a large portion of the page should be written about the pro side of the debate. The sources below should not simply be ignored or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor ( talk • contribs)
post 2000
Non-Academic
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)peer reviewed
articles
pre 2000
Academic
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Non-Academic
ResearchEditor (
talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) in Bibby, P. (ed.) (1996). Organised Abuse: The Current Debate. Arena.
ISBN
1857422848. {{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) as cited in Sakheim, D.K. (1992). Out of Darkness: Exploring Satanism and Ritual Abuse. Lexington Books.
ISBN
0-669-26962-X.{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The most important thing I would like to see is a comment from an uninvolved experienced editor on whether SRA is now considered a fringe topic of only historical interest. The most important information in this regard for me is the three sources which currently state the topic is dead (four if you include de Young, 2004, which I have yet to read cover to cover but have on hand). This can be settled by sources I believe, and there are multiple sources asserting the issue is dead and interest has faded. To date, four have been presented for "fringe, dead", none for "the mainstream is still interested". The sources are explicit:
In the social work profession, a debate commenced which has crystallised into two poles: 'believer' in the existence of satanic abuse of children and 'skeptic'. Presently this part of hte discussion is at an impasse and coverage has subsided. (from Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P, 1. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.)
When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). But responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998) (The most damning for me; from Faller, KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 29-33. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1.)
Satanism and Ritual Abuse-The Panic Collapses, 1992-1995. While the Satanic Panic can be taken as beginning with the publicity over the McMartin charges, no single comparable event marks its end. A convenient turning point is marked by the child abuse case that got underway in 1994 in the town of Wenatchee, Washington, a case that initially threatened to become a witch-hunt as grotesque as any of the previous decade. Yet it did not, since on this occasion media expectations were utterly different. (from Jenkins, Philip (2004). in James R. Lewis: The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 221-242. ISBN 0195149866.)
I believe the above sources clearly and unambiguously indicate that the SRA phenomenon is dead and of historical interest only, and the mainstream position is skeptical. Accordingly, it is undue weight, and POV-pushing, to continue to insist that there is any real interest in the matter. It is undue weight and POV-pushing to insert qualifications of skepticism into the lead and throughout the body. The sources provided to assert that the controversy is ongoing are self-published books and low-quality news articles, or journal articles where interest in SRA is peripheral (or discusses ritual abuse, something quite different). Accordingly, skepticism should be portrayed as the norm and the credulous position as the minority. WLU ( talk) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
{undent}Three sources above all explicitly say the interest has waned. Most of the new publications are self-published books, extremely low-impact journals, or newsletters that look like, but are not, peer-reviewed journals. I'm sick of typing the same things out, so I'll be providing diffs - some of the sources that are posted as "SRA is a real thing and a going concern" are in fact not saying this. The Phenomenon of Torture does not support this position in any way I can understand (I don't see how anyone could read the three pages in question and conclude that this is proof that people still take SRA seriously). Noblitt & Perskin's Cult and Ritual Abuse has been criticized for ignoring the critical literature as well as being incoherent, and they couldn't get their next book published by a real publisher(Noblitt & Perskin's Ritual abuse in the 21st century is a vanity-press self-publication [12]; [13]). Pepinsky's Sharing and responding to memories is not about SRA, it's about designing a course during which he invites people who allege SRA and how to deal with them during the course. Far from clearly demonstrating SRA is an ongoing concern, the sources presented as evidence are extremely problematic. I have made these comments several times now, yet ResearchEditor keeps presenting the same sources, without qualification, as if it were conclusive. Meanwhile, the three explicit sources above as well as De Young's 2004 book, The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic (published in 2004 by academic publisher McFarland & Company as well as Frankfurter's Evil Incarnate, published in 2006 by Princeton University Press) that treats the whole thing as a rumour panic. As one would expect from a fringe theory, the pro-fringe publications are either in extremely obscure journals or not ones Wikipedia would consider reliable or only tangentially refer to SRA without addressing it substantively. By contrast, the pro-rumour panic side are fewer but published in academic press. I'm getting really tired of typing out the same objections to the same publications again and again because they keep getting posted as if they proved something. I have adjusted to reflect the minority ongoing interest, but because there is minority ongoing interest does not mean the page should represent it as if it re-opens the whole SRA debate. Again, explicit references saying the debate is over, none that counter, and from what I can see, even McLeod & Goddard, a quite recent publication, says that it's over in the mainstream even if they think this is incorrect. WLU ( talk) 17:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Perhaps the best evidence that the satanism scare was more imagined than real is that by the mid-1990s the social hysteria that had characerized the topic had subsided. It is difficult to texplain this decline as anything more than a change in societal reaction. Today there seems to be very few true believers in SRA. In a June 2005 review of the first 20 hits turned up by an internet search enginge for the phrase "satanic ritual abuse seminars," we found many discussions of how SRA seminars fueled the satanism scare' [emphasis added], but no announcements of upcoming SRA seminars. Likewise, in a search of the PsycINFO, Research Library, and Lexus-Nexus databases we found almost exclusively writings from SRA skeptics. Psychologists Margaret Thaler Singer and Abraham Nievod (2003), for example, discuss SRA therapy in a chapter on "fad" or "new age" therapies that they claim have harmed patients. In his book Pseudoscience and hte Paranormal, Terrence Hines (2003), a neuroscientist, examines the question of why people continue to believe in phenomenon for which there is no evidence, such UFOs, astrology and SRA. Given our conclusion that SRA poses little threat to children, and that the satanism scare has largely subsided, why take the time to discuss it here [perhaps they're a wikipedia editor : ) - WLU]? We would argue that, at the very least, the SRA controversy illustrates the importance of critical thinking and empiricism in the study of child maltreatment. Not all claims made in the name of defending children are true, and accepting and espousing these claims may do children more harm than good. There can be little question, for example, that fabricated SRA stories have provided ammunition to skeptics who want to claim that children are rarely or ever abused (see Chapter 10 for a discussion of "backlash" issues in the field). | ” |
The structure of Template:Asia Topic is under dispute. A couple major questions are in play: What is the purpose of the template, what is NPOV handling of the relationship between China and regions/countries that it rightly or wrongly claims. How should other disputed regions/countries be handled? Of specific interest are the listings of Taiwan and Tibet. Neutral third party assistance would be appreciated. Readin ( talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
My name is Arudou Debito, the subject of a Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arudou_Debito. As of August 22, 2008, I have added an NPOV tag.
As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice to the media — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search. I go into more specifics and cite specific passages at http://www.debito.org/?p=1878, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry. The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:
1) A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.
2) An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is third-party material published by other authors.
3) Omissions of books I published months and years ago.
4) Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.
5) Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.
6) “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.
7) Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.
In conclusion, where are the (positive) quotes from the people and published authors who actually have something verifiably meaningful to say about Japan and social issues, such as Donald Richie, Ivan Hall, Chalmers Johnson, John Lie, Jeff Kingston, Robert Whiting, Mark Schreiber, Eric Johnston, Terrie Lloyd, Bern Mulvey, Lee Soo Im, and Kamata Satoshi? Omitting the comments and sentiments of these people make the Wikipedia entry sorely lacking in balance, accurate research, and respect for the facts of the case or the works of a living person biographied.
For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry and hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself.
It is my assessment that these two threads are very biased toward the Polish POV of history, and are basically revisionist.
For example, in the Curzon Line article, the following: "In these circumstances, war was inevitable, and hostilities broke out in late 1919." I think a fairer assessment of the situation is that Russia was in the midst of a civil war and that Pilsudski, a bellicose nationalist, decided to take advantage of it in order to push Poland's borders east-ward. This, at least, was the take of the Allied Powers at the time. See: http://www.historynet.com/polish-soviet-war-battle-of-warsaw.htm/2. I am not sure that it is the role of Wikipedia to assess responsibility in these matters, but surely the article ought to make clear that this view of the war's causation and responsibility is very unusual outside of Poland.
While the articles make clear that the Allied powers were against Polish invasion, they do not make note of the considerable aid, political, economic, and in men and material, the Allies rendered to Poland once it became clear that the Poles were badly losing the war.
I claim no expertise on these issues, and am hesitant to say much further, but it does seem to me that these threads are possibly the pet projects of some rather nationalistic folks and ought to be reviewed. At the very least, a warning should be at top notifying readers that the articles have been tagged as bias. I think the standard read on the history of the Curzon Line and the Russo-Polish War is, more or less, the synopsis given by Henry Kissinger in Diplomacy, ISBN 0671510991, Simon & Schuster, 1995.
IP Address: 96.242.82.74
The above IP Address constantly vandalizes the article Bicycle Kick by disrupting the order, deleting sources, deleting information to his convenience, and claming NPOV in the article. I need help from someone who can check the article and see that it has no POV, or do something about this user that apparently knows a lot about how to manage Wikipedia but does not want to reveal his Wikipedia name (which is rather shameful). Please help.-- MarshalN20 ( talk) 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This page has been hijacked by a group of propagandists for the organization. Given that in the real world HT has been frequently accused of terrorist activities and banned in a number of countries, the current activity on this page runs the risk of causing Wikipedia to be used as propaganda for terrorism.
Undisputed: On about August 2 the Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran article was tagged as neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words (along with other tags). On about 23 August, after an edit war, the page was locked and is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. On the talk page the tagger has made the complaint that the article has "Editorializing as well as POVish and unencyclopedic language" but not specified where.
The dispute: If there are weasel words and POV statements we need to know what they are - how else do you resolve the dispute! but no other information has been provided despite requests to provide some (my appeal to the admin who locked the article was unsuccessful).
My position: the RS tag appeared on the article along with other tags and with no comment in the talk page. The article had had no complaints about any of the tag issues for over a year, and in the mean time it had been extensively rewritten. (The comment above about "POVish and unencyclopedic language" was added a couple of weeks later after a RfC (request for comment) by me.) This, along with the lack of specific explanation for the tags, strikes me as a might suspicious. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a question regarding WP:CRITICISM and controversy sections on some WP:BLP articles: The Game (rapper); Rush Limbaugh; Rick Santorum; and Michelle Malkin, among others. For some of those articles the sections run longer than other sections. Should controversial content within those sections be integrated throughout the biography chronologically? Because I think that "controversy" sections suggest POV, as the Wikipedia guidelines suggest. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Undisputed Facts: On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[67] She instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[68][69]
Her power to fire him is not in dispute, but Monegan alleged that his dismissal was a retaliation for his reluctance to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[70] Palin is currently being investigated by an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Legislature[71] to determine whether she abused her power when she fired Monegan. The investigation is scheduled to end October 30, only days before the November 4 presidential election.[72]
The Dispute: Should this section of Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page be entitled "Abuse of power investigation" or "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner"? My view is that this matter would not appear on the page were it not for the abuse of power investigation. But those supporting the (in my opinion inaccurate and obfuscatory) title "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner" insist, without argument, that calling the section "Abuse of power investigation" is (in some unidentified way) violates NPOV and undo weight. -- BenA ( talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
At the Gibraltar article the following sentence is being argued over:
“ | The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain. | ” |
I see a big problem with the term "annexation". It is being insisted upon by a (proud) Gibraltarian Wikipedian who has been in de facto control of the article for many years now (
User:Gibnews). Whilst he does good stuff fending off the idiots who vandalise the article, sometimes he can't see past his political views and can put a political slant on the article, which is what I believe is happening here. Therefore, I would appreciate others' views at
Talk:Gibraltar on whether "annexation" is an acceptable term to describe what I would say can be replaced with the 100% neutral "Spanish sovereignty".
“ | The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty along with any proposal for shared sovereignty. | ” |
Thanks.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a concern about the neutrality of the following section in the entry on Lebanon: In 2006 however, the Israeli army attacked Lebanon with intense airstrikes and artillery fire alongside numerous ground incursions by Israeli forces - the extensive attacks were in response to a single incident of rocket fire in which two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The month long conflict caused significant civilian loss of life and serious damage to Lebanon's civil infrastructure (including Beirut's airport). The conflict lasted from July 12, 2006 until a cessation of hostilities call, by the UN Security Council, went into effect on August 14, 2006,[9][6] the country's economy is still struggling to recover.
In particular, the assertion that the Israeli attack was in response to a single incident of rocket fire. My understanding and recollection is that there had been repeated, continuous incidents of rocket fire from south Lebanon into Israel, and the Israeli soldiers were not taken prisoner in a rocket attack, but in an armed incursion into Israel by Hezbollah.
response to a series of Israeli incursions and airstrikes which was launched in response to a Hezbollah cross-border raid which was launched in response to Israel's holding of several dozen Lebanese prisoners and occupation of a small strip of territory which Israel claims as part of its national territory and most of the world sees as occupied Syrian territory but due to its historical administration by Lebanon the Lebanese and Syrians see as occupied Lebanese territory, however, Israel claims that this territory is vital to its security interests and was acquired in a defensive war against Syrian shelling of civilians however Syria claims... blah blah blah." And it tends to take over the whole article which is, after all, the top-level article for the entire nation of Lebanon and its entire history. So yeah, I'd cut down on the alleged reasons for the war and just talk about its effects. Those who want details can click the Wikilink and read them. < eleland/ talk edits> 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I have an uninvolved editor look at Charles Bukowski and give their opinion? There has been some long-term tension between User:Bukowski99 and myself on this article. The editor has a pattern of what I consider POV edits--adding insufficiently sourced slanted material, moving all the references to Bukowski's wife or removing her name, adding a POV "readership" section--all these have been pretty much dealt with. However, the user has now removed the "literary movement" information, claiming that Bukowski is "unclassifable." (The literary movements were on the article when I first saw it, and were not added by me). These movements looked pretty standard to me, but the editor asked for sources, so I tracked down some sources. The editor removed them with a series of personal attack edit summaries that didn't address the quality of the information or edits. Now another user is on the talk page saying that in their opinion, Bukowski isn't part of any literary movement. Since the article tends to attract fans, I think we just need some more uninvolved editors looking at it. Movingboxes ( talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was under a serious NPOV dispute some 4 months ago, but one of the editors in this dispute appears to no longer be active. The issues in dispute are summarized here: Talk:Melissa_Farley#RfC:_NPOV_and_BLP_issues.3F. There has been an RfC for this article, but no additional comments concerning neutrality issues were forthcoming from the RfC. I believe the article is NPOV or very close, as well as factually accurate to it, and would like to remove the tags from the article. However, since I was one of the parties to the dispute, before removing the tags, I am seeking further opinions as to whether the article has any remaining bias and whatever edits are needed to fix any such problems. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
An IP editor brought this up on the BLP noticeboard, but it belongs here. The subject is a woman who has recently written a book focusing on her romantic entanglement with the drug lord Pablo Escobar. Most of the article is apparently written by Vallejo herself, and it contains quite a number of NPOV violations. Looie496 ( talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are we subject to biased editors? Akamina ( talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) The posts for this resort are constantly reverted because issues which the corporation does not want revealed are called "vandalism".
Please provide assistance on this issue. A user has made the common name of the "Republic of China Passport" "Taiwanese passport" bold, which in my view is an act to assert a point of view that can be highly offensive.
"Republic of China passport" is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese passport" but it is believed by pro-Chinese reunification supporters that this common name is unacceptable and it should not have been mentioned at all. This common name is not supported by law, and calling Taiwan as a country is highly offensive to these supporters.
Pro-Taiwan independence supporters believes that the Republic of China is a country called Taiwan. This position is not supported by the current government (but supported by the previous government) and is never supported by law. The law calls the document "The Republic of China passport". As the Republic of China is not recognised in most English speaking countries, the common name "Taiwan" is used. Therefore, the Republic of China passport is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese Passport".
I believe a neutral view is that the common name "Taiwanese passport" should be mentioned, but it should not be made bold, for the reasons below:-
1. Taiwan as a name of a country is highly offensive to a section of the relevant population, bolding of the name acts as provocation. It complies with their political view to ignore the common name altogether. 2. Taiwan as a name of a country is supported by a section of the relevant population, mentioning it satisfies their view, and it is not a provocation to these supporters if the name is not made in bold. It complies with their political view to make the common name known as prominently as possible. 3. Taiwanese passport is a common name so it should be mentioned and the English readers are aware. There is no likelihood that a Chinese reader would not be aware of the "Republic of China" including Chinese readers outside Taiwan or mainland China. 4. Taiwanese passport is not a legal nor the current official name. The official name used by the previous government was Republic of China (Taiwan) passport (this is still not "Taiwanese passport"). The previous government went further and said when they added "(Taiwan)" they didn't intend to change the name, they did it to facilitate travel as some passport control officials would make the mistake into treating the ROC passport as a People's Republic of China passport. 5. Common names of other countries such as the "United Kingdom" are made bold for easy reading. But since "Taiwan" as a name of a country is highly controversial, I don't think the UK case can be applied here, as the United Kingdom as a common name for a country is not subject to controversy.
Thank you for providing a view on this.-- pyl ( talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
There is clear evidence above to point out that a significant section of the society in question would consider the bolding style offensive. As I have told you, I was not being personal or patronising when I told you that you should research more into this issue before editing. This is a complex issue, and it would be best if you do not edit on this subject if you are not aware of the complex political, legal and sometimes highly emotional background that gave rise to this issue. There is also the language issue involved if you do not read Chinese. I would not edit topics relating to Israel and Palestine issues because of this reason. I don't know enough about the background and language to do that. A "common practice" for me the outsider may not be an acceptable thing to them.
I wasn't being personal when I initially removed the footnotes you cited either. I gave you the reasons. They are from biased sources. Let me repeat my reasons here for your easy reference:-
I think Wikipedia has a policy of not using footnotes from biased sources.
As I said this issue is about a practice that can be considered to be highly offensive and provocative to a significant section of the society in question. But so far, I don't seen anyone arguing against this main issue. The arguments above mostly just ignores it then say I am biased. I don't think arguments overlooking the sensitivities are persuasive.
I added further clarification at the top of the article to clarify that this article as follows:-
This is similar to the well-established practice as applied in the "Republic of China" article. I believe this totally eliminates any likelihood of confusion. Now can we remove the bolding style of "Taiwanese passport"?-- pyl ( talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't change the hatnote that way. As I told you many times, the Republic of China was commonly known as China before the 1970s. This article is about the passport for the whole time, not just about the time when it was issued in Taiwan. You really should accept my advice and learn more about the political status of Taiwan-- pyl ( talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Bosonic dressing. The purpose of bolding is to match an alternate article title with a redirect or other index or search term, and Wikipedia policy is to include terms which are in wide use among English speakers, which "Taiwanese Passport" unquestionably is. No endorsement of the validity or appropriateness of the usage is implied. It is also inappropriate on pyl's part to assume that non-Chinese editors are not familiar with the situation, including issues which are much more subtle such as the difference between "Zhonghua Taipei" and "Zhongguo Taipei" in the Chinese Taipei article. -- MCB ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.
The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008
Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.
The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008
The brief article on the Anniston Eastern Bypass in northeastern Alabama seems to be presented from a particular point of view, condemming alleged "land-grabs" and demonizing the local newspaper.
Not a big issue, neccesarilly, just one I found today.
I want to include McCain's "I don't disagree" [with the draft] statement to Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks. When I did so, it was reverted on the grounds that it was not a "controversy". I can't find anything in the policies that specifically defines how to determine if something is controversial. Am I overlooking a relevant policy? Do we need an objective source to call it a controversy? Wouldn't they then lose their objectivity by doing so? Can't even biased sources at least determine if something is controversial? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor who removed the comment gave a further and in my opinion, better, explanation as to why the comment was not a "controversy." Though, interestingly, we did establish that editors could determine when something was a controversy or not, as none of the other sources included the word "controversy" or any of its derivatives. I suppose that falls under the category of WP:COMMON. I consider this matter resolved. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see the talk page, most recently DGG has raised POV issues. The article seems to express one point of view about acid throwing (the article is actually not about the throwing of acid; it is about the throwing of acid in mostly Muslim countries as a crime against women) witout clearly identifying the point of view, and without providing a clear account of other points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The specific section with serious NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint"
The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen#7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs. Briefly, two editors strongly object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.
Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The entry on Governor Palin lacks any information on an important matter of public record, the stated concerns of many critics that she lacks substantive knowledge and/or experience in foreign relations (or, more properly, international relations). I fail to understand why a documented reference to this issue might be considered partisan, especially since the article includes an entire section about another controversy, her dismissal of the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner. I have no objection to locking the entry. I am only concerned that the entry on Governor Palin conform to the same standards as comparable Wikipedia entries on political figures by providing fair and comprehensive information regarding substantive public controversies. For example, the entry on Presiendt George W. Bush includes information on several public controversies related to his perceived abilities and his political stances. To be clear, I am not suggesting the entry on Governor Palin be opened up so as to provide a comprehensive listing of accusations against her or her family, no matter how incredible. However, I do believe the entry ought to be expanded to include information about a matter of considerable consequence. How does the exclusion of substantial, well-documented information about a public controversy serve the public interest or enhance the credibility of this forum?
The article leads for Quirinius and Census of Quirinius contained a sentence written with the phrase most historians and most modern historians that I and other editors are concerned with (see discussion pages). I'd just like some feedback here because I'd like to address the underlying issues of making sure articles use neutral language and that legitimate differences of scholarship and referencing, as I read the guidelines. should preclude using language that is almost wholly subjective in that there is simply no way in this case to accurately quantify this particular opinion using WP:RS. In this particular case shouldn't some or there are or similar language be used to better effect? Awotter ( talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably the best way to get a handle on this one is to look at the discussion regarding it. also that this is, i think, the third argument about it. -- Kaini ( talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This article The Bachelors has been continually edited by User talk:Contributer67, and one of the links he has added 3 times (which is why I have obeyed the 3-revert rule and not reverted a third time) is [19] which is obviously from The Bachelors camp, whereas a contradictory claim is made by John Stokes at [20] which means the veracity of the claim by Contributor67 cannot be ascertained.
Further more, another contributor, Con Cluskey, who is obviously one of the members of The Bachelors, denies the claim that John Stokes lost the court case denies the accuracy on his talk page User talk:Con Cluskey says there was no court case in Altrincham, which is a complete denial of the claims made by Contributor67.
A reference for the article is given as “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I have been unable to confirm the existence nor the contents of this dictionary. Perhaps another Wikipedian can search to see if I have missed something.
Contributor67 has also added to the article the words, “As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true – see the webpage [21]
Can somebody please separate the chaff from the wheat and ensure that it is properly and correctly referenced? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply ( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
As a contributor only interested in the correct and legally accurate history it has to be said that the john Stokes reply mentioned above was not a reply. The statement on his website is considered to be legally inaccurate and in fact laden with untruths. This fact is verified legally [outside this forum].
The Con and Dec page JohnStokesTheTruth has only recently to my knowledge been uploaded. As a Bachelors expert I can confirm that this page is accurate and all detail on there can be verified from the multitudinous sources available. As an interested party in all things Bachelors I would feel that this page was presented as a rebuttal to the clearly untrue statements on John Stokes' site.
As regards third party sources, surely there can be no better third party source than the High Court Documents signed by John Stokes which are available at http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm. These documents are widely held by interested parties in British show Business. He is precluded by the High Court of England from using the name Bachelors or any colourabloe imitation. therefore it follows that he is in contempt of court in the way his site is titled. He is simply not allowed to use the name in law. It follows that the site is deemed to be illegal and that any links to the site are colluding in a contempt of court.
As Wikipedia is a trusted source I strive to ensure that the law is upheld in this instance and that no assistance is given to lawbreaking. I was recently sent the Wikipedia entry for The Bachelors by an eminent lawyer in London. He was astonished that a link to a patently obvious contempt of court page could be displayed on Wikipedia.
In supplying links to a rogue site Wikipedia does not do itself any favours. My only wish is for Wikipedia to display accurate verifiable and legally correct information and links. It is mainly the links on The Bachelors page that are the problem.
( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
Reply (
Contributer67 (
talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
>I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had<
There is a mountain of verifiable information.
There is no axe to grind only a wish for correct, accurate information. The many Bachelors fans worldwide simply want correctness. In my experience the links to a legally unnacceptable site are distressing to many readers.
( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
Reply ( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
No attack was intended only, the truth. Mr Wilcox stated that he would desist from editing the Bachelors entry. He still does. And additionally grabs any opportunity to malign Dec Cluskey.
The Ian Whitcomb article on The Bachelors is known to contain many inaccuracies. Attempts have been made to contact him to correct this matter but no reply has been received by anyone.
The article on the Wikipedia page is now accurate and fit for purpose. And the Bachelors community are grateful for the help from other interested parties. The problem is the continual undoing of the edit re. the links.
If the principal is accepted that Wikipedia should not promote sites which clearly tell untruths and are legally off track then my edits of the offending links should be accepted. There is no Point of View involved only the quest for honesty and truth. That would satisfy the many Bachelors fans and would provide the legal profession with an accurate and legally correct Wikipedia entry.
To support the argument that any link, no matter how illegal, should be given is to support the argument that links to paedophile sites should be given on children's entries for the sake of a complete picture.
Or links to burglars on Housing Companies entries?
I simply ask that the links to John Stokes site which is in contempt of court and is passing off as The Bachelors should be permanently removed.
(
Contributer67 (
talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
This page badly needs a neutral viewpoint added and seems to be chiefly edited by members of the campaign involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustycrusty ( talk • contribs)
This page badly needs new eyes on it. It has devolved into a simple "undo" war between two different descriptions of an event, both of which are factually true. The question is over the proper characterization of what happened. The two versions are below. I wrote the first one, and another author (whom I suspect to be a sock puppet for the subject) repeatedly deleted it, finally replacing it with the second version (which I believe to be a sanitized version). Both of us agree that both versions are factually true, but clearly the two versions portray the results of the investigation in a different light. We have been unable to resolve the issue through discussion. Would someone please be willing to read the two page summary of the report cited on the page (you have to skip through some letters first on the .pdf file) and help us to resolve the dispute? I'd be so grateful. The two versions are below:
Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee.[9] [10] [11] Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.[9] [10]
The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style."[7] "[W]itnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him. Some witnesses further indicated that BG Kimmitt resorted to threats of job loss or career harm as a 'motivational' tactic and made demeaning comments when criticizing individual work products." [7] "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him.... While some witnesses, to include his supervisors and several detractors, viewed BG Kimmitt as 'effective,' we also found credible witnesses who told us that they obtained other employment to escape the unpleasant work environment." [7]
At Kimmitt's request, the IG also "obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could trigger confrontation."[7]
The Department of Defense Inspector General's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt . . . failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate.[9] [7] The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.
Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations. The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with applicable standards", that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office", and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." The IG reported at the conclusion of the second investigation that the allegation was not substantiated and warranted no further investigation, and that the complaint provided no details that would convey creditability to the allegations.[7]
In the Yamashita's gold article, an editor makes dubious claims that several court documents lend credence to their opinion of events. The wording is twisted and skewed, at best, to advance the editor’s point of view. There are no independent third-party sources that support these opinions.
The section is a mish-mash of legal piffle, and the talk-page is a battlefield of redundancy
Yamashita's_gold#Related_legal_action
Talk:Yamashita's_gold#Removing_False_References
Talk:Yamashita's_gold#False_References.2C_Dubious_Statements_and_Personal_Opinions_in_Article
Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. The edit warring has to stop, and somebody other than me needs to tell the IP editor they need to cite the proper references to support their opinion(s).
It is hard to have a discussion with an editor who states on the talk page: “I have a law degree and over 15 years of solid experience analyzing judicial opinions. I also have spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case. I know what I am talking about.”
I posted this over @ the OR noticboard as well:
Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Yamashita.27s_gold
Jim (
talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
___________
The section in dispute concerns a lawsuit. The best source as to what transpired in the lawsuit are the official statements of the Court -- the official history of the lawsuit. The statements of the Court are clear (to anyone who can read) and are consistent with the contemporaneous news reports (which are also reliable sources). JimBob has some vested interest in the theory that Yamashita's Gold is an urban legend and resists any material that debunks his pet theory. The sources are irrefutable that Roxas prevailed on his claim against Marcos for converting the treasure. 67.120.59.46 ( talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has some recent inappropriate additions.
(1) The overt POV of the September 11 attacks article is a serious and continuous dispute at Wikipedia.
(2) On 9/10/08, "World Public Opinion", a very reliable source, published the results of its comprehensive poll (16,000 in 17 countries) on the question of who perpetuated 9/11: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=
(3) 54% of the people surveyed globally doubt that "al-Qaeda" committed 9/11.
(4) This result proves that the September 11 attacks article violates NPOV. MichiganMilitia ( talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following here, from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here or on the talk page for this project page ... Kenosis ( talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC):
For the record, I'd probably say the "Don't know" and the like shows ignorance, not necessarily buying into a conspiracy. I'm sure if you asked a worldwide poll of who did the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway you'd get a lot more "I don't know"s, but that doesn't mean that there's any real doubt that Aum Shinrikyo did it, just that people, put on the spot, can't remember their name. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The Page is being edited repeatedly to give it a pro-missionary slant. That the National Minority Commission has only members belonging to the minority communities is very relevant as its reports are being quoted at great length to substantiate the anti-Hindu slant. But the fact of NMC membership is being deleted repeatedly without discussion. A church fact-finding committee is being described as National Integration Council committee though the related link itself says otherwise.
The Page is without neutrality of view. The Page is best deleted as it is mere pro-Christian propaganda.
Jobxavier ( talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Three IDs are being used to slant-edit, presumably by the same editor. The Ids are Gabrielthursday, Recordfreenow and Lihaas.
Jobxavier ( talk) 07:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please search 'India'and 'Hindu' in HRW. The anti-India, anti-Hindu and pro-American Baptist POV might be evident. Jobxavier ( talk) 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Jobxavier ( talk) 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I am hoping for some pearls of wisdom from experienced editors about the Fathers' rights movement article, and in particular, how we can navigate some of the difficulties about writing from a NPOV about it, given that the sources that we have are mainly from two sources: articles, books, journal articles by academics in the field, such as [23], [24] [25] and books, articles etc. by members of the fathers' rights movement, (and in fact largely one member of the FRM, Stephen Baskerville) such as this one [26] To wit....
Thank you for your help and insight here.-- Slp1 ( talk) 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Baskerville is a leader of the fathers' rights movement. He is a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement state...." In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement including Stephen Baskerville state...." In some case, the attribution reads "Stephen Baskerville, [a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children] states.... In my opinion, the level of attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.
The fathers' rights movement is a "rights movement" and it is also referred to as a social movement. It would be highly biased to only include the view of some scholars who have described it as a social movement. The current lead is not misleading in any way, and the statements are clearly supported by sources.
Reliance on "scholars" in this article, especially without attribution, is not NPOV because "scholars" are not necessarily neutral. Law professors have been cited as scholarly sources. Some sentences include no attribution, while others do. In my opinion, the need for attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.
For example, the article was recently expanded to include the sentence "some fathers' rights activists...viewing feminism as an enemy." (Am I the only person who sees the term "enemy" as a strong word for scholars to use?) There are many different forms of feminism, and so the statement is misleading and relies on a prior phrase "original goals of feminism" to fill in missing detail.
The section is additionally misleading because members of the fathers' rights movement view those who oppose a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting as opponents, regardless of their views with respect to how specialized or equally capable men and women are as parents, and feminist organizations currently oppose the enactment of laws to create a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
Further, a source for this section clearly implies that these categories of fathers' rights activists are artificial constructs "for analysis purposes." The background and history section is being used to add artificial constructs of scholars. These artificial constructs are not necessary to the article and are unrelated to the background and history of the fathers' rights movement. Most of all, the section is unclear to readers. Michael H 34 ( talk) 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
In these series of edits, I replaced three uses of the term argues or arguing. What is wrong with the use of the word state as in "members of the fathers' rights movement state..."? [30] Michael H 34 ( talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
This article was created to appease Mosedschurte ( talk · contribs) who was repeatedly inserting POV and, IMHO, WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk. The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates WP:POVFORK has been loosely compiled with little context of why they would be involved with Jim Jones who had enormous political influence through the community work of his church and the volunteers, and votes, he could direct. Each statement by itself is technically true but the synthesis infers that these politicians should be held in some way accountable for the cult's mass suicide/murder in Jonestown. The related articles on Jones and Peoples Temple have also been populated with identical and similar cherry-picked bits from the sources which would also seem to violate WP:RS and/or WP:OR. I've had little sway in reasoning with the two editors there, Mosedschurte and to a much lesser extent Wildhartlivie ( talk · contribs). I would very much appreciate uninvolved editors to step in and see if there is a path to improving this article. Mosedschurte has shown, IMHO, resistance to following NPOV policies elsewhere and has yet to understand why this content is sourced and presented poorly presently. Any help appreciated as my input seems to be largely disregarded. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to begin with, this is a rather ridiculous charge and the sort of sniping I've tried to avoid. I've never posted a single "fringe" theory, or even just theory, on anything.
In fact, the events are rather non-controversial facts reported in numerous major newspaper articles (NY Times, San Fran Chronicle, LA Times, etc.) and the most well respected books on the various topics at hand (e.g., Raven, Gone from the Promised Land, The Mayor of Castro Street, Willie Brown A Biography, Seductive Poison, etc.).
This is, again, inaccurate. One can see this simply examining the article's history.
The one sentence about Milk's support of the Peoples Temple during investigations was deleted during edits and then re-added. That was subsequently deleted, and then an even smaller 3 line sentence was simply added to the "Supervisor" section.
This is simply false.
In fact, the article goes further into explaining their motivations. Such as the large political pull of the Temple, that Harvey Milk was scared of the Temple, etc.
That they all "are Democrats" is simply a ridiculous charge. Jones (who was a socialist) almost entirely dealt with Democrats and independent socialist activists. Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The user Adoniscik and me were in an edit war. I warned him that he needs to put neutral sources for his controversial claims. He evades my ideas and reverted ALL my edits until now, putting his own article with non-neutral sources several times again and without any negotiation of neutrality. He claims that "his sources are right" when his claims are revisionistic and use sometimes denialist sources like happened years before in the Armenian Genocide article. (His claim is to promote a book that has been cited to support marginal arguments, such as the claim that Ottoman Armenians deserved their fate). Here are his reverts of my all edits [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. The same happens with his "friend" or sockpuppet Arsenic99 [37] [38] [39] [40]. Notice that I am NOT counting the before continuous edit war between us and the former continuous vandalizers [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. My version of the article is more or less neutral and warns about that the authenticity of the book is not clear. -- Vitilsky ( talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
the definition of this disorder should not be categorized by sex,there is no link to differences regarding gender associated with this disorder
example of text
In females
Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. As well, they over-identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasized intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow to avoid distress and have difficulty understanding themselves or others in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. The majority of the time their partners will have symptoms of personality disorders, equal to, or far worse than their own. Women with HPD often tend to enter into abusive relationships with partners who increase the abuse as time wears on. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology. Women with borderline tendencies often form entirely negative convictions towards the male gender and treat them like pawns as a defense mechanism concealing their own inadequacies. They may engage in self-mutilation and/or manipulative suicide threats as one aspect of general manipulative interpersonal behavior.[2]
In males
Males with HPD usually present problems of identity crisis, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control. They have antisocial tendencies and are inclined to exploit physical symptoms as a method of false control. These men are emotionally immature (although they tend to believe the exact opposite), dramatic (although many are adept at covering it up), and shallow (although they tend to believe their feelings are so deep that no other single person could ever understand). Men with HPD may dwell on their own emotions and create a false sense of reality, effectively convincing themselves of whatever they need to believe to feel comfortable in their relationships. HPD males with antisocial tendencies shift between periods of isolation and those of extreme social conquest (each shift can last a matter of days to periods lasting several years). They may require isolated retreats in order to obtain a comfortable level of understanding and acceptable functioning. HPD antisocial males are dependent upon no one in particular, but crave the dependence of others. Although males often have chameleon-like social skills (similar to HPD females), they tend to have trouble keeping lengthy friendships afloat as their paranoia (real and imagined) may eventually lead to a near complete and permanent disposal of all interpersonal relationships at a given time, effectively eliminating any emotional responsibility and accountability. They tend to genuinely search for intimacy (many believe in "the one") while remaining unable to regulate their perceived level of intimacy for any given interpersonal relationship, making it very difficult to build anything other than turbulent relations. Males with HPD may believe in the supernatural, such as fortune telling or telepathy, including the belief that there are many hidden messages and notions in public works that are specifically meant for them. When HPD antisocial males believe they are being manipulated, they may morph into sociopathic relations with their perceived enemies, yet remain overtly loyal to perceived friends. HPD men are oftentimes intensely driven by their quest to conquer life, despite having no real sense of direction or control, resulting in frequent changes of overly passionate interests. [2] Both men and women with HPD engage in disinhibited behavior, such as promiscuity and substance abuse.[3] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Icevixen17 (
talk •
contribs) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The article uses a very deceptive selection of his congressional actions, and is misleading voters about one of the closest and most-funded Congressional races in 2008.
It boasts that he won an award from the League of Conservation Voters, portraying him as a pro-environment candidate. It neglects to mention that the same League of Conservation Voters also gave him a "F" grade last Congressional Session.
His position on Iraq is described solely as, "In May 2007 Kirk was the leader of a Republican delegation, of 11 congressmen, who explained to Bush his actions, in respect to Iraq, were hurting the Republican party." The article again neglects to mention the fact that Mark Kirk co-sponsored and was selected by Bush to help author the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.94.125 ( talk) 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Bosnian Institute
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Encarta
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"Country Profile: United States of America". BBC News. 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"Country Profile: United States of America". BBC News. 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
AffidavitWagner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article T.B. Joshua has recently been edited. I found it in the Newbie RC and I don't know exactly how far I can go about editing it to make it neutral again. Can somebody take a look? Thanks! DreamHaze ( talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should be more specific. To specify, the article notes that he is "a man of uncompromising holiness and exposes a power so great that can never be compared to any known man of God on earth today", which is undoubtedly an opinion, not a fact. The entire section listed as "Practice" says that he raises the dead, heals with prayer, and has the power of Prophecy. Obviously I don't know the truth of the matter, and I believe that this is going to be a controversial article, but without sources being cited I don't know how to change this to a more neutral tone. DreamHaze ( talk) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a current RFC here in which an editor has insisted on including a gross amount of criticism from persons wholly unconnected to the book, the administration, or the events surrounding the book, to the point that the criticism section outweighs the content of the article (both of which violates WP:UNDUE). Outside opinions are requested (preferably at the article talk page). Said editor has openly stated that his intent is to neutralize what he believes to be "either declared or undeclared pro-Obama viewpoints." Thanks. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV A number of changes are being discussed that involve NPOV and it needs more heads to look into the arguments and come up with good consensus. Ward20 ( talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The article linked might not be neutral. I'm not really much involved with editing the article but I have it on my watchlist and I tagged what I believe to my not following NPOV. Please try changing its tone and removing any bias if possible. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at soy milk on whether or not a controversial claim made in a commercial advertisement is encyclopedic material. There is currently a RfC under progress concerning this issue among others. Please help resolve this dispute. Thank you. Cydevil38 ( talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Notice: this interpretation of Neutral Point of View is thriving while the projects encyclopedians are standing idly by. Skomorokh 05:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Some homerish editors are refusing to see this article as POV. The article essentially describes him as a god, is chock full of weasel words and unattributed statements. I've made an effort to tag 'citation needed' where necessary, and tried starting a fruitful discussion on the talk page, but editors (one South Korean, and one Russian) keep removing the POV tag, and refuse to engage in serious debate. WikiKingOfMishawaka ( talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to place two sentences in the Nietzsche article, in the section entitled "Nietzsche's Reading". The sentences read as follows:
"It is also possible that he read and was significantly influenced by Max Stirner. However, this theory has a long and controversial history and, while such influence cannot be ruled out, it appears impossible to conclusively establish."
One editor on the page suggested that these two sentences gave undue weight to the theory of Stirner influence on Nietzsche and removed them. I provided some 20 citations on the talk page. These citations showed that the theory has a long history, a controversial history, and that it has been debated in both popular and academic settings. At least of six of these references showed clearly that the idea that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner is still current, though it is a view held by a significant minority (including such well known figures as Deleuze).
I do not feel that the inclusion of one sentence mentioning the possibility of influence, and another providing caveats about controversy and the fact that it cannot be established conclusively constitutes undue weight. Can anyone provide me with suggestions or guidance here regarding determining whether or not these two sentences constitute undue weight? -- Picatrix ( talk) 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi I was wondering if someone could assist us at Talk:Great power#Potential Superpower. The there is currently a disagreement that is akin to a little edit war. Some input would be great, thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 ( talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair The entire piece is one sided, more or less taken straight out of Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation". No attempt is made to give Harlow's real explanations for his experiments, or the impact his research had on modern knowledge of psychosis and depression.
This controversial church is loathed by many but that is no reason for the article to be a smear piece. More attention should be given to trimming off the POV-pushing especially as this church's income is derived, in part, from suing it's perceived opponents. Let's keep Wikipedia out of that drama please. Banje boi 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A short paragraph summarising this news article ( "Pro-'surge' group is almost all Jewish". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 2007-08-24.) is being deleted on the grounds of undue weight. This source (a news agency) is reliable, and I believe weight should follow the weight given by the source (devoting a news article to the topic), and the source should be fairly summarised. — Ashley Y 00:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This needs a complete rewrite. Making claims of Indian "occupation" of Kashmir and such words as "Civilised and educated", "liberated", etc. need to go. Corvus cornix talk 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, talk about a biased article. Just look at the last paragraph and you can see that it seems like it was written by the party itself! There are not even any mentions of its (many) controversies and downsides. The article seems more like party propaganda than a description of the party.
The lead of this article has hook facts addressing both the past success and the largely unsuccessful history of the baseball team; the negative aspects are being glossed over and made to appear less important historically than more current events. User:Killervogel5 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a dispute with User:UKPhoenix79 at Great power / Talk:Great power. In the article we have a map of great powers, that presents the United States as superpower. And in a list of great powers that includes other countries, a mention that it is referred to as superpower. I don't dispute the latter, but belief that the current presentation doesn't reflect all significant views, while it should according to WP:NPOV. The two versions are in this diff.
Most of the talk is at Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers and Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers 2.0
I belief instead of this:
We should have this:
With as optional extra sources for "described as no longer a superpower": 1 2 3
We previously had a third opinion on that, that proposed sidestepping the issue of superpowers in the great power article.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to look at this. =Species8473= (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Could I get some extra eyes on this page. It's a well sourced page on a rather odd subject. And apparently there is some real life controversy over it that is spilling over onto the project. A number of times the page has been edited to add a very POV slant to it. Not only are the edits POV, they are unsourced, unlike the rest of the page. This has gotten the page's author to a very frustrated state, where he has requested speedy deletion of the article a couple of times because of the vandalism. I've declined that speedy, and there is enough other editing that IMHO G7 is no longer valid. The article still is well enough sourced that I at least think it deserves to stay. More eyes on it may help to keep the POV out of it, or if the POV pusher can come up with sources, to get their side of things worked in within a NPOV way. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The article "Safety of the Large Hadron Collider" focuses primarily on the possibility that operation of the Large Hadron Collider could create micro black holes that might be capable of destroying our planet Earth, and how strong the safety arguments are. A lawsuit is currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii seeking to require reasonable proof of safety before operations begin. CERN is currently in default before the US Federal Court and editors including employees of CERN are acting in concert to remove opposition view points that have been part of the article for months.
The safety opposition seeks only to present references to published peer reviewed papers containing main stream science by Professors and PHDs of Math, Physics and other theoretical sciences that dispute or question CERN's safety arguments.
The following statements and references have been removed and efforts to restore them are being blocked:
About the references:
-- Jtankers ( talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My objections to Otto E. Rössler's material are laid out in full at Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider#Otto E. Rössler. I believe his references are not credible and do not satisfy standard WP:VERI & WP:SOURCE standards. In summary:
By contrast, CERN's most recent safety review [17], nearly a hundred pages long, presents explicit and detailed calculations showing that BHs, if they are produced at all, and if they are stable, will still not affect the Earth for millions or billions of years; and/or would have resulted in the destruction of commonly observed objects (Earth, stars, and especially neutron stars) in cosmically short times due to the effects of cosmic rays with energies many orders of magnitude higher than the maximum LHC energy.
Several of the references Jtankers cites, notably those by Adam Helfer, Belinski, and Unruh, are in my opinion acceptable, but they address only the question of the reality of Hawking radiation (which Rössler lately announces that "he alone" knows how to disprove! -- see the discussion on the talk page). But BH evaporation is only a small part of the safety debate, sufficient but not necessary to the argument. To date the only sources that address the entire safety issue in a comprehensive way are those from CERN.
Re. Jtankers's plaint that Rössler's references have been there for long: indeed they have. We have been going around in circles about all this for many weeks in the LHC discussion page, largely about the maintaining reasonable balance within that article. Now that we at last have a separate article focused on the safety issue, I believe we can and must be much more careful than heretofore about the details of the WP:OR, WP:VERI, WP:SYN, etc. issues. There is much to criticize on both sides of the argument in those respects, and I have tried to point some of those out, on both sides, for discussion, and to give notice and warning that these core Wiki issues cannot be deferred indefinitely. I think there are likely to be many further disputes of this kind now that we are unstuck from the balance issue. I hope that a fair and useful article will result. Thanks, Wwheaton ( talk) 08:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Bookworm857158367 and User:Nunh-huh are repeatedly adding unsourced claims on the Russian Royal Family articles that they were "murdered". -- 81.79.158.57 ( talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Anti-communists are not the arbiters of truth. It is a blatant propaganda statement and unbecoming of a neutral encyclopedia. The Russian Royal Family brought untold misery to the Russian people and to Jews in particular. It was not surprising therefore that the chief executioner Yakov Yurovsky was Jewish himself. His article establishes that he acted as an officer of his government and was not a murderer. -- 62.136.16.134 ( talk) 12:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your obfuscations. Execution is the neutral term to describe it, as it can be applied to both lawful and unlawful killing. The Soviet government regarded it as a lawful execution. -- 90.241.58.137 ( talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"And who says the Soviet POV is the neutral POV?" I didn't, the Soviet government is clearly not a neutral source on this issue. However, no sensible observer would regard a bunch of reactionary monarchist writers whining "murder" as neutral either. As I said, "execution" describes both lawful and unlawful killing - that is surely a compromise here. -- 90.241.58.137 ( talk) 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Nicholas Werth a well known historian writes: “The question of whether the 1932-33 famine constitutes a genocide is a matter of disagreement among historians studying the calamity, whether Russians, Ukrainians, or their Western counterparts. There are basically two schools of thought.
Many Wikipedia editors for the Holodomor and related articles endorse the second POV however constantly delete or block well referenced material that supports the first POV. Neutrality tags are summarily removed often with uncivil comments. This editing clearly violates the NPOV policy for Wikipedia.
Tags to initiate a NPOV discussion are immediately deleted. Bobanni ( talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Article is being accused of 'Corporate Vanity', although the article is trying to reflect that there are two unofficial flags available to the general populace of Dorset, England. An editor keeps removing one of the flags(Dorset Cross), citing POV, SOAP and Corporate Vanity - but the Dorset Cross should be included as it began the whole thing and is a real tangible flag, sold to people in Dorset AS a flag of Dorset, the same as the other flag. White43 ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the three following statements too POV and OR?
"During this period the Broncos had only two losing seasons, were AFC champions five times and Super Bowl champions for two consecutive years".
"They did not make the playoffs and had only two winning seasons".
"They also experienced their two worst seasons ever, winning only two of fourteen games in both 1963 and 1964". Buc ( talk) 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Pritzker was the subject of a long article today in the Wall Street Journal about her association with a major bank failure in 2001. Surprisingly, her article had nothing about it, so I added a new section.
Pritzker's the chief fundraiser for the Obama campaign; as I looked over her article's history, I noticed a recurring problem with "peacock terms". I'm going out of Internet range for a week -- can someone keep an eye on this? The story of Pritzker's involvement in the bank is complex and nuanced; I'd hate to see that get lost by either POV-editing from either direction. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The National Autistic Society article appears biased. The General Public Help section appears to be written like an advertisement too. There isn't any coverage on opinions of the press as well, or third opinions if applicable. Telephone numbers and email address are not supposed to be put into an article too. I think it may need complete revision as it has multiple issues which I have explained here. -- Marianian ( talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
A dispute among three of us over whether a certain criticism is described in proportion to its importance or whether it is given undue weight. Edit-warred and discussed on the talk page with little movement. Suggestions welcome. -- EmbraceParadox ( talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit war started at Druze and spreading now to Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. User:GreenEcho is warring with me and refuses to "come to the table", so to speak, and has been rather cold and hostile from the start (as an IP addy). He admits to having followed my edits on other pages and starting trouble. I don't know how to get him talking rather than just reverting (his last 3RR missed the window by three minutes). I've asked for compromise: ignored.
Another user, User:Hiram111 has been involved in a spreading edit war with him as well; I am not entangled with that issue although it also started at Druze. Naahid بنت الغلان Click to talk 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that
iTunes article is written like and advertisement or brochure and is not neutral. Any edits making it more neutral (like adding criticisms section) are reverted by apple fans. This problem persists for a long time already and is described on the
Talk:ITunes by me and other editors. If you take a look on the edit history you will see that criticisms section as well as warning boxes were added and removed many times.
Criticisms section is currently in place, but any additions are promtly deleted. I've offered these additions at bottom of the
Talk:ITunes page.
Please read
Talk:ITunes#Advertisement and
Talk:ITunes#Criticisms.3F first.
--
Varnav (
talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This guy was the Grateful Dead music archivist (deceased 1999). He held this job for 15 years. He archived and released approx 20 albums of music, and posted 100s of pages of notes and internet posts.
Latvala wrote all sorts of crazy stuff online including one post that was construed by some, as being anti-Semitic. At the same time, the post condemned all racism.
This one "anti Semitic" post is repeated in its entirety in the wiki biography. I just think it is way out of proportion. He had no notable anti-Semitic leanings. This was one internet post, and quite ambiguous. As I said, his public record includes dozens of writings all on the topic of music (his notability).
I think one user on Wikipedia is grinding an axe by maintaining this anti-Semite rant thing as hugely notable. I have deleted it 3x but the user keeps putting it back, and I get the feeling he is masturbating about the power he gets from doing this to somebody's grave. Please help.-- Jangles1 ( talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
User:Miyokan Is constantly reverting any criticism from that article.
[1] After time he asked another user to help with that
[2]. And now they are trying to push theirs view through constant reverting. Discussion with them seem to be stuck. Please see
talk page for details. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.110.13.68 (
talk •
contribs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Task_Force_on_Palestine
The (currently) fifth section of this article, "Support for ATFP", seems to me to be at best excessive and at worst blatant advertising. Any topic related to Israel/Palestine has the potential to blow up (har har) into a big mess, so I'm not editing it myself. Also I am not sure of Wikipedia's stance on this kind of section; obviously "Criticism" is an important section for many articles, and is appropriate, so maybe a reasonable "Support" section is also appropriate? I leave that to more experienced editors.
That being said, eleven substantial quotes praising the group about which the article was written is hardly neutral. Furthermore, it seems to me that none of these quotes are at all informative in the way that Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. This is the kind of stuff you get from the organization's own web site, not from an encyclopedia. Even if a "Support" section is appropriate to balance a "Criticism" section, this one needs significant pruning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.14.70 ( talk • contribs)
I've written this article to improve the quality, provide a balanced view from both the sceptics and promoters view and provide multiple references from acceptable sources. As a professional and author working in this area I believe that this new article now warrants the removal of the neutrality and clean up flags put in place by the Wikipedia editors. Can you please advise? Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 10:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Can the neutrality and clean up flags be removed now. 82.26.16.3 ( talk) 10:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is strongly biased throughout. The Shugden practitioners position is supported over and over again while HHDL's position is hardly presented in any detail.
I first encountered this new-to-me content on the Harvey Milk bio which I'm pretty familiar. I have been reading about Milk for years. An editor kept adding in a "Milk's Support for People's Temple" even though there seemed to be little support for this content in reliable sources. I did my own research of what any RS's had to state and inserted several neutral sentences but this alone did not appease their desire to see an entire section devoted to the subject. After an RfC, ANI report and full page protection, Wikidemo came to the rescue and started an article to house much of the content that was seen as undue in this and other articles. They have just now reintroduced this twice again [4] and [5].
I'm not greatly familiar with all the other players and politicians in the Jim Jones/People's Temple universe so I only commented on what I see as POV and, IMHO, questionably sourced items in the Political Alliances of the People's Temple#Harvey Milk section. I detailed these out on the talk page in hopes that the main editors there would look into the concerns and hopefully address them. Now I'm being told that I am acting in bad faith and my asking for reliable sourcing is disingenuous in some fashion. It took me 2.5 months to get the "bonus" undue content off the Milk article but now I feel by having an article just on this subject the editors are emboldened to present information without regards to neutrality. I may be over-reacting to this however there seems to be some agenda of painting Milk as a major pro-Jones/People's Temple supporter when my looking into sources shows almost the opposite. Milk stated at the beginning he thought they were weird and dangerous. As a politician he basically did what all the politicians were doing. This letter is the lone piece of evidence that is being used to support Milk as being aligned with Jones in some fashion. In it, if we are to accept it at face value, Milk also details that Jones/People's Temple got widespread support including from the California Senate. This is also the kind of letter that politicians routinely write for a variety of reasons. I'm concerned that editors are cherry-picking information to somehow add scandal where little to none exists. Just in the past hour they have re-added a section devoted to this subject back into the Milk article without consensus. I'd appreciate someone else looking at this as I don't thing anything I say will be received well at this point. Banjeboi 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
For the last six months, proponents of alternative medicine have been wanting to see particular mention of homeopathic uses of atropa belladonna included in the article about the plant. The problem is that there are no reliable sources which say that homeopathy is a prominent use of this particular plant. There are sources which indicate that all homeopathic remedies do not contain any molecules or atoms from the plants/compounds from which they are supposedly created. There are sources which mention that homeopathic remedies that homeopaths claim are "based" on this particular plant exist. Some fringe journals have done tests on those remedies to see if they have any efficacy, but like all tests of homeopathic remedies have come up short. There is one sentence in a book on "Health Foods" which mentions, off-handedly that there are some homoepathic uses for the plant, but don't explain whether that is relevant to the plant itself, nor does the book itself seem to care enough to even define homeopathy. So we have editors basically POV-pushing to get mention of the homeopathic "use" of this particular plant on the page devoted to this plant. How do we resist their incursion and attempts to give homeopathy undue weight in an article that should be mostly about botany? I've looked at dozens of sources and can say that if we count the number of words written about this plant and compare to the number of words that are about homeopathy and this plant, the ratio would be something like less than one word for the article to be appropriately weighted. ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> I'd be more concerned that the article contains a comment on Recreational drug use. I agree the discussion on homeopathy is too long, but most of it is the rebuking discussion. I would handle it more like the Oxford source did. Just mention it once in passing in the same sentence with the disclaimer that "there is no experimental evidence of it's effectiveness and to be clear; all parts of deady nightshade are poisonous and should not be ingested." -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The section Concerns and controversies has questionable NPOV (reads like Chinese propaganda). Since the page is semi-protected, I can't flag it. I've highlighted my concerns on the Talk page.
CompSciChris ( talk) 12:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC) CompSciChris
I happen to think the following line in Oliver Sacks is something that is being given undue weight, at least with regard to the Oliver Sacks article:
I don't have a problem with the criticism/source being included in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, to which it is specific. Does anyone agree or disagree?-- Father Goose ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To put literary criticism in a broader context, I've now expanded it to two sentences and four sources. For a well known author, that's not a lot of critical review; more can be included if desired. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the article on Individualism is not NPOV, and in particular that a phrase ("man is a social animal"), which runs counter to the main tenor of the article has been removed twice. Statements justifying the reference to "social animal" have not been responded to.
I seek the opinion of more experienced editors than myself. Doc Richard ( talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We have a NPOV dispute regarding the articles Taiwanese American and Template:Chinese American. Would greatly appreciate if people not associated with the dispute come and mediate. Roadrunner ( talk) 13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A couple of IPs are using this article to argue about their lawsuits. I made one attempt to remove the cruft, which was immediately reverted by one of them. Looie496 ( talk) 05:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading through the article I get a strong feeling that it is more of an advertisement listing the benefits of Organic Farming than an actual overview of the concept/topic. Could someone please read over it and give a second opinion?
Note the "Economics" section and the "Organic Farming and associated biodiversity" section.
The whole article is just from the point of view of Bosniak victims. It is a matter of fact that in the Bosniak and Croat war there were cca. 100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley but yet it is nowhere mentioned. It just utilizes a limited point of view to further its own agenda. Therefore, it cannot be a neutral point of view.
I read the article. The whole article is based purely on WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are hundred of sources, references from ICTY verdicts, HRW reports, BBC etc. So it is not "point of view of Bosniak victims". This is one of the best war related articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. According to the sources, there is nothing about "100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley" suggested by anon. However the ICTY concluded: Based on the evidence of numerous Croat forces (HVO) attacks at that time, the ICTY Trial Chamber concluded that by April 1993 Croat leadership had a common design or plan conceived and executed to ethnically cleanse Bosniaks from the Lašva Valley. Dario Kordić, as the local political leader, was found to be the planner and instigator of this plan. ICTY-Kordic verdict. Historičar ( talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Empty citation (
help)It has been asserted that the use of only three skeptical authors being given 48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) on the page (Frankfurter 11, Victor 24, LaFontaine 13 - as of three days ago) is a violation of the NPOV policy, where it is stated "none of the views should be given undue weight" and at WP:UNDUE it is stated "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The complaint is that these three authors are not nearly that prominent. Another complaint is that there is too much weight given to what one editor calls "an extremely skeptical" position and that reliable sources that are neutral or pro-SRA on the topic are being deleted from the article. The other side states that the skeptical view is the majority view and other views are minority ones. Information on the debate is here. ResearchEditor ( talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
←This is a valid request to the NPOV noticeboard. I have no idea why Arthur Rubin chose to make it personal about the poster of the request, but whatever his reasons, that is off-topic. I'm an occasional editor of the article in question, though I don't have much of a stance about the content either way - my interest is in fair and proper editing, and fair treatment of all editors according to policy; so I welcome input from this noticeboard without prejudice to any personal issues that may exist between the various editors who have been working on that page. Also, I see no forum-shopping issue: ResearchEditor posted a bona-fide NPOV question on the NPOV noticeboard, and that good-faith request deserves the same quality of response as any other good-faith request posted here. Thanks. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps we are talking about (1) this, (2) or this (3) or maybe this one? (Note that ResearchEditor was previously known as "AbuseTruth"). — Cesar Tort 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the problem with this article, like many others on similar topics, is that ResearchEditor / User:Abuse truth clearly either fails to understand clear policies or is purposely ignoring them to try to push his very clear agenda. HE showed up on Wikipedia with the stated goal of providing "truth" on topics and ever since has twisted small, nonnotable publications by those with extremist views as if they were big, professional, well-respected journals that not only stand toe to toe with well-respected expert research but even overshadows them. I really think the first step toward sanity on all the articles in question is to get his old ban on pushing his POV reinstated, as the only thing he learned from his last blocks was how to game the system. DreamGuy ( talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In the social work profession, a debate commenced which has crystallised into two poles: 'believer' in the existence of satanic abuse of children and 'skeptic'. Presently this part of hte discussion is at an impasse and coverage has subsided. (from Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P, 1. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.)
When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). But responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998) (The most damning for me; from Faller, KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 29-33. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1.)
Satanism and Ritual Abuse-The Panic Collapses, 1992-1995. While the Satanic Panic can be taken as beginning with the publicity over the McMartin charges, no single comparable event marks its end. A convenient turning point is marked by the child abuse case that got underway in 1994 in the town of Wenatchee, Washington, a case that initially threatened to become a witch-hunt as grotesque as any of the previous decade. Yet it did not, since on this occasion media expectations were utterly different. (from Jenkins, Philip (2004). in James R. Lewis: The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 221-242. ISBN 0195149866.)
So far, there has been no comment from noticeboard editors; this request is becoming a continuation of the arguments on the talk page, with comments by editors directly involved in a content dispute with ResearchEditor, who opened this request on the NPOV noticeboard to request outside opinions. I am not defending the content of what RE has written on the page in question, but I do defend the right of an editor to seek outside opinion, and that is the purpose of the post on this noticeboard. And there is another editor who has been quite vocal on the talk page and with a view not so dissimiar to RE's view, so as far as I can tell, RE's views are not completely solitary. (I am not including myself on either side of this debate, because I don't take an either-or position on the topic.)
I suggest that the personal comments about RE be left out of this discussion, as they arise from a content dispute, and let the content dispute speak for itself. That's what the NPOV noticeboard is for. While several editors have complained about RE, yet here we see RE following proper procedure by requesting outside input from uninvolved editors. That's a good idea. The parts of the posts above that discuss sources and content are appropriate. Let's focus on those parts, so the noticeboard process can work and so the uninvolved editors can review the situation and present their opinions. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should comment on content only. It would be good to find a neutral editor to look at the data objectively. Unfortunately, this has not occurred yet. ResearchEditor ( talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The section below clearly shows that a large portion of the page should be written about the pro side of the debate. The sources below should not simply be ignored or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor ( talk • contribs)
post 2000
Non-Academic
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)peer reviewed
articles
pre 2000
Academic
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Non-Academic
ResearchEditor (
talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) in Bibby, P. (ed.) (1996). Organised Abuse: The Current Debate. Arena.
ISBN
1857422848. {{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) as cited in Sakheim, D.K. (1992). Out of Darkness: Exploring Satanism and Ritual Abuse. Lexington Books.
ISBN
0-669-26962-X.{{
cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The most important thing I would like to see is a comment from an uninvolved experienced editor on whether SRA is now considered a fringe topic of only historical interest. The most important information in this regard for me is the three sources which currently state the topic is dead (four if you include de Young, 2004, which I have yet to read cover to cover but have on hand). This can be settled by sources I believe, and there are multiple sources asserting the issue is dead and interest has faded. To date, four have been presented for "fringe, dead", none for "the mainstream is still interested". The sources are explicit:
In the social work profession, a debate commenced which has crystallised into two poles: 'believer' in the existence of satanic abuse of children and 'skeptic'. Presently this part of hte discussion is at an impasse and coverage has subsided. (from Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P, 1. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.)
When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). But responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998) (The most damning for me; from Faller, KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 29-33. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1.)
Satanism and Ritual Abuse-The Panic Collapses, 1992-1995. While the Satanic Panic can be taken as beginning with the publicity over the McMartin charges, no single comparable event marks its end. A convenient turning point is marked by the child abuse case that got underway in 1994 in the town of Wenatchee, Washington, a case that initially threatened to become a witch-hunt as grotesque as any of the previous decade. Yet it did not, since on this occasion media expectations were utterly different. (from Jenkins, Philip (2004). in James R. Lewis: The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 221-242. ISBN 0195149866.)
I believe the above sources clearly and unambiguously indicate that the SRA phenomenon is dead and of historical interest only, and the mainstream position is skeptical. Accordingly, it is undue weight, and POV-pushing, to continue to insist that there is any real interest in the matter. It is undue weight and POV-pushing to insert qualifications of skepticism into the lead and throughout the body. The sources provided to assert that the controversy is ongoing are self-published books and low-quality news articles, or journal articles where interest in SRA is peripheral (or discusses ritual abuse, something quite different). Accordingly, skepticism should be portrayed as the norm and the credulous position as the minority. WLU ( talk) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
{undent}Three sources above all explicitly say the interest has waned. Most of the new publications are self-published books, extremely low-impact journals, or newsletters that look like, but are not, peer-reviewed journals. I'm sick of typing the same things out, so I'll be providing diffs - some of the sources that are posted as "SRA is a real thing and a going concern" are in fact not saying this. The Phenomenon of Torture does not support this position in any way I can understand (I don't see how anyone could read the three pages in question and conclude that this is proof that people still take SRA seriously). Noblitt & Perskin's Cult and Ritual Abuse has been criticized for ignoring the critical literature as well as being incoherent, and they couldn't get their next book published by a real publisher(Noblitt & Perskin's Ritual abuse in the 21st century is a vanity-press self-publication [12]; [13]). Pepinsky's Sharing and responding to memories is not about SRA, it's about designing a course during which he invites people who allege SRA and how to deal with them during the course. Far from clearly demonstrating SRA is an ongoing concern, the sources presented as evidence are extremely problematic. I have made these comments several times now, yet ResearchEditor keeps presenting the same sources, without qualification, as if it were conclusive. Meanwhile, the three explicit sources above as well as De Young's 2004 book, The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic (published in 2004 by academic publisher McFarland & Company as well as Frankfurter's Evil Incarnate, published in 2006 by Princeton University Press) that treats the whole thing as a rumour panic. As one would expect from a fringe theory, the pro-fringe publications are either in extremely obscure journals or not ones Wikipedia would consider reliable or only tangentially refer to SRA without addressing it substantively. By contrast, the pro-rumour panic side are fewer but published in academic press. I'm getting really tired of typing out the same objections to the same publications again and again because they keep getting posted as if they proved something. I have adjusted to reflect the minority ongoing interest, but because there is minority ongoing interest does not mean the page should represent it as if it re-opens the whole SRA debate. Again, explicit references saying the debate is over, none that counter, and from what I can see, even McLeod & Goddard, a quite recent publication, says that it's over in the mainstream even if they think this is incorrect. WLU ( talk) 17:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Perhaps the best evidence that the satanism scare was more imagined than real is that by the mid-1990s the social hysteria that had characerized the topic had subsided. It is difficult to texplain this decline as anything more than a change in societal reaction. Today there seems to be very few true believers in SRA. In a June 2005 review of the first 20 hits turned up by an internet search enginge for the phrase "satanic ritual abuse seminars," we found many discussions of how SRA seminars fueled the satanism scare' [emphasis added], but no announcements of upcoming SRA seminars. Likewise, in a search of the PsycINFO, Research Library, and Lexus-Nexus databases we found almost exclusively writings from SRA skeptics. Psychologists Margaret Thaler Singer and Abraham Nievod (2003), for example, discuss SRA therapy in a chapter on "fad" or "new age" therapies that they claim have harmed patients. In his book Pseudoscience and hte Paranormal, Terrence Hines (2003), a neuroscientist, examines the question of why people continue to believe in phenomenon for which there is no evidence, such UFOs, astrology and SRA. Given our conclusion that SRA poses little threat to children, and that the satanism scare has largely subsided, why take the time to discuss it here [perhaps they're a wikipedia editor : ) - WLU]? We would argue that, at the very least, the SRA controversy illustrates the importance of critical thinking and empiricism in the study of child maltreatment. Not all claims made in the name of defending children are true, and accepting and espousing these claims may do children more harm than good. There can be little question, for example, that fabricated SRA stories have provided ammunition to skeptics who want to claim that children are rarely or ever abused (see Chapter 10 for a discussion of "backlash" issues in the field). | ” |
The structure of Template:Asia Topic is under dispute. A couple major questions are in play: What is the purpose of the template, what is NPOV handling of the relationship between China and regions/countries that it rightly or wrongly claims. How should other disputed regions/countries be handled? Of specific interest are the listings of Taiwan and Tibet. Neutral third party assistance would be appreciated. Readin ( talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
My name is Arudou Debito, the subject of a Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arudou_Debito. As of August 22, 2008, I have added an NPOV tag.
As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice to the media — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search. I go into more specifics and cite specific passages at http://www.debito.org/?p=1878, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry. The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:
1) A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.
2) An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is third-party material published by other authors.
3) Omissions of books I published months and years ago.
4) Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.
5) Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.
6) “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.
7) Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.
In conclusion, where are the (positive) quotes from the people and published authors who actually have something verifiably meaningful to say about Japan and social issues, such as Donald Richie, Ivan Hall, Chalmers Johnson, John Lie, Jeff Kingston, Robert Whiting, Mark Schreiber, Eric Johnston, Terrie Lloyd, Bern Mulvey, Lee Soo Im, and Kamata Satoshi? Omitting the comments and sentiments of these people make the Wikipedia entry sorely lacking in balance, accurate research, and respect for the facts of the case or the works of a living person biographied.
For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry and hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself.
It is my assessment that these two threads are very biased toward the Polish POV of history, and are basically revisionist.
For example, in the Curzon Line article, the following: "In these circumstances, war was inevitable, and hostilities broke out in late 1919." I think a fairer assessment of the situation is that Russia was in the midst of a civil war and that Pilsudski, a bellicose nationalist, decided to take advantage of it in order to push Poland's borders east-ward. This, at least, was the take of the Allied Powers at the time. See: http://www.historynet.com/polish-soviet-war-battle-of-warsaw.htm/2. I am not sure that it is the role of Wikipedia to assess responsibility in these matters, but surely the article ought to make clear that this view of the war's causation and responsibility is very unusual outside of Poland.
While the articles make clear that the Allied powers were against Polish invasion, they do not make note of the considerable aid, political, economic, and in men and material, the Allies rendered to Poland once it became clear that the Poles were badly losing the war.
I claim no expertise on these issues, and am hesitant to say much further, but it does seem to me that these threads are possibly the pet projects of some rather nationalistic folks and ought to be reviewed. At the very least, a warning should be at top notifying readers that the articles have been tagged as bias. I think the standard read on the history of the Curzon Line and the Russo-Polish War is, more or less, the synopsis given by Henry Kissinger in Diplomacy, ISBN 0671510991, Simon & Schuster, 1995.
IP Address: 96.242.82.74
The above IP Address constantly vandalizes the article Bicycle Kick by disrupting the order, deleting sources, deleting information to his convenience, and claming NPOV in the article. I need help from someone who can check the article and see that it has no POV, or do something about this user that apparently knows a lot about how to manage Wikipedia but does not want to reveal his Wikipedia name (which is rather shameful). Please help.-- MarshalN20 ( talk) 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This page has been hijacked by a group of propagandists for the organization. Given that in the real world HT has been frequently accused of terrorist activities and banned in a number of countries, the current activity on this page runs the risk of causing Wikipedia to be used as propaganda for terrorism.
Undisputed: On about August 2 the Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran article was tagged as neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words (along with other tags). On about 23 August, after an edit war, the page was locked and is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. On the talk page the tagger has made the complaint that the article has "Editorializing as well as POVish and unencyclopedic language" but not specified where.
The dispute: If there are weasel words and POV statements we need to know what they are - how else do you resolve the dispute! but no other information has been provided despite requests to provide some (my appeal to the admin who locked the article was unsuccessful).
My position: the RS tag appeared on the article along with other tags and with no comment in the talk page. The article had had no complaints about any of the tag issues for over a year, and in the mean time it had been extensively rewritten. (The comment above about "POVish and unencyclopedic language" was added a couple of weeks later after a RfC (request for comment) by me.) This, along with the lack of specific explanation for the tags, strikes me as a might suspicious. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a question regarding WP:CRITICISM and controversy sections on some WP:BLP articles: The Game (rapper); Rush Limbaugh; Rick Santorum; and Michelle Malkin, among others. For some of those articles the sections run longer than other sections. Should controversial content within those sections be integrated throughout the biography chronologically? Because I think that "controversy" sections suggest POV, as the Wikipedia guidelines suggest. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Undisputed Facts: On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[67] She instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[68][69]
Her power to fire him is not in dispute, but Monegan alleged that his dismissal was a retaliation for his reluctance to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[70] Palin is currently being investigated by an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Legislature[71] to determine whether she abused her power when she fired Monegan. The investigation is scheduled to end October 30, only days before the November 4 presidential election.[72]
The Dispute: Should this section of Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page be entitled "Abuse of power investigation" or "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner"? My view is that this matter would not appear on the page were it not for the abuse of power investigation. But those supporting the (in my opinion inaccurate and obfuscatory) title "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner" insist, without argument, that calling the section "Abuse of power investigation" is (in some unidentified way) violates NPOV and undo weight. -- BenA ( talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
At the Gibraltar article the following sentence is being argued over:
“ | The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of annexation along with any proposal for shared sovereignty with Spain. | ” |
I see a big problem with the term "annexation". It is being insisted upon by a (proud) Gibraltarian Wikipedian who has been in de facto control of the article for many years now (
User:Gibnews). Whilst he does good stuff fending off the idiots who vandalise the article, sometimes he can't see past his political views and can put a political slant on the article, which is what I believe is happening here. Therefore, I would appreciate others' views at
Talk:Gibraltar on whether "annexation" is an acceptable term to describe what I would say can be replaced with the 100% neutral "Spanish sovereignty".
“ | The British Government has stated it is committed to respecting the wishes of the Gibraltarians, who strongly oppose the idea of Spanish sovereignty along with any proposal for shared sovereignty. | ” |
Thanks.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a concern about the neutrality of the following section in the entry on Lebanon: In 2006 however, the Israeli army attacked Lebanon with intense airstrikes and artillery fire alongside numerous ground incursions by Israeli forces - the extensive attacks were in response to a single incident of rocket fire in which two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The month long conflict caused significant civilian loss of life and serious damage to Lebanon's civil infrastructure (including Beirut's airport). The conflict lasted from July 12, 2006 until a cessation of hostilities call, by the UN Security Council, went into effect on August 14, 2006,[9][6] the country's economy is still struggling to recover.
In particular, the assertion that the Israeli attack was in response to a single incident of rocket fire. My understanding and recollection is that there had been repeated, continuous incidents of rocket fire from south Lebanon into Israel, and the Israeli soldiers were not taken prisoner in a rocket attack, but in an armed incursion into Israel by Hezbollah.
response to a series of Israeli incursions and airstrikes which was launched in response to a Hezbollah cross-border raid which was launched in response to Israel's holding of several dozen Lebanese prisoners and occupation of a small strip of territory which Israel claims as part of its national territory and most of the world sees as occupied Syrian territory but due to its historical administration by Lebanon the Lebanese and Syrians see as occupied Lebanese territory, however, Israel claims that this territory is vital to its security interests and was acquired in a defensive war against Syrian shelling of civilians however Syria claims... blah blah blah." And it tends to take over the whole article which is, after all, the top-level article for the entire nation of Lebanon and its entire history. So yeah, I'd cut down on the alleged reasons for the war and just talk about its effects. Those who want details can click the Wikilink and read them. < eleland/ talk edits> 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I have an uninvolved editor look at Charles Bukowski and give their opinion? There has been some long-term tension between User:Bukowski99 and myself on this article. The editor has a pattern of what I consider POV edits--adding insufficiently sourced slanted material, moving all the references to Bukowski's wife or removing her name, adding a POV "readership" section--all these have been pretty much dealt with. However, the user has now removed the "literary movement" information, claiming that Bukowski is "unclassifable." (The literary movements were on the article when I first saw it, and were not added by me). These movements looked pretty standard to me, but the editor asked for sources, so I tracked down some sources. The editor removed them with a series of personal attack edit summaries that didn't address the quality of the information or edits. Now another user is on the talk page saying that in their opinion, Bukowski isn't part of any literary movement. Since the article tends to attract fans, I think we just need some more uninvolved editors looking at it. Movingboxes ( talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
This article was under a serious NPOV dispute some 4 months ago, but one of the editors in this dispute appears to no longer be active. The issues in dispute are summarized here: Talk:Melissa_Farley#RfC:_NPOV_and_BLP_issues.3F. There has been an RfC for this article, but no additional comments concerning neutrality issues were forthcoming from the RfC. I believe the article is NPOV or very close, as well as factually accurate to it, and would like to remove the tags from the article. However, since I was one of the parties to the dispute, before removing the tags, I am seeking further opinions as to whether the article has any remaining bias and whatever edits are needed to fix any such problems. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
An IP editor brought this up on the BLP noticeboard, but it belongs here. The subject is a woman who has recently written a book focusing on her romantic entanglement with the drug lord Pablo Escobar. Most of the article is apparently written by Vallejo herself, and it contains quite a number of NPOV violations. Looie496 ( talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are we subject to biased editors? Akamina ( talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) The posts for this resort are constantly reverted because issues which the corporation does not want revealed are called "vandalism".
Please provide assistance on this issue. A user has made the common name of the "Republic of China Passport" "Taiwanese passport" bold, which in my view is an act to assert a point of view that can be highly offensive.
"Republic of China passport" is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese passport" but it is believed by pro-Chinese reunification supporters that this common name is unacceptable and it should not have been mentioned at all. This common name is not supported by law, and calling Taiwan as a country is highly offensive to these supporters.
Pro-Taiwan independence supporters believes that the Republic of China is a country called Taiwan. This position is not supported by the current government (but supported by the previous government) and is never supported by law. The law calls the document "The Republic of China passport". As the Republic of China is not recognised in most English speaking countries, the common name "Taiwan" is used. Therefore, the Republic of China passport is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese Passport".
I believe a neutral view is that the common name "Taiwanese passport" should be mentioned, but it should not be made bold, for the reasons below:-
1. Taiwan as a name of a country is highly offensive to a section of the relevant population, bolding of the name acts as provocation. It complies with their political view to ignore the common name altogether. 2. Taiwan as a name of a country is supported by a section of the relevant population, mentioning it satisfies their view, and it is not a provocation to these supporters if the name is not made in bold. It complies with their political view to make the common name known as prominently as possible. 3. Taiwanese passport is a common name so it should be mentioned and the English readers are aware. There is no likelihood that a Chinese reader would not be aware of the "Republic of China" including Chinese readers outside Taiwan or mainland China. 4. Taiwanese passport is not a legal nor the current official name. The official name used by the previous government was Republic of China (Taiwan) passport (this is still not "Taiwanese passport"). The previous government went further and said when they added "(Taiwan)" they didn't intend to change the name, they did it to facilitate travel as some passport control officials would make the mistake into treating the ROC passport as a People's Republic of China passport. 5. Common names of other countries such as the "United Kingdom" are made bold for easy reading. But since "Taiwan" as a name of a country is highly controversial, I don't think the UK case can be applied here, as the United Kingdom as a common name for a country is not subject to controversy.
Thank you for providing a view on this.-- pyl ( talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
There is clear evidence above to point out that a significant section of the society in question would consider the bolding style offensive. As I have told you, I was not being personal or patronising when I told you that you should research more into this issue before editing. This is a complex issue, and it would be best if you do not edit on this subject if you are not aware of the complex political, legal and sometimes highly emotional background that gave rise to this issue. There is also the language issue involved if you do not read Chinese. I would not edit topics relating to Israel and Palestine issues because of this reason. I don't know enough about the background and language to do that. A "common practice" for me the outsider may not be an acceptable thing to them.
I wasn't being personal when I initially removed the footnotes you cited either. I gave you the reasons. They are from biased sources. Let me repeat my reasons here for your easy reference:-
I think Wikipedia has a policy of not using footnotes from biased sources.
As I said this issue is about a practice that can be considered to be highly offensive and provocative to a significant section of the society in question. But so far, I don't seen anyone arguing against this main issue. The arguments above mostly just ignores it then say I am biased. I don't think arguments overlooking the sensitivities are persuasive.
I added further clarification at the top of the article to clarify that this article as follows:-
This is similar to the well-established practice as applied in the "Republic of China" article. I believe this totally eliminates any likelihood of confusion. Now can we remove the bolding style of "Taiwanese passport"?-- pyl ( talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't change the hatnote that way. As I told you many times, the Republic of China was commonly known as China before the 1970s. This article is about the passport for the whole time, not just about the time when it was issued in Taiwan. You really should accept my advice and learn more about the political status of Taiwan-- pyl ( talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Bosonic dressing. The purpose of bolding is to match an alternate article title with a redirect or other index or search term, and Wikipedia policy is to include terms which are in wide use among English speakers, which "Taiwanese Passport" unquestionably is. No endorsement of the validity or appropriateness of the usage is implied. It is also inappropriate on pyl's part to assume that non-Chinese editors are not familiar with the situation, including issues which are much more subtle such as the difference between "Zhonghua Taipei" and "Zhongguo Taipei" in the Chinese Taipei article. -- MCB ( talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.
The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008
Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.
The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008
The brief article on the Anniston Eastern Bypass in northeastern Alabama seems to be presented from a particular point of view, condemming alleged "land-grabs" and demonizing the local newspaper.
Not a big issue, neccesarilly, just one I found today.
I want to include McCain's "I don't disagree" [with the draft] statement to Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks. When I did so, it was reverted on the grounds that it was not a "controversy". I can't find anything in the policies that specifically defines how to determine if something is controversial. Am I overlooking a relevant policy? Do we need an objective source to call it a controversy? Wouldn't they then lose their objectivity by doing so? Can't even biased sources at least determine if something is controversial? AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor who removed the comment gave a further and in my opinion, better, explanation as to why the comment was not a "controversy." Though, interestingly, we did establish that editors could determine when something was a controversy or not, as none of the other sources included the word "controversy" or any of its derivatives. I suppose that falls under the category of WP:COMMON. I consider this matter resolved. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see the talk page, most recently DGG has raised POV issues. The article seems to express one point of view about acid throwing (the article is actually not about the throwing of acid; it is about the throwing of acid in mostly Muslim countries as a crime against women) witout clearly identifying the point of view, and without providing a clear account of other points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The specific section with serious NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint"
The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen#7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs. Briefly, two editors strongly object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.
Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The entry on Governor Palin lacks any information on an important matter of public record, the stated concerns of many critics that she lacks substantive knowledge and/or experience in foreign relations (or, more properly, international relations). I fail to understand why a documented reference to this issue might be considered partisan, especially since the article includes an entire section about another controversy, her dismissal of the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner. I have no objection to locking the entry. I am only concerned that the entry on Governor Palin conform to the same standards as comparable Wikipedia entries on political figures by providing fair and comprehensive information regarding substantive public controversies. For example, the entry on Presiendt George W. Bush includes information on several public controversies related to his perceived abilities and his political stances. To be clear, I am not suggesting the entry on Governor Palin be opened up so as to provide a comprehensive listing of accusations against her or her family, no matter how incredible. However, I do believe the entry ought to be expanded to include information about a matter of considerable consequence. How does the exclusion of substantial, well-documented information about a public controversy serve the public interest or enhance the credibility of this forum?
The article leads for Quirinius and Census of Quirinius contained a sentence written with the phrase most historians and most modern historians that I and other editors are concerned with (see discussion pages). I'd just like some feedback here because I'd like to address the underlying issues of making sure articles use neutral language and that legitimate differences of scholarship and referencing, as I read the guidelines. should preclude using language that is almost wholly subjective in that there is simply no way in this case to accurately quantify this particular opinion using WP:RS. In this particular case shouldn't some or there are or similar language be used to better effect? Awotter ( talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably the best way to get a handle on this one is to look at the discussion regarding it. also that this is, i think, the third argument about it. -- Kaini ( talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This article The Bachelors has been continually edited by User talk:Contributer67, and one of the links he has added 3 times (which is why I have obeyed the 3-revert rule and not reverted a third time) is [19] which is obviously from The Bachelors camp, whereas a contradictory claim is made by John Stokes at [20] which means the veracity of the claim by Contributor67 cannot be ascertained.
Further more, another contributor, Con Cluskey, who is obviously one of the members of The Bachelors, denies the claim that John Stokes lost the court case denies the accuracy on his talk page User talk:Con Cluskey says there was no court case in Altrincham, which is a complete denial of the claims made by Contributor67.
A reference for the article is given as “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I have been unable to confirm the existence nor the contents of this dictionary. Perhaps another Wikipedian can search to see if I have missed something.
Contributor67 has also added to the article the words, “As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true – see the webpage [21]
Can somebody please separate the chaff from the wheat and ensure that it is properly and correctly referenced? -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply ( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
As a contributor only interested in the correct and legally accurate history it has to be said that the john Stokes reply mentioned above was not a reply. The statement on his website is considered to be legally inaccurate and in fact laden with untruths. This fact is verified legally [outside this forum].
The Con and Dec page JohnStokesTheTruth has only recently to my knowledge been uploaded. As a Bachelors expert I can confirm that this page is accurate and all detail on there can be verified from the multitudinous sources available. As an interested party in all things Bachelors I would feel that this page was presented as a rebuttal to the clearly untrue statements on John Stokes' site.
As regards third party sources, surely there can be no better third party source than the High Court Documents signed by John Stokes which are available at http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm. These documents are widely held by interested parties in British show Business. He is precluded by the High Court of England from using the name Bachelors or any colourabloe imitation. therefore it follows that he is in contempt of court in the way his site is titled. He is simply not allowed to use the name in law. It follows that the site is deemed to be illegal and that any links to the site are colluding in a contempt of court.
As Wikipedia is a trusted source I strive to ensure that the law is upheld in this instance and that no assistance is given to lawbreaking. I was recently sent the Wikipedia entry for The Bachelors by an eminent lawyer in London. He was astonished that a link to a patently obvious contempt of court page could be displayed on Wikipedia.
In supplying links to a rogue site Wikipedia does not do itself any favours. My only wish is for Wikipedia to display accurate verifiable and legally correct information and links. It is mainly the links on The Bachelors page that are the problem.
( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
Reply (
Contributer67 (
talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
>I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had<
There is a mountain of verifiable information.
There is no axe to grind only a wish for correct, accurate information. The many Bachelors fans worldwide simply want correctness. In my experience the links to a legally unnacceptable site are distressing to many readers.
( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
Reply ( Contributer67 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
No attack was intended only, the truth. Mr Wilcox stated that he would desist from editing the Bachelors entry. He still does. And additionally grabs any opportunity to malign Dec Cluskey.
The Ian Whitcomb article on The Bachelors is known to contain many inaccuracies. Attempts have been made to contact him to correct this matter but no reply has been received by anyone.
The article on the Wikipedia page is now accurate and fit for purpose. And the Bachelors community are grateful for the help from other interested parties. The problem is the continual undoing of the edit re. the links.
If the principal is accepted that Wikipedia should not promote sites which clearly tell untruths and are legally off track then my edits of the offending links should be accepted. There is no Point of View involved only the quest for honesty and truth. That would satisfy the many Bachelors fans and would provide the legal profession with an accurate and legally correct Wikipedia entry.
To support the argument that any link, no matter how illegal, should be given is to support the argument that links to paedophile sites should be given on children's entries for the sake of a complete picture.
Or links to burglars on Housing Companies entries?
I simply ask that the links to John Stokes site which is in contempt of court and is passing off as The Bachelors should be permanently removed.
(
Contributer67 (
talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))
This page badly needs a neutral viewpoint added and seems to be chiefly edited by members of the campaign involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustycrusty ( talk • contribs)
This page badly needs new eyes on it. It has devolved into a simple "undo" war between two different descriptions of an event, both of which are factually true. The question is over the proper characterization of what happened. The two versions are below. I wrote the first one, and another author (whom I suspect to be a sock puppet for the subject) repeatedly deleted it, finally replacing it with the second version (which I believe to be a sanitized version). Both of us agree that both versions are factually true, but clearly the two versions portray the results of the investigation in a different light. We have been unable to resolve the issue through discussion. Would someone please be willing to read the two page summary of the report cited on the page (you have to skip through some letters first on the .pdf file) and help us to resolve the dispute? I'd be so grateful. The two versions are below:
Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee.[9] [10] [11] Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.[9] [10]
The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style."[7] "[W]itnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him. Some witnesses further indicated that BG Kimmitt resorted to threats of job loss or career harm as a 'motivational' tactic and made demeaning comments when criticizing individual work products." [7] "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him.... While some witnesses, to include his supervisors and several detractors, viewed BG Kimmitt as 'effective,' we also found credible witnesses who told us that they obtained other employment to escape the unpleasant work environment." [7]
At Kimmitt's request, the IG also "obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could trigger confrontation."[7]
The Department of Defense Inspector General's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt . . . failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate.[9] [7] The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.
Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations. The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with applicable standards", that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office", and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." The IG reported at the conclusion of the second investigation that the allegation was not substantiated and warranted no further investigation, and that the complaint provided no details that would convey creditability to the allegations.[7]
In the Yamashita's gold article, an editor makes dubious claims that several court documents lend credence to their opinion of events. The wording is twisted and skewed, at best, to advance the editor’s point of view. There are no independent third-party sources that support these opinions.
The section is a mish-mash of legal piffle, and the talk-page is a battlefield of redundancy
Yamashita's_gold#Related_legal_action
Talk:Yamashita's_gold#Removing_False_References
Talk:Yamashita's_gold#False_References.2C_Dubious_Statements_and_Personal_Opinions_in_Article
Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. The edit warring has to stop, and somebody other than me needs to tell the IP editor they need to cite the proper references to support their opinion(s).
It is hard to have a discussion with an editor who states on the talk page: “I have a law degree and over 15 years of solid experience analyzing judicial opinions. I also have spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case. I know what I am talking about.”
I posted this over @ the OR noticboard as well:
Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Yamashita.27s_gold
Jim (
talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
___________
The section in dispute concerns a lawsuit. The best source as to what transpired in the lawsuit are the official statements of the Court -- the official history of the lawsuit. The statements of the Court are clear (to anyone who can read) and are consistent with the contemporaneous news reports (which are also reliable sources). JimBob has some vested interest in the theory that Yamashita's Gold is an urban legend and resists any material that debunks his pet theory. The sources are irrefutable that Roxas prevailed on his claim against Marcos for converting the treasure. 67.120.59.46 ( talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has some recent inappropriate additions.
(1) The overt POV of the September 11 attacks article is a serious and continuous dispute at Wikipedia.
(2) On 9/10/08, "World Public Opinion", a very reliable source, published the results of its comprehensive poll (16,000 in 17 countries) on the question of who perpetuated 9/11: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=
(3) 54% of the people surveyed globally doubt that "al-Qaeda" committed 9/11.
(4) This result proves that the September 11 attacks article violates NPOV. MichiganMilitia ( talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following here, from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here or on the talk page for this project page ... Kenosis ( talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC):
For the record, I'd probably say the "Don't know" and the like shows ignorance, not necessarily buying into a conspiracy. I'm sure if you asked a worldwide poll of who did the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway you'd get a lot more "I don't know"s, but that doesn't mean that there's any real doubt that Aum Shinrikyo did it, just that people, put on the spot, can't remember their name. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The Page is being edited repeatedly to give it a pro-missionary slant. That the National Minority Commission has only members belonging to the minority communities is very relevant as its reports are being quoted at great length to substantiate the anti-Hindu slant. But the fact of NMC membership is being deleted repeatedly without discussion. A church fact-finding committee is being described as National Integration Council committee though the related link itself says otherwise.
The Page is without neutrality of view. The Page is best deleted as it is mere pro-Christian propaganda.
Jobxavier ( talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Three IDs are being used to slant-edit, presumably by the same editor. The Ids are Gabrielthursday, Recordfreenow and Lihaas.
Jobxavier ( talk) 07:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please search 'India'and 'Hindu' in HRW. The anti-India, anti-Hindu and pro-American Baptist POV might be evident. Jobxavier ( talk) 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Jobxavier ( talk) 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I am hoping for some pearls of wisdom from experienced editors about the Fathers' rights movement article, and in particular, how we can navigate some of the difficulties about writing from a NPOV about it, given that the sources that we have are mainly from two sources: articles, books, journal articles by academics in the field, such as [23], [24] [25] and books, articles etc. by members of the fathers' rights movement, (and in fact largely one member of the FRM, Stephen Baskerville) such as this one [26] To wit....
Thank you for your help and insight here.-- Slp1 ( talk) 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Baskerville is a leader of the fathers' rights movement. He is a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement state...." In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement including Stephen Baskerville state...." In some case, the attribution reads "Stephen Baskerville, [a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children] states.... In my opinion, the level of attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.
The fathers' rights movement is a "rights movement" and it is also referred to as a social movement. It would be highly biased to only include the view of some scholars who have described it as a social movement. The current lead is not misleading in any way, and the statements are clearly supported by sources.
Reliance on "scholars" in this article, especially without attribution, is not NPOV because "scholars" are not necessarily neutral. Law professors have been cited as scholarly sources. Some sentences include no attribution, while others do. In my opinion, the need for attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.
For example, the article was recently expanded to include the sentence "some fathers' rights activists...viewing feminism as an enemy." (Am I the only person who sees the term "enemy" as a strong word for scholars to use?) There are many different forms of feminism, and so the statement is misleading and relies on a prior phrase "original goals of feminism" to fill in missing detail.
The section is additionally misleading because members of the fathers' rights movement view those who oppose a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting as opponents, regardless of their views with respect to how specialized or equally capable men and women are as parents, and feminist organizations currently oppose the enactment of laws to create a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
Further, a source for this section clearly implies that these categories of fathers' rights activists are artificial constructs "for analysis purposes." The background and history section is being used to add artificial constructs of scholars. These artificial constructs are not necessary to the article and are unrelated to the background and history of the fathers' rights movement. Most of all, the section is unclear to readers. Michael H 34 ( talk) 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
In these series of edits, I replaced three uses of the term argues or arguing. What is wrong with the use of the word state as in "members of the fathers' rights movement state..."? [30] Michael H 34 ( talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34
This article was created to appease Mosedschurte ( talk · contribs) who was repeatedly inserting POV and, IMHO, WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk. The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates WP:POVFORK has been loosely compiled with little context of why they would be involved with Jim Jones who had enormous political influence through the community work of his church and the volunteers, and votes, he could direct. Each statement by itself is technically true but the synthesis infers that these politicians should be held in some way accountable for the cult's mass suicide/murder in Jonestown. The related articles on Jones and Peoples Temple have also been populated with identical and similar cherry-picked bits from the sources which would also seem to violate WP:RS and/or WP:OR. I've had little sway in reasoning with the two editors there, Mosedschurte and to a much lesser extent Wildhartlivie ( talk · contribs). I would very much appreciate uninvolved editors to step in and see if there is a path to improving this article. Mosedschurte has shown, IMHO, resistance to following NPOV policies elsewhere and has yet to understand why this content is sourced and presented poorly presently. Any help appreciated as my input seems to be largely disregarded. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to begin with, this is a rather ridiculous charge and the sort of sniping I've tried to avoid. I've never posted a single "fringe" theory, or even just theory, on anything.
In fact, the events are rather non-controversial facts reported in numerous major newspaper articles (NY Times, San Fran Chronicle, LA Times, etc.) and the most well respected books on the various topics at hand (e.g., Raven, Gone from the Promised Land, The Mayor of Castro Street, Willie Brown A Biography, Seductive Poison, etc.).
This is, again, inaccurate. One can see this simply examining the article's history.
The one sentence about Milk's support of the Peoples Temple during investigations was deleted during edits and then re-added. That was subsequently deleted, and then an even smaller 3 line sentence was simply added to the "Supervisor" section.
This is simply false.
In fact, the article goes further into explaining their motivations. Such as the large political pull of the Temple, that Harvey Milk was scared of the Temple, etc.
That they all "are Democrats" is simply a ridiculous charge. Jones (who was a socialist) almost entirely dealt with Democrats and independent socialist activists. Mosedschurte ( talk) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The user Adoniscik and me were in an edit war. I warned him that he needs to put neutral sources for his controversial claims. He evades my ideas and reverted ALL my edits until now, putting his own article with non-neutral sources several times again and without any negotiation of neutrality. He claims that "his sources are right" when his claims are revisionistic and use sometimes denialist sources like happened years before in the Armenian Genocide article. (His claim is to promote a book that has been cited to support marginal arguments, such as the claim that Ottoman Armenians deserved their fate). Here are his reverts of my all edits [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. The same happens with his "friend" or sockpuppet Arsenic99 [37] [38] [39] [40]. Notice that I am NOT counting the before continuous edit war between us and the former continuous vandalizers [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. My version of the article is more or less neutral and warns about that the authenticity of the book is not clear. -- Vitilsky ( talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
the definition of this disorder should not be categorized by sex,there is no link to differences regarding gender associated with this disorder
example of text
In females
Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. As well, they over-identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasized intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow to avoid distress and have difficulty understanding themselves or others in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. The majority of the time their partners will have symptoms of personality disorders, equal to, or far worse than their own. Women with HPD often tend to enter into abusive relationships with partners who increase the abuse as time wears on. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology. Women with borderline tendencies often form entirely negative convictions towards the male gender and treat them like pawns as a defense mechanism concealing their own inadequacies. They may engage in self-mutilation and/or manipulative suicide threats as one aspect of general manipulative interpersonal behavior.[2]
In males
Males with HPD usually present problems of identity crisis, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control. They have antisocial tendencies and are inclined to exploit physical symptoms as a method of false control. These men are emotionally immature (although they tend to believe the exact opposite), dramatic (although many are adept at covering it up), and shallow (although they tend to believe their feelings are so deep that no other single person could ever understand). Men with HPD may dwell on their own emotions and create a false sense of reality, effectively convincing themselves of whatever they need to believe to feel comfortable in their relationships. HPD males with antisocial tendencies shift between periods of isolation and those of extreme social conquest (each shift can last a matter of days to periods lasting several years). They may require isolated retreats in order to obtain a comfortable level of understanding and acceptable functioning. HPD antisocial males are dependent upon no one in particular, but crave the dependence of others. Although males often have chameleon-like social skills (similar to HPD females), they tend to have trouble keeping lengthy friendships afloat as their paranoia (real and imagined) may eventually lead to a near complete and permanent disposal of all interpersonal relationships at a given time, effectively eliminating any emotional responsibility and accountability. They tend to genuinely search for intimacy (many believe in "the one") while remaining unable to regulate their perceived level of intimacy for any given interpersonal relationship, making it very difficult to build anything other than turbulent relations. Males with HPD may believe in the supernatural, such as fortune telling or telepathy, including the belief that there are many hidden messages and notions in public works that are specifically meant for them. When HPD antisocial males believe they are being manipulated, they may morph into sociopathic relations with their perceived enemies, yet remain overtly loyal to perceived friends. HPD men are oftentimes intensely driven by their quest to conquer life, despite having no real sense of direction or control, resulting in frequent changes of overly passionate interests. [2] Both men and women with HPD engage in disinhibited behavior, such as promiscuity and substance abuse.[3] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Icevixen17 (
talk •
contribs) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The article uses a very deceptive selection of his congressional actions, and is misleading voters about one of the closest and most-funded Congressional races in 2008.
It boasts that he won an award from the League of Conservation Voters, portraying him as a pro-environment candidate. It neglects to mention that the same League of Conservation Voters also gave him a "F" grade last Congressional Session.
His position on Iraq is described solely as, "In May 2007 Kirk was the leader of a Republican delegation, of 11 congressmen, who explained to Bush his actions, in respect to Iraq, were hurting the Republican party." The article again neglects to mention the fact that Mark Kirk co-sponsored and was selected by Bush to help author the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.94.125 ( talk) 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Bosnian Institute
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Encarta
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"Country Profile: United States of America". BBC News. 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
"Country Profile: United States of America". BBC News. 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2008-05-18.
AffidavitWagner
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).