This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Ceuta and Melilla are two Spanish enclaves in North Africa, they are both claimed by Morocco but remain Spanish territory. The situation is very much analogous with that of Gibraltar, British territory claimed by Spain. As Ceuta and Melilla are only 15km from Gibraltar many commentators draw attention to the dichotomy whereby Spain claims Gibraltar whilst also maintaining its own enclaves. It might have been naturally expected that might be mentioned in the Gibraltar article but it is not.
I have prepared a brief mention, cited and giving due coverage appropriate to an overview article on Gibraltar, with more details at Foreign relations of Spain#Disputes - international. See [3]. I first proposed this edit in talk over the weekend, repeating the same suggestion without a response. Immediately I add it to the article it is reverted claiming there is no consensus to add it and a somewhat strange talk page post claiming this edit violates WP:NPOV.
I would like outside opinion as to whether the edit I have proposed meets WP:NPOV and gives appropriate coverage per WP:DUE. Thank you. Justin talk 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
He is determined to write the article about himself... badly. No response to any attempt to discuss. I have to rush off to choir practice; anyone else want to have a try? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
An article I nominated for GA status, Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, failed due to NPOV concerns. The discussion is here [5]. I'd like broader input on the NPOV issue, as I didn't think the GA discussion was clear or thorough. The objection centers on quoting of the Koran in the green sideboxes. The quotes pertain to women's rights. The objection is that this implies that the Koran is anti-woman. If you find the quoteboxes in violation of NPOV, constructive suggestions would be helpful. Should they be deleted? Can the Koran can be quoted in any way?
Withdraw until after the AfD is over |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System is currently undergoing an AfD. I commented at the AfD that there is no inherent BLP issue with this entry and that it is notable enough to be kept, but that the current entry appears to be a WP:COATRACK. As a result I have posted a detailed discussion on the talk page of the COTRACK/NPOV issues - Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#WP:COATRACK. This discussion quickly digressed into a verbal ping pong match with the main contributer to the article, which is just cluttering the talk page without any productive movement on the issues. I'm hoping some uninvolved eyes could take a look at this so that I can step back from the unproductive back and forth with the afore mentioned editor. I do not think the entry should be deleted or whitewashed. Not at all. Just think it needs some serious trimming. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (in agreement with cirt, but with detail) I said it's canvassing because you've appealed to a group of editors with a non-neutral presentation of the issue of something currently at AfD. It's clear that you are interested in getting people to agree it's a coatrack as it stands. AfDs often result not only in a keep or delete decision, but also a clear indication on how to move forward, which can be invoked in future discussions (this may or may not be official policy, but it's a common occurrence). I would suggest that the most proper thing to do in this case is wait until the AfD is over, and then discuss on the talkpage about how to improve the article. In terms of an approach, arguments such as "it's a coatrack but rescuable" (see also "it's basically OR, but it doesn't have to be") are usually not going to gain majority support in any AfD. It's probably better not to confront the issue (and have it ruled out after minimal discussion because editors will tend not to nuance as much at an AfD) and focus on the basic keep/delete for now. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Above discussion hatted, due to ongoing AFD. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. An IP has made a series of revert edits for which he has now been blocked, the last being the following: here.
I would revert him myself, as his reference is as other editors have indicated as well POV, off-topic, soap-boxing, and not supported from what I can see by the ref he initially claimed supported it. However, I don't wish to brush up against 3RR myself. The sysop who blocked the IP suggested that I therefore post the matter here, suggesting "f the edits in question are obviously that bad, you can certainly get another editor to remove them.". Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
While the title suggests something broader, the gist of the article entitled Professional sports league organization is essentially a comparison between professional sports in North America and Europe. However, the choice of terminology, in particular, the use of the word "league", represents a North American perspective, being applied to European sport. A comparison of two subject areas, from the perspective of one of the two subject areas can hardly be said to be neutral.
The focus of the article appears to be even narrow - an attempt to explain the Premier League, and the various other competitions that clubs playing in that league participate in, to a North American audience unfamiliar with English football.
The North American perspective, together with the narrow focus, results in several inaccuracies in the section on European sport. I have raised these in the talk page. Rainjar ( talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking assistance or involvement of neutral experts or administrators who can look into the Afshin (Caliphate General). I added over 7 references yesterday referring to both Turkic and Iranian background of this historical personality. Yet I am faced with opposition from User:Khodabandeh14 who seems to diminish or get rid of references to Turkic/Turkish in favor of Persian/Iranian throughout this and other articles [9], and seems unwilling to come up with a compromise, instead removing dispute tags and using restrictions to intimidate into accepting his WP:POV. I am not sure if this is more relevant to content noticeboard or here, I feel it is more about neutral point of view in judging references. The fact that User:Khodabandeh14 rejects multitude of other historical references using just one author C.E. Bosworth in both Afshin (Caliphate General) and Atabegs of Azerbaijan article raises concerns of excessive WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I urge everyone to look at the talkpage discussion. A) If ethnicity of something is disputed, it should not be in the introduction. B) The above user has simply used sources from 1848, 1910 (outdated) and three authors with no university/academic affiliations. I have brought authors from published academic journals and scholars such as Bernard Lewis, Peter Benjamin Golden and C.E. Bosworth [10] (Oxford University Professor and well known scholar), as well as Cambridge History of Iran. [11]. The above user is simply not reading the talkpage and claiming that I have only one source! He simply refuses to read the talkpage, and still repeats his own statement that I am using one source. C) I also urge a neutral expert admin to come to the discussion and I have called two admins already. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This section - Transportation Security Administration#TSA Sexual Assault - states as fact allegations of widespread assault and abuse by a U.S. government agency. The article neither states any rebuttal nor cites any official TSA or DHS sources, and openly advocates for activist websites which are cited as sources. This subject is a hot button media issue, and these claims are inflammatory at best, as well as self-promoting. Tad ( talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Charles Sumner is mostly great, but the lead (specifically the last two or three paragraphs) strikes me as overly long and lending undue weight to a particular set of opinions. Is this me? The editor(s) of the article don't seem to think so; see Talk:Charles_Sumner#NPOV_issues.3F. The lead is less than half a dozen paragraphs, shouldn't take long to skim them and chip in and let me know if I'm being unreasonable. Johnleemk | Talk 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that for the past 3 years this BLP has been controlled by a series of single article editors and used as a promotional article for the Subject. Recently the Subject became more internationally notable and somewhat controversial for his testimony in GITMO. Presently there are 3 single article editors working in tandem [12] [13] [14] to keep the BLP 100% free of any but the most complimentary content. 1 of the 3, Stewaj7 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. I have been very involved in the article since I first noticed it on Nov.1,2010. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Naturopathy there have been multiple NPOV issue raised here. I have suggested several new sources but am a new editor. Input from more experienced editors is requested. Mcmarturano ( talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please go through this (sections Afghanistan#Foreign Intrusion and Civil War, Afghanistan#Taliban Emirate and United Front and Afghanistan#Recent history (2001-present)) and neutralize the edits made by the POV-pusher, it reads like someone's blog page. I believe that everything JCAla is adding to Wikipedia is political propaganda in which he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time he is praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords. JCAla even added Pakistan as one of the Taliban's main allies when really Pakistan is engaged in a major war with them and is allied with US-NATO forces. Everytime I tag the page JCAla removes the tags.-- Jrkso ( talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Everything has been discussed here and here. All sources have been provided. They are considered as reliable and as coming from distinguished institutions and academic sources by the editors. Jrkso does not like the realities of history. Dmcq (except for the tone tag) and two other long-time editors have all agreed to remove the tags. We have further agreed that the content of the sections is valid, well-sourced and should stay. There was an agreement that the wording of the sections was not of encyclopaedic quality. That has been changed. Jrkso should stop his politically motivated, ridiculous accusations. He has disputes with many editors because he falsifies sources [21] [22] [23] for his own political agenda. His agenda becomes evident considering his statements:
Some days ago he was claiming the oppposite:
It is getting ridiculous. By the way, it was me who added "According to Human Rights Watch in 1997 Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Dostum's Junbish forces." to this section. JCAla ( talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Jrkso - I have not touched the tags since you put them in saying you were raising the issue here, so exactly why have you addressed me in particular about that? I have left them there so anyone here can look and judge for themselves.
Yes the warlords were the bigger threat in 2004 after the Taliban were nearly destroyed, and your point is? Plus I'm sure there's lots of Afghans who'd prefer the sort of stability the Taliban brought despite what they did, and what's your point with that? Are you really alleging the Saur Revolution had nothing to do with Russia and America didn't exploit it, never mind their various neighbours sticking their fingers in the pot and stirring it? I'm sure America would like nothing so much nowadays as a way to escape the whole business with a shred of dignity and leave the place halfway reasonable and stable - but that wasn't always so. Dmcq ( talk) 11:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not removed the tags, but I think that they are not needed. JCAla has provided good and acceptable sources. The only thing I am not happy with is the wording. In my opinion, it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic way. But the message is well sourced. I have offered JCAla my help in order to improve the section's wording, but my English is not that good, so I would appreciate support from native speakers. As for Jrkso: I do not understand his constant opposition and fight in Afghanistan-related articles. Basically, he is opposed to everyone else. Tajik ( talk) 10:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You must have supernatural abilities "knowing" where everyone is coming from without anybody ever telling you. Plus, your sentence, "the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban", (besides being a false statement since I also wrote about the execution of Taliban soldiers and atrocities committed by different militias in Kabul) proves where you are coming from (considering I was writing about the mass killings in Mazar-i-Sharif in which 2,000 - 8,000 civilians were executed by the Taliban). For the record, the most frequently used sources in the article are the following ones:
JCAla ( talk) 24 November 2010 (UTC)
moved JCAla ( talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC)
In the Waldensians article, in the section "Ancient origins asserted and disputed", User:Vidim has been attempting to give equal weight to the claim that the Waldensian church is older than Peter Waldo, a claim that even the Waldensian church does not support, that is not supported by contemporary sources, and that secular scholarship does not even bother with. He has been fighting my attempts to add neutrality to his additions (instead of removing them wholesale). We have not been discussing it in the article's talk page, but on his talk page instead.
His actions include:
I have tried to explain repeatedly that information in the articles should be proportionate to reliable sources, and that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to non-mainstream claims. I have tried to point out that he is reading his own POV into Reynerius's words "a long time." I have tried to point out that the sources he's been using are biased. He still wants the article to treat the pre-Waldo origin claim as equal, when the sources are:
I think part of the problem is that there are no other editors involved, so he is OK with dismissing just me as having some sort of "lack of neutrality in any argument about Waldensian antiquity," even though he initially admits that his edits may have been biased. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems that one or several evangelical Christians have been busily rewriting this article to conform with their own religious beliefs, as well as creating articles like Pauline mysticism and Evangelical mysticism, that also are meant, not to give objective information, but to ensure that Wikipedia confirms the beliefs of their particular church. There's a lot of stuff there, and some of it goes beyond my own knowledge... anyone interested in theology and in taking a look at this? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Timeline of the burrito has many WP issues from my perspective. Dispite initial cooporation offered by another editor Talk:Timeline of the burrito, that editor has since engaged in protectionism of all content within the article. Plenty of time was offered between conversation and the resulting good-faith edits to remove unencyclopedic material. Dispite this, the editor is now engaged a reverting edit war. WP:3RR does not directly apply because this article gets so little activity that reverts occur over a week rather than a day. I am hoping for fresh eyes to review Timeline of the burrito, especially since there is an attempt to merge this with the main burrito article. I fear the edit war will move over to that more significant article if this is not addressed now. — fcsuper ( How's That?, That's How!) ( Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, are the dates on which restuarants opened really that notable? I'm not a Californian and have only been to a few places in Mexico, so I have no idea if any of them are important. For example, I consider the 1973 entry "La Taqueria opens in SF" to be trivia because there is no explanation of why this matters. There are, I think, six entries that are equally uninformative as to the importance of the restuarant opening. -- Habap ( talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Editors are claiming undue weight over inclusion of convictions for abuse by two members of this military unit. There is world-wide coverage in reliable sources ( Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, BBC, Vancouver Sun, Bloomberg) and several previous acquittals of members are noted in the article. Convictions for such abuse are rare enough that it seems worth including. Is this removal appropriate?-- Misarxist 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to get the NPOV tag at MKUCR removed as it seems to be used there as a "badge of shame." Some editors do not like the article's contents, but really don't have anything to add to the article. Rather they want to remove certain points of view, e.g. that the mass killings of something like 100 million people were related to the Communism of the regimes that killed them. As I understand WP:NPOV it is about making sure that all non-fringe documented points of view on a topic are included, NOT that points of view should be removed if some editors don't like them.
I've asked for well over a month for folks to come forward with POVs that they think have been excluded, and only 1 editor has done so. That POV is essentially that comparisons of Nazi and Communist mass killings are essentially anti-Semitic. It seems a bit off-point and fringe, but I've invited him to include it in the article.
The main point of contention is that sources such as the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, and many other scholarly works do make a connection between Communism and the mass killings, as well as many more popular and/or political sources such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Several editors do not like the views expressed by these sources and thus insist that the NPOV tag be kept - this is a complete inversion of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Note that several editors have made a point of trying to get this article deleted; there have been about 6 requests for deletion over the last 18 months, and they have failed every time. The NPOV tag should not be used as a substitute for deletion or a mark of "I don't like this article"! Smallbones ( talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
In the article, Aftermath of World War II, Communicat has inserted a paragraph in the Post-war tensions section of the article on Operation Dropshot. Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan devised in the United States for the atomic/high-explosive bombing and invasion of the Soviet Union. It is my opinion that the detailed nature of the information provided in the Aftermath article gives an inaccurate impression that the United States was actually preparing to conduct the operation. Communicat's favored text was modified in this edit. I really don't think it belongs in the article at all.
We have attempted to resolve our differences on the talk page, though now he is talking of adding me [35] to expanding list of users he wishes to include in his quest for arbitration without seeking any intermediate steps. [36] [37]
So, I'm hoping to find some neutral parties who can review the section in question, at least. Thanks in advance. -- Habap ( talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I never used the term "inappropriate" when discussing the problem of undue weight in the article. [38] I did try to address the concerns about Operation Dropshot a few weeks ago. [39] In response, Communicat blind reverted me and filed a RfAr against me. [40] Edward321 ( talk) 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Or is it that disagreeing with you indicates bias? -- Habap ( talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)The review in the Morning Star is far more accurately portrayed by the quotation provided "If this unnervingly convincing analysis is correct, beware hydra-headed fascism." That paper was originally the product of the Communist Party of Great Britain and now says that the programme of the Communist Party of Britain underlies the paper's editorial stance. --Habap (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I'm not going to further dignify your provocative remarks with a thoughtful response. The only reason I'm here in the first place is because Arbcom specifically instructed me to participate in Rfc before considering any re-submission of my request for arbitration. Communicat ( talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated to this discussion, I have blocked Communicat for 1 week for a personal attack on another user on that article talk page. This is the third personal attack block for Communicat in the last 10 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree that Communicat resorts to personal attacks too frequently. I hope the one week break will allow the passions to settle. Let me point out, however, that, although Communicat's behaviour and his edits are far from perfect, the discussions he initiates eventually lead to improvement of the articles he works with. Going back to the initial issue, the only my objection to the Dropshot story is that it is not true that the idea of massive atomic pre-emptive strike against the USSR was abandoned in 1947. For instance, in his article "American Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision" (The Journal of American History, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jun., 1979), pp. 62-87) David Alan Rosenberg writes:
In other words, the decision to build the grand strategy based on the atomic weapon was a long term strategic decision, which was dictated by the fact that as a result of WWII the USA could not compete with Soviet land forces in Europe. Therefore, both Dropshot and the story about the US turn to the atomic weapon as a primary tool of its military strategy has a direct relation to this article.
Consequently, we have to concede the Communicat's point (although not necessarily his behaviour) was generally correct. --
Paul Siebert (
talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
And another SPA IP comes out of nowhere to defend Communicat. [42] Paul Siebert, clearly acting in good faith, has missed the point. Operation Dropshot was not a planned a pre-emptive strike, it was a theoretical retaliatory strike, as references clearly show. Attempt to correct this error made by Communicat was met with blind reversion and filing of an RfAr against me for attempting the correction. The quote that Paul lists does not establish whether later plans were for pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes. Edward321 ( talk) 14:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm admittedly forum shopping here, as we are not getting a very satisfactory level of response through the usual channels: There being little other talk page activity, I solicited a response from WP:3O in the hopes that it could be resolved that way. However, the editor I am having a disagreement with seems to still dispute the change even after the 3O intervention. I think it is because xhe genuinely believes it warrants inclusion, and that 2:1 does not constitute a very strong consensus, so I'm bringing it here.
The issue at stake is whether the 'Cyber warfare attacks' section which I have restored to the current version belongs in the article. My view is that the connection between this incident and this year's prize is too tenuous, and was only reported in the article in this way because of its topicality and for no other reason. There are no news articles I am aware of which are making a connection between the cyber attacks and the nomination of Liu Xiaobo. Inclusion of this section would tend to suggest that the attacks and the recipient of the prize were related. The other party believes that "[t]he presumed connection to the Nobel Peace Prize for this year is clearly made in all the articles used to reference the 'cyber warfare' section," and thus should remain in its entirety. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
We are discussing about the most neutral wording for a summary of the territorial dispute around Gibraltar (mainly around the isthmus and the territorial waters) in the overview article about Gibraltar. Which of the following two texts do you thing is more neutral?
Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
or
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [3] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also
considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Seaclaims the territorial waters around Gibraltar arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Thanks! -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 13:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I've slightly reworded the second version as per the suggestion of one editor (customary law should be included). -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with the post above. Firstly the above content suggestions above were not the texts under discussion, the post here was misleading. Imalbornoz also omitted to inform this board of the issue related to the Government of Gibraltar's request to refer the dispute to the ICJ and the Spanish refusal - the International Court of Justice is the only UN body capable of delivering a definitive legal judgement on the dispute. I suggest it should be mentioned as Spain refused, Imalbornoz says we shouldn't as the ICJ hasn't delivered an opinion, which it hasn't because Spain refuses.
So I suppose a better question for outside consideration would be should the article mention the GoG request for an ICJ resolution of the sovereignty dispute and the Spanish refusal? Suggested text:
Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response.
I think it is a neutral description but would welcome outside comment - note the request for external input. Thank you for your consideration. Justin talk 13:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law [9].
In response to Voiceofreason01, yes. Spain's position is that Britain holds sovereignty over the town, castle and port of Gibraltar, along with their defences and fortifications - and nothing else. The statement that "Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock" is thus inaccurate.
There is also an argument that this and other points are far too much detail for a three-paragraph summary of the entire dispute, and that the section is at risk of being diverted into WP:COATRACK territory where every single point made by either side has to be recognised (bearing in mind that we do already have two articles on the dispute, and this isn't one of them).
I would also argue that it is biased to present the legal dispute as the EU and Spain trying to fend off judicial persecution by the evil Gibraltarians, as Imalbornoz is now proposing. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
So, I just wanted to ascertain if the use of Kiera Knightlie's (correct me if I'm wrong at spelling) image in the lead isn't a bit disturbing for WP:UNDUE rule? Why was her image used? I would understand if she was at top few who won the most awards at this festival, but it seems rather no reasonable arguments behind adding it in the lead, well the fact that she's fabulous and a prominent british actress erm.. adding in this article's lead wouldn't be really suitable from neutral point of view, I'm not being picky over trifles, well maybe a bit, because if I was actually I wouldn't be asking here for advice, now would I? So, maybe moving it to a downward section would do the trick? I leave up it to your comments, as I'm not actually against it being there.. but rules are rules, step by step they should be implemented if their implementation rewards for a better right order and efficiency.
Single White Female 2: The Psycho, the section Critical response. There's only one negative comment for the film, is it okay? Shouldn't it be balanced somehow to correspond with WP:Due rule, or forget about this rule, just to correspond with fair writing and to give amount of positive comments as well? Userpd ( talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone look over the recent history of Brooks, Alberta? I would appreciate a second opinion on this. NW ( Talk) 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
With the recent controversy over enhanced security screening the article is suffering from Recentism and Coatrack issues and a lot of Imagery that does not neutrally reflect the TSA. The most interesting is the experimental full body scanner Image from 2007. According to its caption it is not what TSA sees at security thus psuhing some sort of agenda. I removed an Image yesterday of TSA employee who was sleeping off duty that had a caption implying he was sleeping at Work. Extra Eyes welcome The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 23:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Here we have a user who is repeatedly adding this content. The sources he is using are questionable at best, and i can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are. In addition it should be noted that he is in fact the very person the section is talking about as is made clear here, and that he is even attempting to use wikipedia to further his own aims as can be seen here. Can someone please help me attempt to explain to him why he can't do this as I'm quite fed up of him. I hope this is the correct noticeboard for this-- Jac16888 Talk 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
How can sources that are documents from a legal court ruling and Ministry of Education ruling be "questionable at best." Ifeel "sourcing" is being used in a tendentious manner here. Are editors reading the sources? Surely there must be SOMEONE who is Chinese-bilingual in the US who, in a matter of seconds, can verify the documents are authentic and read even just the highlighted section(s) of the document. The vague reference to "sources" suggests where the problem lies, and not in the sources themselves. The criticism here seems vague: "I can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are." What kind of proof is needed besides a legal court or Ministry ruling? And I'm not clear how personal involvement is an issue here? If I report a fire at my house does that mean the fire is not real because it happened at my house? Where's the logic? Does that mean the fire victim is "furthering his own ends" by reporting the fire? (As a matter of fact, the documents are not MINE; they are from the Taiwan court and Taiwan Ministry of Education.) And I do wish you would be more careful in your choice of words ("I'm quite fed up with him"); I don't write the same thing about you; even though people involved in this case are puzzled where you think the entry is not properly sourced; they went to the trouble of properly sourcing the entry. I dont write "I'm fed up with you." I'm trying to communicate with you, because I know the sourcing is correct by any reasonable standards. Other issues should be of no account, as I pointed out in examples above. I feel words like "sourcing" and "biased" are not being used the way they should, but are being using tendentiously. How can something be biased if it's based on legal documents? And how much sourcing can one use than legal documents? I see no difference between my entry on NCKU and, say, the entries on various Hollywood stars where similar entries are made. You write-- Cincinattus ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)-- Cincinattus ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)-- Cincinattus ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC), "I strongly advise you to attempt to address the points i have made." I would suggest the same here to you. Jac, the illegal dismissal is a fact, by any reasonable interpretation of the word fact. If a court document or the Ministry of Education document is not sourcing, I don't know what is. The one point I might agree with is the reference to my blog (but that was done only in response to a previous edit when I was unfamiliar with what "sourcing" was required. I will remove that. I also would agree with the placement of the human rights entry, though I would not use a different argument than a previous editor did. Cincinattus
We've got a question at WP:ELN#ELNO_.239 that's not properly an External links question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?
The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good (secondary?) source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a handful of (important?) papers. The aspect involving DUE is whether these papers should be called out in the journal's article at all, since nobody seems to have written anything like "Journal X is famous for publishing these papers". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a fairly big concern about the article Line of succession to the British throne. At first glance, the biggest problem with the list (apart from its size) is the apparent Original Research problem. While this may be a problem, I think the fundamental problem is that it violates NPOV. I summarized the problem in this RfC. Basically, if one were to verify something like the King of Sweden is number 203rd in the line of succession, you'd have to do a lot of verification.. there is no source that claims he is number 203. But there are sources who make the arguments one would need to make (he's next after number 202, who's next after 201, etc..), since there are rules to the line of succession ( WP:SYNTH). The NPOV problem is that the precise meaning of some of the rules - in particular that Roman Catholics are excluded from the list - is unclear: different sources interpret the rule differently, and hence produce different numberings. Yet the Wikipedia article endorses a single choice (which, by the way, isn't found in any reliable source).
I have tried to convince editors on the talk page that something needs to be done, but there are some editors who are against removing the numbering - in particular the dedicated editors who strive to keep the list up to date. Any comments would be appreciated. I made an RfC about a month ago, but no action was taken. Mlm42 ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
We need help on the wiki Feminism page, we can not come to an agreement. I feel one version is balanced and the other is promoting a point of view and verging on original research. We are going round in circles.
My version http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Feminism&diff=419509002&oldid=419311345#Approach_to_men
Version I dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Feminism&diff=419509513&oldid=419509002#Approach_to_men
(1)
"Most feminist movements ....... argue that men are also oppressed by gender roles and can ultimately benefit from feminism."
I do not believe this to be true. There are numerous forms of feminism, including probably the largest being the social movement of most women who just believe in equality for women, for whom gender roles has no part of their thinking or would have no idea what you are talking about.
The term "most", imo, requires either (a) A reliable source that has through empirical or other means has confirmed this. or (b) Consensus.
In this case we have neither.
(2)
"In the U.S., mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position"
This has not be verified as true and is circular. It asserts through its references that:- US mainstream feminism = Those who believe in gender role arguments
There are many forms of feminism as this article shows. And what is a self identified feminist?
(3) Removal of
"In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men"
It has been removed with its reference being moved to those to do with radical feminism. This opinion belongs to one of the most famous feminists of all time and is not specific to radical feminism but a general commentary on feminism in general. It belongs in this page.
Zimbazumba (
talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If nothing else you made me laugh. About that lion..... Zimbazumba ( talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Aroneal,
(1) You have demonstrated some not most feminist movements adhere to gender role arguments. (feminism is defined by more than members of NOW et al)
(2) The final statement is ethnocentric in that is merely addressing the US and in my view not true, and basically says
mainstream feminism = those who believe in gender role arguments = mainstream feminism
Mainstream is a difficult word to define word and you are making well defined statements about it.
(3) The Friedman quote is clearly notable. No where in the voluminous commentary on her work have I seen it suggested that her use of feminism in that opinion is with reference to radical feminism alone. Simply put she say "feminism" not "radical feminism". Her views on this are well know.
Perhaps you are young and don't remember the 60's - 90's, but the the anti-male commentary from "mainstream" feminism was ubiquitous despite what the policy manual said. It exists today to a far lesser extent, because they have realised Friedan is right. It should be commented on. One comment from one of the most famous feminists of all time is hardly overkill
My version basically say feminism is not against men, welcomes male allies and some hold gender role arguments whilst a few are against and blame men. It think this is reasonably, uncontroversial and more in line with an encyclopedic entry. No where in that paragraph am I suggesting, apart from a few radicals, that feminists aren't pro-men. I can't see what the problem is.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Nick for your contribution, they are always remarkable.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Feminism IS misandry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.124.121 ( talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Ludwigs2 for your feedback, it was an interesting synopsis. The class of feminist theories you are describing, although very important, are one of a number and are the ones predominately taught in universities. In part because they are much more interesting to analyse and are worthy of a section of their own. This is a great article imo describing the diversity of feminism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/, if only the wiki article had the feel of objectivity this article has to it.
The problem with terms like feminism, feminist theory, feminist movement and feminist is that they have multiple definitions and mean different things to different people. As such they are a nirvana for prevaricators and agenda pushes. I have attempted to be as clear and unambiguous as I can.
The objection to the Friedan opinion is simply bizarre.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 04:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Cailil,
It was not me who added it. I was responding to what imo was an agenda driven entry that had been added. Its placement at the top atm is clearly wp:undue and I think is more an oversight. That being said, the terms feminism and feminist movement etc. means different things to different people. Certainly an informative discussion of feminism from a more academic perspective and its theoretical underpinning is excellent.
But also feminism to many is an important social movement involving mostly people who would never heard of Wollstonecraft or gender roles but adhere to a loose concept of gender equality. This aspect is commonly seen in our media, has caused social change, widespread debate and division amongst groups including the idea of the "The man hater". For this not to be on this page shows a lack of balance.
I agree this page needs a lot of work and the presence of some of the sections boggles the mind. Much as I'd like to contribute to this, my chances of not being repeatedly edit reverted and stonewalled in discussion are slim.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Tasks that are easily described are not always easily completed. But I understand your point.
Zimbazumba (
talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An attempt is being made to disassociate Pepi II Neferkare from the Ipuwer Papyrus and the First Intermediate Period.
First of all, Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the First Intermediate Period.
"Once the choice was made for the First Intermediate Period reasons were found to date it to the beginning of the period or even to the last years of Pepi II in the Old Kingdom." -- John van Seters, archaeologist, December 1964
"Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II." -- R. J. Williams, professor, 1981
"... research strongly suggests Moses and the Israelites went into bondage during the reign of Pharaoh Pepy II, the 'Pharaoh of the Oppression'" -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994
"One of the names in the family of Pepy II is an exact match to a name given in the Book of Jasher. This is the chief wife of Pepy II. In the Book of Jasher it states that the wife of Melol, the pharaoh of the oppression, was named Alparanith. The chief queen of Pepy II was named Neith (or Nith). This is very probably the same name and therefore the same person." -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994
"According to the Midrash, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Akidam and he had a short reign of four years. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses' return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of six to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this Midrash literally. As it happens though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years, and not only 94 years, but from the age of six to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century." -- Brad Aronson, scholar, 1995
"Ipuwer, an ancient Egyptian sage. He perhaps served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare (reigned c. 2294 - c. 2200 BC)...." -- The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, 2002
"The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate period...." -- Richard Lobban, historian, Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia, 2004
"There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period." -- Rusell D. Rothe, et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2008
All this scholarship is being distorted. It is being claimed that Pepi II Neferkare is not associated with the 4.2 kiloyear event and the First Intermediate Period and that modern scholars do not associate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus even though they do. 76.216.196.209 ( talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is absolutely absurd that this article does not at the very least have a citation indicating that its neutrality is disputed. Please see the article on Gibraltar and reasonably defend how there can be less 'dispute' as to neutrality or reliability. The article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but a long winded cult advertisement without a single reliable independent academic citation at any significant point. The article goes beyond unreliability; it is anti-academic and a shame to Wikipedia. Without a warning tag I cannot see how Wikipedia can maintain even a shred of honour as a worthy information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In February 10, 2011 I left a message on the article's talk page, pointing out a fact that the article only mentions some Korean scholars' negative attitude toward the committee, and does not mention Japanese historians and Korean positivist historians's viewpoint of the committee at all ( [50] mentions it). However in March 9, 2011 the problem still exists, so I deleted all the heavily biased sentences and paragraphs, which claims that the committee's main goal is to distort history of Korea, like Japanese edition. But I still think that since there are some scholars praise or attack the committee, the article should not just have the establishing date and members of the committee (the Japanese edition only mentions them); the article should also describe the various viewpoints of the committee. Hope that Wikipedians can use academic books and papers to further expand the article (not television programmes, encyclopedia articles and posts on blogs, there are not professional and accurate enough!).-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently created People's Pledge to cover this new British politicial campaign which hopes to force a yes/no referendum in the UK on the issue of ongoing membership European Union. Now, from where I'm standing, if you look at their 'case' page, explaining why a referendum shoud take place, I'd say it's pretty fair to describe in the opening line that the campaign is Eurosceptic - i.e., against the EU. Another user James Harvard ( talk · contribs), is trying to water this down into just saying it's a campaign for a referendum, on the (correct) basis that (some) of the supporters of the campaign are not Eurosceptic, and they just want a referendum to settle the issue either way, as it's been a political issue in the UK for decades. While this could be mentioned in the article; given the case page, given this is not the view of the majority of the supporters, and given the very obvious fact that all the polling suggests that a referendum would say no to continued membership, I think it would be a pretty basic violation of NPOV to present this campaign as politicially neutral, i.e., just interested in polling the democratic will of the people (although the Europhile view is that the UK does not run on referenda, and the umpteen general elections inbetween are sufficient representation). What are other people's views? MickMacNee ( talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it POV to preface a medical diagnosis with "-by doctors opinion-" as was done here? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I've been going through the Family Compact(Can History) article and don't think this article is neutral. I see name calling (oligarchy,elitest) and other terms that are not supported by the received body of historical research. Family Compact is certainly led by a prominent group of Upper Canadians, but this kind of writing is really a bit over the edge.
Membership in the Family Compact was not "closed". Any immigrant could join the family compact; it was a question of choice about the general tone of thought.
I've added the section with the prominent names of members of the Family Compact which include French Canadians (Baby), Scots etc. Membership at the lower levels would have been representative of the local Upper Canada population.
The Opposition section is weighted towards Mackenzie and does not discuss any other form of opposition. It would be more balanced if it showed the influence of the Colborne Clique at least and some mention of the other forces at work in Upper Canada.
This article is not neutral.
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact
99.246.14.181 ( talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
That's no problem to add the relevant sources. I plan on re-writting some of the intro and the sections. I just wanted to make sure that my objection had been noted in case there is any conflict in the future. Given the importance given to the article this seems to be right way to go about it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
In 2011 Libyan uprising, I noticed a pattern of edits by SuperblySpiffingPerson, who is listed as a relatively new editor. These edits seem to be primarily regarding the conflict in Libya. My research on the content of their edits seems to indicate a pattern where the conflict is being described in terms that are very biased toward the Western powers and describe the fledgling rebel government as 'transitional'. This editor seems to include a bias in a significant majority of their edits. For example, while most people might say "government of Libya" or "Gaddafi", Superbly says "Jamahiriya loyalists" or "Jamahiriya".
I am concerned about the integrity of the article, as well as related articles, and am worried by their seemingly rapid understanding of how to move pages and the number of edits (22 edits so far on March 23).
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SuperblySpiffingPerson
Please forgive me if I have left anything out. I'm very concerned about the direction the article seems to be taking.
-- Avanu ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.
The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.
The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am in constant dispute with an editor named Mijopaalmc at the Frot article. And because of this, I opened this discussion there: Talk:Frot#Other editors.
Basically, Mijopaalmc constantly nitpicks and makes things worse at the article every time I fix it up. No matter how much I fix up this article, he is never satisfied. Or he pretends to be satisfied and then finds something else to complain about the next week or next month later. I reverted him this time because these changes [51] [52] [53] give WP:UNDUE weight in the Preferences section as to why men like anal sex. Why men do not like it, and why they like it should be adequately summarized in the Preferences section. Furthermore, the change unbalances the Debates section back to the same problem it had before. There was a POV problem with that section, which Mijopaalmc complained about, and I recently balanced it out. His changes make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV he complained about. Which is no doubt what he wants so that he can complain some more about the article. Not to mention...that what is in the Preferences section is not about debates. It is specifically about why men prefer one act over the other. Mijopaalmc insists that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot," which I find absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you didn't misinterpret my words; you put words into my mouth. You and Atomaton determined that Bill Weintraub and his community use "frot" interchangeably with "frottage", and I demostrated that the predominate, if not, sole term for genital rubbing was "frottage" [54] [55]. What you are trying to so is say that, since Bill Weintraub and his commounity, use "frottage" and "frot" interchangeably, all gay men or MSM do. This is a falsehood as borne out by the sex manuals I just cited and and even one of the sources you cited which says:
Frottage, also known as dry humping, is sex without penetration where both partners rub or grind on each other to achieve an orgasm. This can be done either clothed or unclothed and can be achieved genital to genital or genital to other body parts. Frottage can be used as foreplay before anal sex or as the primary means of intimacy. [56]
I would like to write an article(s) about a project I'm involved in on an ambiguous and partially undisclosed level. We purposely engineer an environment suggesting endless supposition of who precisely is involved, as the project itself has an attitude of atypical relativeness, and so we believe we've become specialists at bypassing subjectivity and adopting an alternate point of view. (I say "alternate" and not "neutral" because I feel in many ways there is no such thing, for even a news publication decides what type of facts constitute objectivity, subjectifying its internal relative neutrality.) Paradoxically, we often hype and market this nature (and the project) ad nauseum, but we generally (or have come to be able to) do so in a conscious, crafted, calculated way, and often as a parody of its own ego. (We might wager the argument that this ego, even when uninflated, is an unavoidable consequence of the general principles and methods involved, but we're far too in the know to be certain we're not fooling ourselves.) Hence, one's right to suspect an especially high susceptibility to subjectivity (excuse the alliteration) but the opposite should also be supposed. I think we've evolved the latter skill, and are experienced enough to write with epitome NPOV.
For a microcosm example, I choose the phrase "has an attitude of atypical relativeness" (above) rather than a phrase with more miniature spin, such as "a philosophy of radical objectivity". Even though someone can have a philosophy seen as negative to some, that philosophy is a respected scholastic field of study seems to cast a warm light on that what's in question has been thought through intelligently by someone or something involved. And, while describing something as "radical" may judge it light or dark, it's more a plus when paired with something already having positive spin (e.g. "objectivity", which is a little more often than not seen as a better thing than its opposite). Also, I attempted to throw in a negative to the revision to counter the infinitesimal precision of exact neutrality. The phrase "has an attitude" usually connotes an undesirable one, and is something someone suppressing a negative bias might use. That the phrase must be modified after the point where it would create a gramatically correct sentence sans the modification is something that may have gone unnoticed to someone less specialized in "atypical relativeness". You may or may not agree with these details, but my point is that I was able to catch myself subconsciously on this particular word-to-word level. Likewise, I revised "expert" to "specialist", "mysterious" to "ambiguous", and "craft" to "engineer". (Rhetorically, this is conrived to an extent for demonstration.)
While all this should be enough to make my general inquiry obvious (how to write about the project neutrally here, given that a place that promotes neutrality via understandings of precision and complexity intrinsically offers allowing exception to policies prohibiting writing normally prone to bias), the question is complicated by the vast/excessive (POV-depending) amount of original terminology and concepts that need or could use extensive explanation or promotion to be understood. That is, its creative sope. More specifically, a largely undiscovered one. A good example would be a hidden library of sci-fi/fantasy books of a single epic (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings) of which A) only a few people read or have read, whose opinions would reflect a larger whole, B) has an established body of material worth noting, and C) incorporates unique/confusing concepts best nutshelled by its maker(s). (This latter point is key, a close example being the book Godel, Escher, Bach.) This scope in combination with being very "little discovered" suggests a potential nightmare of spam for a place like Wikipedia. Again, we think we're extremely sensitive to these subtleties, and our sense of noteworthiness is based on these factors. For instance, I would not write an article about a book we've not posted, nor one contradicting the consensus of minimal feedback.
Our project as a whole is largely a template for potential projects, or an ambitious web of them. We consider something to have substance when its strongly developed as a concept as well as via significant posted/published material, and I think we're at the point where a few key/core articles would be at home with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, our projects are exceptionally prone to confusion and complexity, so it may be a long wait for a third party to decide they understand one enough to relay it. Of course, our desire to eliminate extension may be tainting objectiveness, which is another reason I'm inquiring beforehand.
I hate mentioning specifics when I try to talk about our stuff objectively, because it always seems to turn out pluggy. I can't even say my own nickname anymore without feeling like I'm pushing a flyer into somebody's face. For instance, discussion boards can have a positive effect on the search engine status of a site, so even mentioning a keyword or two can be technically plug-esque. If you want more specific examples about what I'm talking about, you can search the net for the phrases "difficult to maintain total and fully up-to-date continuity", and "free for nonprofit use and free in general anyway". These should bring you to two pages that speak to our attention to detail, and you may explore from there. (You can also check the list of junk in my profile, but not all is what I'm talking about.) The projects these two phrases should bring you to are two I'd consider writing an article about if deemed appropriate. Please advice on how to proceed, thanks.
Squish7 ( talk) 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm making this report as a third party uninvolved in the original dispute. In November 2010 Albertoarmstrong ( talk · contribs) began adding content to the article Employee assistance programs related to workplace bullying ( [57]). This content was summarily deleted on 17 November but reverted by an IP (likely Albertoarmstrong forgetting to log in) a few hours later. In January 2011 Cknoepke ( talk · contribs) became involved in editing this section and the two have been involved in a prolonged edit war ever since. I warned both users and requested full protection of the article to prevent the edit warring from continuing. Now that I've had a chance to look over the content issue, I disagree with both users' preferred versions of the article and I think this whole section should be deleted as coatracking, or at a minimum drastically trimmed back to remove editorial content. I'm bringing this issue here to get some consensus from editors who (theoretically) have more experience with these sort of issues than I do. — KuyaBriBri Talk 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Albertoarmstrong ( talk) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Cknoepke ( talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Cknoepke wrote: "he believes the article to be his own" This is a false but EAP providers sure believe it theirs. Cknoepke inserted a paragraph at the end of the Workplace Bullying Concern section but misrepresented the reference so I had to insert a direct quote from Cknoepke's own reference to put in the correct perspective. If I thought the section was "mine" I would have deleted it.
Cknoepke wrote: "and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications". Again false. We had extensive discussion on the Discussion Page.
A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice?" That the terminology used in the references, so why can't that language be reflected in a Wiki article?
A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "I'd have to agree that that section is a mess." I used about 15 references so how can it be a mess? Albertoarmstrong ( talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi A Quest For Knowledge,
Actually, another editor inserted the "leery" word. Other than my edits, the rest of the article "implies" advice because its promotional material. Albertoarmstrong ( talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A major feature story ran on Rabbi Pinto, the largest story ever written about him and the few editors who control the board didnt allow neutral entrees to be placed. Need assistance from curious non interested parties.
The article was syndicated and picked up by Globes a major Israeli paper, The Real Deal a major NYC real estate publication and Vos Iz Neas Religious news service but entire chunks of article werent included. Can we have new eyes please ?
Would suggest adding: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.” 65.112.21.194 ( talk) 13:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
--A Jimbo quote...:
[...A]bout category:American alternative journalists - what is the category for, does anyone belong in it at all? I note that the category page gives no explanation nor justification, and it seems to me from checking a few links, that it is a POV category to stick people who someone, somewhere, wishes not to have identified as a "real" journalist (leftie or rightie, it seems to be a mix).
–Jimmy Wales (...@ Talk:James O'Keefe#cat)
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And here is where the phrase alternative journalist is used per a Google Books search (plus: plural; alt. journal-ism).
The problem is: Where do we draw the line for inclusion, with regard such a category? What constitutes its parameters as either a sub-set of "journalist" or a grouping that partially overlaps with it?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 19:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HotPads.com Last 2 sentences in the intro paragraph seems out of place on a site like Wikipedia. I'm a little surprised it got past the editors. <<All features are designed to create the most user-friendly, comprehensive, and personalized location-based housing search experience online. Whereas many real estate websites are mash-ups of other mapping applications, like Google Maps, HotPads uses its own original mapping application.>> Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.68.91.86 ( talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
What has happened with this article in the last month is one of the worst examples of politically-motivated recentist bias I've ever saw on Wikipedia. Just compare this revision from February 21 and the current revision as of March 30.
The article is a big jumble of two different viewpoints, even mid-paragraph. Either the entire thing needs to be ditched and re-written, or at least somebody needs to separate out the bogus negative stuff with the valid ones, and put them together in some sort of different subsection. Every single symptom section seems to refer to some obscure study about how it didn't work for this symptom, while talking about how it's treated for this symptom.
Here's the "Major depressive disorder" section:
Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder. In three out of six well-designed properly controlled pre-marketing trials duloxetine performed better than placebo; the three other trials were inconclusive.[17] Recently, duloxetine was shown to be effective in elderly with recurrent major depressive disorder where it improved cognition, depression, and some pain measures.[18] A meta-analysis of these trials indicated that the effect size of duloxetine as compared with placebo was weak-to-moderate, and similar to other 11 antidepressants studied.[19] The rationale behind the development of duloxetine was that inhibition of the reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine would make it work better than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which inhibit only the reuptake of serotonin. However, in a comparative meta-analysis of clinical trials duloxetine appeared to be insignificantly less effective than SSRIs.[20] A head-to-head comparison of duloxetine with an SSRI escitalopram (Lexapro) found duloxetine to be both less tolerable and less effective.[21] Another analysis of the comparative efficacy of modern antidepressants found duloxetine to be significantly, by 30-40%, less efficacious than mirtazapine (Remeron), escitalopram, venlafaxine (Effexor) and sertraline (Zoloft). Duloxetine was similar to fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox) and paroxetine (Paxil). The tolerability of duloxetine was significantly worse than the tolerability of escitalopram and sertraline.[22]
A review in Prescrire International summarizing the existing evidence noted that duloxetine has limited efficacy in depression and no advantages over other antidepressants. Prescribers observed that, taking into account the risk of hepatic disorders and drug interactions, there is no reason to choose duloxetine when so many other options are available.[2] Similar analysis was presented by Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, which is a part of the respected BMJ Group.[23]
References or not, it's still slanted and biased, showcasing a minority opinion as front and center, while contradicting itself with somebody else's edits. This article has been on the Noticeboard before, but that was two years ago.
I have put in Conflict & Undue templates for the article until it is fixed. SineSwiper ( talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We're really going around the houses on this one, I'm afraid.
It is argued that WP:WEIGHT only applies when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute. That is to say, that there is no problem from a WP:WEIGHT perspective with giving a point whose factual accuracy is undisputed significantly more weight than it is given in reliable sources.
In the case concerned, the point given significantly more weight than is present in reliable sources is accepted to be factually accurate (broadly, there are some disputes on detail), but are the points argued by those on one side of the modern dispute to further their cause.
Is this argument an accurate reading of policy? Pfainuk talk 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. -- 217.50.56.198 ( talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have cleaned up this article a bit and posted to the talk page, but I'm not very active on Wikipedia, so I won't be able to follow the discussion. This article provides no counterpoints and uses material sourced entirely from the webpages for the products, or third party webpages claiming that the products can be used off-label for birth control. NFP may or may not be a good method of birth control, and if any of this stuff checks out, it's great news. But if it doesn't, it shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.46.81 ( talk) 02:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
== Emehmotors.com ......THE RISE AND FALL.
This is the tiny little company started by a girl . He was supported by his brother and it grew to a mega company. They grew up poor with thier mother in a tiny village of West Africa. They all mi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginikanwaobivuilo ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it NPOV to describe the Viet Cong insurgency during the Vietnamese war as "communist terrorism" in the article Communist terrorism? TFD ( talk) 01:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The source says,
Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, police chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than thirty-three thousand South Vietnamese and abducted another fifty-seven thousand of them.... While the labeling stategy of the United States evolved over time, each of the related administrations linked terrorism and Communism as paired threats to American interests in the region. To reinforce the association, each relied on the convential Cold War narrative to publicly frame acts of terrorism during the war. The approach recalled the nation's war history by mapping the terrorist tactics of the Nazis during World War II onto the Communists in Vietnam. (In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World, Carol Winkler, SUNY Press, 2006, p. 17 [59]
This is rephrased in Communist terrorism#Communist Terrorism in The Vietnam War as,
In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand.
TFD ( talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Four Deuces fails to point out it is taken from a chapter titled "The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists" So there is no issue here at all with either NPOV or OR. Tentontunic ( talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
@
Jayron. Your question "Do you have reliable sources which call it such?" is irrelevant to this noticeboard, because this thread is not about reliability, but about neutrality of the text we discuss. In my opinion, the same is true for the TFD's arguments, because if the author does not endorse the term "Communist terrorists", then this thread belongs to
WP:RSN or/and
WP:NORN, because, as
Marcus says, the text may have some synthesis issues. Nevertheless, I agree with
Marcus that it is possible to find some reliable sources that openly and explicitly characterise North Vientamese or Vietcong partisans as "terrorists", or even "Communist terrorists".
However, again, all of that has no relevance to the neutrality noticeboard. What is relevant to it, is the fact that many reliable sources exist that (i) explicitly state that the term "terrorists" in general should be applied with cautions to the national-liberation and partisan movements (see. e.g. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39: "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?"), or (ii) characterise the usage of this term in a context of Vietnam War as US, or, broadly speaking, Cold War propaganda. For instance, the current version of the article clearly explains (with sources) that "this term ("communist terrorism, P.S.) has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during
Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures."(Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006,
ISBN
0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.), therefore, we have no other choice but to conclude that, according to some reliable sources, the term "Communist terrorism" in this context is a Cold War legacy, and cannot be used without attribution. My conclusion is that the discussed section as whole contradicts to the neutrality principle and to other parts of the article and must be rewritten.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And of course on page 18, 25 and 32 of this book she says viet cong terrorists. Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue. Tentontunic ( talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And again all of this is more relevant to the umpteen attempts to delete the article than to any violation of NPOV at all. If one feels there is a POV, the procedure is to add balancing material, not to rehash the same ten thousand words over and over and over. This article has survived a sklew of AfDs - time to let it evolve and grow and not to keep sniping at it in every forum possible. Collect ( talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Ceuta and Melilla are two Spanish enclaves in North Africa, they are both claimed by Morocco but remain Spanish territory. The situation is very much analogous with that of Gibraltar, British territory claimed by Spain. As Ceuta and Melilla are only 15km from Gibraltar many commentators draw attention to the dichotomy whereby Spain claims Gibraltar whilst also maintaining its own enclaves. It might have been naturally expected that might be mentioned in the Gibraltar article but it is not.
I have prepared a brief mention, cited and giving due coverage appropriate to an overview article on Gibraltar, with more details at Foreign relations of Spain#Disputes - international. See [3]. I first proposed this edit in talk over the weekend, repeating the same suggestion without a response. Immediately I add it to the article it is reverted claiming there is no consensus to add it and a somewhat strange talk page post claiming this edit violates WP:NPOV.
I would like outside opinion as to whether the edit I have proposed meets WP:NPOV and gives appropriate coverage per WP:DUE. Thank you. Justin talk 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
He is determined to write the article about himself... badly. No response to any attempt to discuss. I have to rush off to choir practice; anyone else want to have a try? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
An article I nominated for GA status, Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, failed due to NPOV concerns. The discussion is here [5]. I'd like broader input on the NPOV issue, as I didn't think the GA discussion was clear or thorough. The objection centers on quoting of the Koran in the green sideboxes. The quotes pertain to women's rights. The objection is that this implies that the Koran is anti-woman. If you find the quoteboxes in violation of NPOV, constructive suggestions would be helpful. Should they be deleted? Can the Koran can be quoted in any way?
Withdraw until after the AfD is over |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System is currently undergoing an AfD. I commented at the AfD that there is no inherent BLP issue with this entry and that it is notable enough to be kept, but that the current entry appears to be a WP:COATRACK. As a result I have posted a detailed discussion on the talk page of the COTRACK/NPOV issues - Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#WP:COATRACK. This discussion quickly digressed into a verbal ping pong match with the main contributer to the article, which is just cluttering the talk page without any productive movement on the issues. I'm hoping some uninvolved eyes could take a look at this so that I can step back from the unproductive back and forth with the afore mentioned editor. I do not think the entry should be deleted or whitewashed. Not at all. Just think it needs some serious trimming. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) (in agreement with cirt, but with detail) I said it's canvassing because you've appealed to a group of editors with a non-neutral presentation of the issue of something currently at AfD. It's clear that you are interested in getting people to agree it's a coatrack as it stands. AfDs often result not only in a keep or delete decision, but also a clear indication on how to move forward, which can be invoked in future discussions (this may or may not be official policy, but it's a common occurrence). I would suggest that the most proper thing to do in this case is wait until the AfD is over, and then discuss on the talkpage about how to improve the article. In terms of an approach, arguments such as "it's a coatrack but rescuable" (see also "it's basically OR, but it doesn't have to be") are usually not going to gain majority support in any AfD. It's probably better not to confront the issue (and have it ruled out after minimal discussion because editors will tend not to nuance as much at an AfD) and focus on the basic keep/delete for now. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Above discussion hatted, due to ongoing AFD. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. An IP has made a series of revert edits for which he has now been blocked, the last being the following: here.
I would revert him myself, as his reference is as other editors have indicated as well POV, off-topic, soap-boxing, and not supported from what I can see by the ref he initially claimed supported it. However, I don't wish to brush up against 3RR myself. The sysop who blocked the IP suggested that I therefore post the matter here, suggesting "f the edits in question are obviously that bad, you can certainly get another editor to remove them.". Many thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
While the title suggests something broader, the gist of the article entitled Professional sports league organization is essentially a comparison between professional sports in North America and Europe. However, the choice of terminology, in particular, the use of the word "league", represents a North American perspective, being applied to European sport. A comparison of two subject areas, from the perspective of one of the two subject areas can hardly be said to be neutral.
The focus of the article appears to be even narrow - an attempt to explain the Premier League, and the various other competitions that clubs playing in that league participate in, to a North American audience unfamiliar with English football.
The North American perspective, together with the narrow focus, results in several inaccuracies in the section on European sport. I have raised these in the talk page. Rainjar ( talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking assistance or involvement of neutral experts or administrators who can look into the Afshin (Caliphate General). I added over 7 references yesterday referring to both Turkic and Iranian background of this historical personality. Yet I am faced with opposition from User:Khodabandeh14 who seems to diminish or get rid of references to Turkic/Turkish in favor of Persian/Iranian throughout this and other articles [9], and seems unwilling to come up with a compromise, instead removing dispute tags and using restrictions to intimidate into accepting his WP:POV. I am not sure if this is more relevant to content noticeboard or here, I feel it is more about neutral point of view in judging references. The fact that User:Khodabandeh14 rejects multitude of other historical references using just one author C.E. Bosworth in both Afshin (Caliphate General) and Atabegs of Azerbaijan article raises concerns of excessive WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I urge everyone to look at the talkpage discussion. A) If ethnicity of something is disputed, it should not be in the introduction. B) The above user has simply used sources from 1848, 1910 (outdated) and three authors with no university/academic affiliations. I have brought authors from published academic journals and scholars such as Bernard Lewis, Peter Benjamin Golden and C.E. Bosworth [10] (Oxford University Professor and well known scholar), as well as Cambridge History of Iran. [11]. The above user is simply not reading the talkpage and claiming that I have only one source! He simply refuses to read the talkpage, and still repeats his own statement that I am using one source. C) I also urge a neutral expert admin to come to the discussion and I have called two admins already. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This section - Transportation Security Administration#TSA Sexual Assault - states as fact allegations of widespread assault and abuse by a U.S. government agency. The article neither states any rebuttal nor cites any official TSA or DHS sources, and openly advocates for activist websites which are cited as sources. This subject is a hot button media issue, and these claims are inflammatory at best, as well as self-promoting. Tad ( talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Charles Sumner is mostly great, but the lead (specifically the last two or three paragraphs) strikes me as overly long and lending undue weight to a particular set of opinions. Is this me? The editor(s) of the article don't seem to think so; see Talk:Charles_Sumner#NPOV_issues.3F. The lead is less than half a dozen paragraphs, shouldn't take long to skim them and chip in and let me know if I'm being unreasonable. Johnleemk | Talk 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that for the past 3 years this BLP has been controlled by a series of single article editors and used as a promotional article for the Subject. Recently the Subject became more internationally notable and somewhat controversial for his testimony in GITMO. Presently there are 3 single article editors working in tandem [12] [13] [14] to keep the BLP 100% free of any but the most complimentary content. 1 of the 3, Stewaj7 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. I have been very involved in the article since I first noticed it on Nov.1,2010. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Naturopathy there have been multiple NPOV issue raised here. I have suggested several new sources but am a new editor. Input from more experienced editors is requested. Mcmarturano ( talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please go through this (sections Afghanistan#Foreign Intrusion and Civil War, Afghanistan#Taliban Emirate and United Front and Afghanistan#Recent history (2001-present)) and neutralize the edits made by the POV-pusher, it reads like someone's blog page. I believe that everything JCAla is adding to Wikipedia is political propaganda in which he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time he is praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords. JCAla even added Pakistan as one of the Taliban's main allies when really Pakistan is engaged in a major war with them and is allied with US-NATO forces. Everytime I tag the page JCAla removes the tags.-- Jrkso ( talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Everything has been discussed here and here. All sources have been provided. They are considered as reliable and as coming from distinguished institutions and academic sources by the editors. Jrkso does not like the realities of history. Dmcq (except for the tone tag) and two other long-time editors have all agreed to remove the tags. We have further agreed that the content of the sections is valid, well-sourced and should stay. There was an agreement that the wording of the sections was not of encyclopaedic quality. That has been changed. Jrkso should stop his politically motivated, ridiculous accusations. He has disputes with many editors because he falsifies sources [21] [22] [23] for his own political agenda. His agenda becomes evident considering his statements:
Some days ago he was claiming the oppposite:
It is getting ridiculous. By the way, it was me who added "According to Human Rights Watch in 1997 Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Dostum's Junbish forces." to this section. JCAla ( talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Jrkso - I have not touched the tags since you put them in saying you were raising the issue here, so exactly why have you addressed me in particular about that? I have left them there so anyone here can look and judge for themselves.
Yes the warlords were the bigger threat in 2004 after the Taliban were nearly destroyed, and your point is? Plus I'm sure there's lots of Afghans who'd prefer the sort of stability the Taliban brought despite what they did, and what's your point with that? Are you really alleging the Saur Revolution had nothing to do with Russia and America didn't exploit it, never mind their various neighbours sticking their fingers in the pot and stirring it? I'm sure America would like nothing so much nowadays as a way to escape the whole business with a shred of dignity and leave the place halfway reasonable and stable - but that wasn't always so. Dmcq ( talk) 11:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not removed the tags, but I think that they are not needed. JCAla has provided good and acceptable sources. The only thing I am not happy with is the wording. In my opinion, it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic way. But the message is well sourced. I have offered JCAla my help in order to improve the section's wording, but my English is not that good, so I would appreciate support from native speakers. As for Jrkso: I do not understand his constant opposition and fight in Afghanistan-related articles. Basically, he is opposed to everyone else. Tajik ( talk) 10:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You must have supernatural abilities "knowing" where everyone is coming from without anybody ever telling you. Plus, your sentence, "the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban", (besides being a false statement since I also wrote about the execution of Taliban soldiers and atrocities committed by different militias in Kabul) proves where you are coming from (considering I was writing about the mass killings in Mazar-i-Sharif in which 2,000 - 8,000 civilians were executed by the Taliban). For the record, the most frequently used sources in the article are the following ones:
JCAla ( talk) 24 November 2010 (UTC)
moved JCAla ( talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC)
In the Waldensians article, in the section "Ancient origins asserted and disputed", User:Vidim has been attempting to give equal weight to the claim that the Waldensian church is older than Peter Waldo, a claim that even the Waldensian church does not support, that is not supported by contemporary sources, and that secular scholarship does not even bother with. He has been fighting my attempts to add neutrality to his additions (instead of removing them wholesale). We have not been discussing it in the article's talk page, but on his talk page instead.
His actions include:
I have tried to explain repeatedly that information in the articles should be proportionate to reliable sources, and that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to non-mainstream claims. I have tried to point out that he is reading his own POV into Reynerius's words "a long time." I have tried to point out that the sources he's been using are biased. He still wants the article to treat the pre-Waldo origin claim as equal, when the sources are:
I think part of the problem is that there are no other editors involved, so he is OK with dismissing just me as having some sort of "lack of neutrality in any argument about Waldensian antiquity," even though he initially admits that his edits may have been biased. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems that one or several evangelical Christians have been busily rewriting this article to conform with their own religious beliefs, as well as creating articles like Pauline mysticism and Evangelical mysticism, that also are meant, not to give objective information, but to ensure that Wikipedia confirms the beliefs of their particular church. There's a lot of stuff there, and some of it goes beyond my own knowledge... anyone interested in theology and in taking a look at this? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Timeline of the burrito has many WP issues from my perspective. Dispite initial cooporation offered by another editor Talk:Timeline of the burrito, that editor has since engaged in protectionism of all content within the article. Plenty of time was offered between conversation and the resulting good-faith edits to remove unencyclopedic material. Dispite this, the editor is now engaged a reverting edit war. WP:3RR does not directly apply because this article gets so little activity that reverts occur over a week rather than a day. I am hoping for fresh eyes to review Timeline of the burrito, especially since there is an attempt to merge this with the main burrito article. I fear the edit war will move over to that more significant article if this is not addressed now. — fcsuper ( How's That?, That's How!) ( Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas, are the dates on which restuarants opened really that notable? I'm not a Californian and have only been to a few places in Mexico, so I have no idea if any of them are important. For example, I consider the 1973 entry "La Taqueria opens in SF" to be trivia because there is no explanation of why this matters. There are, I think, six entries that are equally uninformative as to the importance of the restuarant opening. -- Habap ( talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Editors are claiming undue weight over inclusion of convictions for abuse by two members of this military unit. There is world-wide coverage in reliable sources ( Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, BBC, Vancouver Sun, Bloomberg) and several previous acquittals of members are noted in the article. Convictions for such abuse are rare enough that it seems worth including. Is this removal appropriate?-- Misarxist 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to get the NPOV tag at MKUCR removed as it seems to be used there as a "badge of shame." Some editors do not like the article's contents, but really don't have anything to add to the article. Rather they want to remove certain points of view, e.g. that the mass killings of something like 100 million people were related to the Communism of the regimes that killed them. As I understand WP:NPOV it is about making sure that all non-fringe documented points of view on a topic are included, NOT that points of view should be removed if some editors don't like them.
I've asked for well over a month for folks to come forward with POVs that they think have been excluded, and only 1 editor has done so. That POV is essentially that comparisons of Nazi and Communist mass killings are essentially anti-Semitic. It seems a bit off-point and fringe, but I've invited him to include it in the article.
The main point of contention is that sources such as the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, and many other scholarly works do make a connection between Communism and the mass killings, as well as many more popular and/or political sources such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Several editors do not like the views expressed by these sources and thus insist that the NPOV tag be kept - this is a complete inversion of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Note that several editors have made a point of trying to get this article deleted; there have been about 6 requests for deletion over the last 18 months, and they have failed every time. The NPOV tag should not be used as a substitute for deletion or a mark of "I don't like this article"! Smallbones ( talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
In the article, Aftermath of World War II, Communicat has inserted a paragraph in the Post-war tensions section of the article on Operation Dropshot. Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan devised in the United States for the atomic/high-explosive bombing and invasion of the Soviet Union. It is my opinion that the detailed nature of the information provided in the Aftermath article gives an inaccurate impression that the United States was actually preparing to conduct the operation. Communicat's favored text was modified in this edit. I really don't think it belongs in the article at all.
We have attempted to resolve our differences on the talk page, though now he is talking of adding me [35] to expanding list of users he wishes to include in his quest for arbitration without seeking any intermediate steps. [36] [37]
So, I'm hoping to find some neutral parties who can review the section in question, at least. Thanks in advance. -- Habap ( talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I never used the term "inappropriate" when discussing the problem of undue weight in the article. [38] I did try to address the concerns about Operation Dropshot a few weeks ago. [39] In response, Communicat blind reverted me and filed a RfAr against me. [40] Edward321 ( talk) 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Or is it that disagreeing with you indicates bias? -- Habap ( talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)The review in the Morning Star is far more accurately portrayed by the quotation provided "If this unnervingly convincing analysis is correct, beware hydra-headed fascism." That paper was originally the product of the Communist Party of Great Britain and now says that the programme of the Communist Party of Britain underlies the paper's editorial stance. --Habap (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I'm not going to further dignify your provocative remarks with a thoughtful response. The only reason I'm here in the first place is because Arbcom specifically instructed me to participate in Rfc before considering any re-submission of my request for arbitration. Communicat ( talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated to this discussion, I have blocked Communicat for 1 week for a personal attack on another user on that article talk page. This is the third personal attack block for Communicat in the last 10 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree that Communicat resorts to personal attacks too frequently. I hope the one week break will allow the passions to settle. Let me point out, however, that, although Communicat's behaviour and his edits are far from perfect, the discussions he initiates eventually lead to improvement of the articles he works with. Going back to the initial issue, the only my objection to the Dropshot story is that it is not true that the idea of massive atomic pre-emptive strike against the USSR was abandoned in 1947. For instance, in his article "American Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision" (The Journal of American History, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jun., 1979), pp. 62-87) David Alan Rosenberg writes:
In other words, the decision to build the grand strategy based on the atomic weapon was a long term strategic decision, which was dictated by the fact that as a result of WWII the USA could not compete with Soviet land forces in Europe. Therefore, both Dropshot and the story about the US turn to the atomic weapon as a primary tool of its military strategy has a direct relation to this article.
Consequently, we have to concede the Communicat's point (although not necessarily his behaviour) was generally correct. --
Paul Siebert (
talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
And another SPA IP comes out of nowhere to defend Communicat. [42] Paul Siebert, clearly acting in good faith, has missed the point. Operation Dropshot was not a planned a pre-emptive strike, it was a theoretical retaliatory strike, as references clearly show. Attempt to correct this error made by Communicat was met with blind reversion and filing of an RfAr against me for attempting the correction. The quote that Paul lists does not establish whether later plans were for pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes. Edward321 ( talk) 14:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm admittedly forum shopping here, as we are not getting a very satisfactory level of response through the usual channels: There being little other talk page activity, I solicited a response from WP:3O in the hopes that it could be resolved that way. However, the editor I am having a disagreement with seems to still dispute the change even after the 3O intervention. I think it is because xhe genuinely believes it warrants inclusion, and that 2:1 does not constitute a very strong consensus, so I'm bringing it here.
The issue at stake is whether the 'Cyber warfare attacks' section which I have restored to the current version belongs in the article. My view is that the connection between this incident and this year's prize is too tenuous, and was only reported in the article in this way because of its topicality and for no other reason. There are no news articles I am aware of which are making a connection between the cyber attacks and the nomination of Liu Xiaobo. Inclusion of this section would tend to suggest that the attacks and the recipient of the prize were related. The other party believes that "[t]he presumed connection to the Nobel Peace Prize for this year is clearly made in all the articles used to reference the 'cyber warfare' section," and thus should remain in its entirety. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
We are discussing about the most neutral wording for a summary of the territorial dispute around Gibraltar (mainly around the isthmus and the territorial waters) in the overview article about Gibraltar. Which of the following two texts do you thing is more neutral?
Spain further interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain does. For example, Spain disputes Britain's claim to sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and does not recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters.
or
Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock, claiming that the Treaty of Utrecht does not mention any territorial cession outside those limits. [3] The UK argues that British sovereignty in the southern half of the isthmus that connects Gibraltar to the mainland is supported by continuous possession. It also
considers that the UN Convention on the Law and the Seaclaims the territorial waters around Gibraltar arguing that both international customary and conventional law support British control. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Thanks! -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 13:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I've slightly reworded the second version as per the suggestion of one editor (customary law should be included). -- Imalbornoz ( talk) 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of issues with the post above. Firstly the above content suggestions above were not the texts under discussion, the post here was misleading. Imalbornoz also omitted to inform this board of the issue related to the Government of Gibraltar's request to refer the dispute to the ICJ and the Spanish refusal - the International Court of Justice is the only UN body capable of delivering a definitive legal judgement on the dispute. I suggest it should be mentioned as Spain refused, Imalbornoz says we shouldn't as the ICJ hasn't delivered an opinion, which it hasn't because Spain refuses.
So I suppose a better question for outside consideration would be should the article mention the GoG request for an ICJ resolution of the sovereignty dispute and the Spanish refusal? Suggested text:
Spain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more restrictively than Britain, disputing Britain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Gibraltar to territorial waters. The Government of Gibraltar has repeatedly requested the Spanish Government refer the matter to the International Court of Justice without a response.
I think it is a neutral description but would welcome outside comment - note the request for external input. Thank you for your consideration. Justin talk 13:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Britain interprets the Treaty of Utrecht more expansively than Spain, disputing Spain's sovereignty over the isthmus connecting Gibraltar with Spain and refusing to recognise any right of Spain to territorial waters around the Rock. Spain is helping the European Commission fend off a legal challenge by Gibraltar over a decision designating most of Gibraltar’s territorial waters as one of Spain’s protected nature sites under EU law [9].
In response to Voiceofreason01, yes. Spain's position is that Britain holds sovereignty over the town, castle and port of Gibraltar, along with their defences and fortifications - and nothing else. The statement that "Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock" is thus inaccurate.
There is also an argument that this and other points are far too much detail for a three-paragraph summary of the entire dispute, and that the section is at risk of being diverted into WP:COATRACK territory where every single point made by either side has to be recognised (bearing in mind that we do already have two articles on the dispute, and this isn't one of them).
I would also argue that it is biased to present the legal dispute as the EU and Spain trying to fend off judicial persecution by the evil Gibraltarians, as Imalbornoz is now proposing. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
So, I just wanted to ascertain if the use of Kiera Knightlie's (correct me if I'm wrong at spelling) image in the lead isn't a bit disturbing for WP:UNDUE rule? Why was her image used? I would understand if she was at top few who won the most awards at this festival, but it seems rather no reasonable arguments behind adding it in the lead, well the fact that she's fabulous and a prominent british actress erm.. adding in this article's lead wouldn't be really suitable from neutral point of view, I'm not being picky over trifles, well maybe a bit, because if I was actually I wouldn't be asking here for advice, now would I? So, maybe moving it to a downward section would do the trick? I leave up it to your comments, as I'm not actually against it being there.. but rules are rules, step by step they should be implemented if their implementation rewards for a better right order and efficiency.
Single White Female 2: The Psycho, the section Critical response. There's only one negative comment for the film, is it okay? Shouldn't it be balanced somehow to correspond with WP:Due rule, or forget about this rule, just to correspond with fair writing and to give amount of positive comments as well? Userpd ( talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone look over the recent history of Brooks, Alberta? I would appreciate a second opinion on this. NW ( Talk) 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
With the recent controversy over enhanced security screening the article is suffering from Recentism and Coatrack issues and a lot of Imagery that does not neutrally reflect the TSA. The most interesting is the experimental full body scanner Image from 2007. According to its caption it is not what TSA sees at security thus psuhing some sort of agenda. I removed an Image yesterday of TSA employee who was sleeping off duty that had a caption implying he was sleeping at Work. Extra Eyes welcome The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 23:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Here we have a user who is repeatedly adding this content. The sources he is using are questionable at best, and i can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are. In addition it should be noted that he is in fact the very person the section is talking about as is made clear here, and that he is even attempting to use wikipedia to further his own aims as can be seen here. Can someone please help me attempt to explain to him why he can't do this as I'm quite fed up of him. I hope this is the correct noticeboard for this-- Jac16888 Talk 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
How can sources that are documents from a legal court ruling and Ministry of Education ruling be "questionable at best." Ifeel "sourcing" is being used in a tendentious manner here. Are editors reading the sources? Surely there must be SOMEONE who is Chinese-bilingual in the US who, in a matter of seconds, can verify the documents are authentic and read even just the highlighted section(s) of the document. The vague reference to "sources" suggests where the problem lies, and not in the sources themselves. The criticism here seems vague: "I can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are." What kind of proof is needed besides a legal court or Ministry ruling? And I'm not clear how personal involvement is an issue here? If I report a fire at my house does that mean the fire is not real because it happened at my house? Where's the logic? Does that mean the fire victim is "furthering his own ends" by reporting the fire? (As a matter of fact, the documents are not MINE; they are from the Taiwan court and Taiwan Ministry of Education.) And I do wish you would be more careful in your choice of words ("I'm quite fed up with him"); I don't write the same thing about you; even though people involved in this case are puzzled where you think the entry is not properly sourced; they went to the trouble of properly sourcing the entry. I dont write "I'm fed up with you." I'm trying to communicate with you, because I know the sourcing is correct by any reasonable standards. Other issues should be of no account, as I pointed out in examples above. I feel words like "sourcing" and "biased" are not being used the way they should, but are being using tendentiously. How can something be biased if it's based on legal documents? And how much sourcing can one use than legal documents? I see no difference between my entry on NCKU and, say, the entries on various Hollywood stars where similar entries are made. You write-- Cincinattus ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)-- Cincinattus ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)-- Cincinattus ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC), "I strongly advise you to attempt to address the points i have made." I would suggest the same here to you. Jac, the illegal dismissal is a fact, by any reasonable interpretation of the word fact. If a court document or the Ministry of Education document is not sourcing, I don't know what is. The one point I might agree with is the reference to my blog (but that was done only in response to a previous edit when I was unfamiliar with what "sourcing" was required. I will remove that. I also would agree with the placement of the human rights entry, though I would not use a different argument than a previous editor did. Cincinattus
We've got a question at WP:ELN#ELNO_.239 that's not properly an External links question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?
The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good (secondary?) source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a handful of (important?) papers. The aspect involving DUE is whether these papers should be called out in the journal's article at all, since nobody seems to have written anything like "Journal X is famous for publishing these papers". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a fairly big concern about the article Line of succession to the British throne. At first glance, the biggest problem with the list (apart from its size) is the apparent Original Research problem. While this may be a problem, I think the fundamental problem is that it violates NPOV. I summarized the problem in this RfC. Basically, if one were to verify something like the King of Sweden is number 203rd in the line of succession, you'd have to do a lot of verification.. there is no source that claims he is number 203. But there are sources who make the arguments one would need to make (he's next after number 202, who's next after 201, etc..), since there are rules to the line of succession ( WP:SYNTH). The NPOV problem is that the precise meaning of some of the rules - in particular that Roman Catholics are excluded from the list - is unclear: different sources interpret the rule differently, and hence produce different numberings. Yet the Wikipedia article endorses a single choice (which, by the way, isn't found in any reliable source).
I have tried to convince editors on the talk page that something needs to be done, but there are some editors who are against removing the numbering - in particular the dedicated editors who strive to keep the list up to date. Any comments would be appreciated. I made an RfC about a month ago, but no action was taken. Mlm42 ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
We need help on the wiki Feminism page, we can not come to an agreement. I feel one version is balanced and the other is promoting a point of view and verging on original research. We are going round in circles.
My version http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Feminism&diff=419509002&oldid=419311345#Approach_to_men
Version I dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Feminism&diff=419509513&oldid=419509002#Approach_to_men
(1)
"Most feminist movements ....... argue that men are also oppressed by gender roles and can ultimately benefit from feminism."
I do not believe this to be true. There are numerous forms of feminism, including probably the largest being the social movement of most women who just believe in equality for women, for whom gender roles has no part of their thinking or would have no idea what you are talking about.
The term "most", imo, requires either (a) A reliable source that has through empirical or other means has confirmed this. or (b) Consensus.
In this case we have neither.
(2)
"In the U.S., mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position"
This has not be verified as true and is circular. It asserts through its references that:- US mainstream feminism = Those who believe in gender role arguments
There are many forms of feminism as this article shows. And what is a self identified feminist?
(3) Removal of
"In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men"
It has been removed with its reference being moved to those to do with radical feminism. This opinion belongs to one of the most famous feminists of all time and is not specific to radical feminism but a general commentary on feminism in general. It belongs in this page.
Zimbazumba (
talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If nothing else you made me laugh. About that lion..... Zimbazumba ( talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Aroneal,
(1) You have demonstrated some not most feminist movements adhere to gender role arguments. (feminism is defined by more than members of NOW et al)
(2) The final statement is ethnocentric in that is merely addressing the US and in my view not true, and basically says
mainstream feminism = those who believe in gender role arguments = mainstream feminism
Mainstream is a difficult word to define word and you are making well defined statements about it.
(3) The Friedman quote is clearly notable. No where in the voluminous commentary on her work have I seen it suggested that her use of feminism in that opinion is with reference to radical feminism alone. Simply put she say "feminism" not "radical feminism". Her views on this are well know.
Perhaps you are young and don't remember the 60's - 90's, but the the anti-male commentary from "mainstream" feminism was ubiquitous despite what the policy manual said. It exists today to a far lesser extent, because they have realised Friedan is right. It should be commented on. One comment from one of the most famous feminists of all time is hardly overkill
My version basically say feminism is not against men, welcomes male allies and some hold gender role arguments whilst a few are against and blame men. It think this is reasonably, uncontroversial and more in line with an encyclopedic entry. No where in that paragraph am I suggesting, apart from a few radicals, that feminists aren't pro-men. I can't see what the problem is.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Nick for your contribution, they are always remarkable.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Feminism IS misandry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.124.121 ( talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Ludwigs2 for your feedback, it was an interesting synopsis. The class of feminist theories you are describing, although very important, are one of a number and are the ones predominately taught in universities. In part because they are much more interesting to analyse and are worthy of a section of their own. This is a great article imo describing the diversity of feminism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/, if only the wiki article had the feel of objectivity this article has to it.
The problem with terms like feminism, feminist theory, feminist movement and feminist is that they have multiple definitions and mean different things to different people. As such they are a nirvana for prevaricators and agenda pushes. I have attempted to be as clear and unambiguous as I can.
The objection to the Friedan opinion is simply bizarre.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 04:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Cailil,
It was not me who added it. I was responding to what imo was an agenda driven entry that had been added. Its placement at the top atm is clearly wp:undue and I think is more an oversight. That being said, the terms feminism and feminist movement etc. means different things to different people. Certainly an informative discussion of feminism from a more academic perspective and its theoretical underpinning is excellent.
But also feminism to many is an important social movement involving mostly people who would never heard of Wollstonecraft or gender roles but adhere to a loose concept of gender equality. This aspect is commonly seen in our media, has caused social change, widespread debate and division amongst groups including the idea of the "The man hater". For this not to be on this page shows a lack of balance.
I agree this page needs a lot of work and the presence of some of the sections boggles the mind. Much as I'd like to contribute to this, my chances of not being repeatedly edit reverted and stonewalled in discussion are slim.
Zimbazumba ( talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Tasks that are easily described are not always easily completed. But I understand your point.
Zimbazumba (
talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
An attempt is being made to disassociate Pepi II Neferkare from the Ipuwer Papyrus and the First Intermediate Period.
First of all, Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the First Intermediate Period.
"Once the choice was made for the First Intermediate Period reasons were found to date it to the beginning of the period or even to the last years of Pepi II in the Old Kingdom." -- John van Seters, archaeologist, December 1964
"Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II." -- R. J. Williams, professor, 1981
"... research strongly suggests Moses and the Israelites went into bondage during the reign of Pharaoh Pepy II, the 'Pharaoh of the Oppression'" -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994
"One of the names in the family of Pepy II is an exact match to a name given in the Book of Jasher. This is the chief wife of Pepy II. In the Book of Jasher it states that the wife of Melol, the pharaoh of the oppression, was named Alparanith. The chief queen of Pepy II was named Neith (or Nith). This is very probably the same name and therefore the same person." -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994
"According to the Midrash, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Akidam and he had a short reign of four years. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses' return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of six to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this Midrash literally. As it happens though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years, and not only 94 years, but from the age of six to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century." -- Brad Aronson, scholar, 1995
"Ipuwer, an ancient Egyptian sage. He perhaps served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare (reigned c. 2294 - c. 2200 BC)...." -- The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, 2002
"The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate period...." -- Richard Lobban, historian, Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia, 2004
"There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period." -- Rusell D. Rothe, et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2008
All this scholarship is being distorted. It is being claimed that Pepi II Neferkare is not associated with the 4.2 kiloyear event and the First Intermediate Period and that modern scholars do not associate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus even though they do. 76.216.196.209 ( talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is absolutely absurd that this article does not at the very least have a citation indicating that its neutrality is disputed. Please see the article on Gibraltar and reasonably defend how there can be less 'dispute' as to neutrality or reliability. The article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but a long winded cult advertisement without a single reliable independent academic citation at any significant point. The article goes beyond unreliability; it is anti-academic and a shame to Wikipedia. Without a warning tag I cannot see how Wikipedia can maintain even a shred of honour as a worthy information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
In February 10, 2011 I left a message on the article's talk page, pointing out a fact that the article only mentions some Korean scholars' negative attitude toward the committee, and does not mention Japanese historians and Korean positivist historians's viewpoint of the committee at all ( [50] mentions it). However in March 9, 2011 the problem still exists, so I deleted all the heavily biased sentences and paragraphs, which claims that the committee's main goal is to distort history of Korea, like Japanese edition. But I still think that since there are some scholars praise or attack the committee, the article should not just have the establishing date and members of the committee (the Japanese edition only mentions them); the article should also describe the various viewpoints of the committee. Hope that Wikipedians can use academic books and papers to further expand the article (not television programmes, encyclopedia articles and posts on blogs, there are not professional and accurate enough!).-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently created People's Pledge to cover this new British politicial campaign which hopes to force a yes/no referendum in the UK on the issue of ongoing membership European Union. Now, from where I'm standing, if you look at their 'case' page, explaining why a referendum shoud take place, I'd say it's pretty fair to describe in the opening line that the campaign is Eurosceptic - i.e., against the EU. Another user James Harvard ( talk · contribs), is trying to water this down into just saying it's a campaign for a referendum, on the (correct) basis that (some) of the supporters of the campaign are not Eurosceptic, and they just want a referendum to settle the issue either way, as it's been a political issue in the UK for decades. While this could be mentioned in the article; given the case page, given this is not the view of the majority of the supporters, and given the very obvious fact that all the polling suggests that a referendum would say no to continued membership, I think it would be a pretty basic violation of NPOV to present this campaign as politicially neutral, i.e., just interested in polling the democratic will of the people (although the Europhile view is that the UK does not run on referenda, and the umpteen general elections inbetween are sufficient representation). What are other people's views? MickMacNee ( talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it POV to preface a medical diagnosis with "-by doctors opinion-" as was done here? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I've been going through the Family Compact(Can History) article and don't think this article is neutral. I see name calling (oligarchy,elitest) and other terms that are not supported by the received body of historical research. Family Compact is certainly led by a prominent group of Upper Canadians, but this kind of writing is really a bit over the edge.
Membership in the Family Compact was not "closed". Any immigrant could join the family compact; it was a question of choice about the general tone of thought.
I've added the section with the prominent names of members of the Family Compact which include French Canadians (Baby), Scots etc. Membership at the lower levels would have been representative of the local Upper Canada population.
The Opposition section is weighted towards Mackenzie and does not discuss any other form of opposition. It would be more balanced if it showed the influence of the Colborne Clique at least and some mention of the other forces at work in Upper Canada.
This article is not neutral.
REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact
99.246.14.181 ( talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
That's no problem to add the relevant sources. I plan on re-writting some of the intro and the sections. I just wanted to make sure that my objection had been noted in case there is any conflict in the future. Given the importance given to the article this seems to be right way to go about it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
In 2011 Libyan uprising, I noticed a pattern of edits by SuperblySpiffingPerson, who is listed as a relatively new editor. These edits seem to be primarily regarding the conflict in Libya. My research on the content of their edits seems to indicate a pattern where the conflict is being described in terms that are very biased toward the Western powers and describe the fledgling rebel government as 'transitional'. This editor seems to include a bias in a significant majority of their edits. For example, while most people might say "government of Libya" or "Gaddafi", Superbly says "Jamahiriya loyalists" or "Jamahiriya".
I am concerned about the integrity of the article, as well as related articles, and am worried by their seemingly rapid understanding of how to move pages and the number of edits (22 edits so far on March 23).
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SuperblySpiffingPerson
Please forgive me if I have left anything out. I'm very concerned about the direction the article seems to be taking.
-- Avanu ( talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.
The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.
The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am in constant dispute with an editor named Mijopaalmc at the Frot article. And because of this, I opened this discussion there: Talk:Frot#Other editors.
Basically, Mijopaalmc constantly nitpicks and makes things worse at the article every time I fix it up. No matter how much I fix up this article, he is never satisfied. Or he pretends to be satisfied and then finds something else to complain about the next week or next month later. I reverted him this time because these changes [51] [52] [53] give WP:UNDUE weight in the Preferences section as to why men like anal sex. Why men do not like it, and why they like it should be adequately summarized in the Preferences section. Furthermore, the change unbalances the Debates section back to the same problem it had before. There was a POV problem with that section, which Mijopaalmc complained about, and I recently balanced it out. His changes make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV he complained about. Which is no doubt what he wants so that he can complain some more about the article. Not to mention...that what is in the Preferences section is not about debates. It is specifically about why men prefer one act over the other. Mijopaalmc insists that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot," which I find absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you didn't misinterpret my words; you put words into my mouth. You and Atomaton determined that Bill Weintraub and his community use "frot" interchangeably with "frottage", and I demostrated that the predominate, if not, sole term for genital rubbing was "frottage" [54] [55]. What you are trying to so is say that, since Bill Weintraub and his commounity, use "frottage" and "frot" interchangeably, all gay men or MSM do. This is a falsehood as borne out by the sex manuals I just cited and and even one of the sources you cited which says:
Frottage, also known as dry humping, is sex without penetration where both partners rub or grind on each other to achieve an orgasm. This can be done either clothed or unclothed and can be achieved genital to genital or genital to other body parts. Frottage can be used as foreplay before anal sex or as the primary means of intimacy. [56]
I would like to write an article(s) about a project I'm involved in on an ambiguous and partially undisclosed level. We purposely engineer an environment suggesting endless supposition of who precisely is involved, as the project itself has an attitude of atypical relativeness, and so we believe we've become specialists at bypassing subjectivity and adopting an alternate point of view. (I say "alternate" and not "neutral" because I feel in many ways there is no such thing, for even a news publication decides what type of facts constitute objectivity, subjectifying its internal relative neutrality.) Paradoxically, we often hype and market this nature (and the project) ad nauseum, but we generally (or have come to be able to) do so in a conscious, crafted, calculated way, and often as a parody of its own ego. (We might wager the argument that this ego, even when uninflated, is an unavoidable consequence of the general principles and methods involved, but we're far too in the know to be certain we're not fooling ourselves.) Hence, one's right to suspect an especially high susceptibility to subjectivity (excuse the alliteration) but the opposite should also be supposed. I think we've evolved the latter skill, and are experienced enough to write with epitome NPOV.
For a microcosm example, I choose the phrase "has an attitude of atypical relativeness" (above) rather than a phrase with more miniature spin, such as "a philosophy of radical objectivity". Even though someone can have a philosophy seen as negative to some, that philosophy is a respected scholastic field of study seems to cast a warm light on that what's in question has been thought through intelligently by someone or something involved. And, while describing something as "radical" may judge it light or dark, it's more a plus when paired with something already having positive spin (e.g. "objectivity", which is a little more often than not seen as a better thing than its opposite). Also, I attempted to throw in a negative to the revision to counter the infinitesimal precision of exact neutrality. The phrase "has an attitude" usually connotes an undesirable one, and is something someone suppressing a negative bias might use. That the phrase must be modified after the point where it would create a gramatically correct sentence sans the modification is something that may have gone unnoticed to someone less specialized in "atypical relativeness". You may or may not agree with these details, but my point is that I was able to catch myself subconsciously on this particular word-to-word level. Likewise, I revised "expert" to "specialist", "mysterious" to "ambiguous", and "craft" to "engineer". (Rhetorically, this is conrived to an extent for demonstration.)
While all this should be enough to make my general inquiry obvious (how to write about the project neutrally here, given that a place that promotes neutrality via understandings of precision and complexity intrinsically offers allowing exception to policies prohibiting writing normally prone to bias), the question is complicated by the vast/excessive (POV-depending) amount of original terminology and concepts that need or could use extensive explanation or promotion to be understood. That is, its creative sope. More specifically, a largely undiscovered one. A good example would be a hidden library of sci-fi/fantasy books of a single epic (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings) of which A) only a few people read or have read, whose opinions would reflect a larger whole, B) has an established body of material worth noting, and C) incorporates unique/confusing concepts best nutshelled by its maker(s). (This latter point is key, a close example being the book Godel, Escher, Bach.) This scope in combination with being very "little discovered" suggests a potential nightmare of spam for a place like Wikipedia. Again, we think we're extremely sensitive to these subtleties, and our sense of noteworthiness is based on these factors. For instance, I would not write an article about a book we've not posted, nor one contradicting the consensus of minimal feedback.
Our project as a whole is largely a template for potential projects, or an ambitious web of them. We consider something to have substance when its strongly developed as a concept as well as via significant posted/published material, and I think we're at the point where a few key/core articles would be at home with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, our projects are exceptionally prone to confusion and complexity, so it may be a long wait for a third party to decide they understand one enough to relay it. Of course, our desire to eliminate extension may be tainting objectiveness, which is another reason I'm inquiring beforehand.
I hate mentioning specifics when I try to talk about our stuff objectively, because it always seems to turn out pluggy. I can't even say my own nickname anymore without feeling like I'm pushing a flyer into somebody's face. For instance, discussion boards can have a positive effect on the search engine status of a site, so even mentioning a keyword or two can be technically plug-esque. If you want more specific examples about what I'm talking about, you can search the net for the phrases "difficult to maintain total and fully up-to-date continuity", and "free for nonprofit use and free in general anyway". These should bring you to two pages that speak to our attention to detail, and you may explore from there. (You can also check the list of junk in my profile, but not all is what I'm talking about.) The projects these two phrases should bring you to are two I'd consider writing an article about if deemed appropriate. Please advice on how to proceed, thanks.
Squish7 ( talk) 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm making this report as a third party uninvolved in the original dispute. In November 2010 Albertoarmstrong ( talk · contribs) began adding content to the article Employee assistance programs related to workplace bullying ( [57]). This content was summarily deleted on 17 November but reverted by an IP (likely Albertoarmstrong forgetting to log in) a few hours later. In January 2011 Cknoepke ( talk · contribs) became involved in editing this section and the two have been involved in a prolonged edit war ever since. I warned both users and requested full protection of the article to prevent the edit warring from continuing. Now that I've had a chance to look over the content issue, I disagree with both users' preferred versions of the article and I think this whole section should be deleted as coatracking, or at a minimum drastically trimmed back to remove editorial content. I'm bringing this issue here to get some consensus from editors who (theoretically) have more experience with these sort of issues than I do. — KuyaBriBri Talk 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Albertoarmstrong ( talk) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Cknoepke ( talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Cknoepke wrote: "he believes the article to be his own" This is a false but EAP providers sure believe it theirs. Cknoepke inserted a paragraph at the end of the Workplace Bullying Concern section but misrepresented the reference so I had to insert a direct quote from Cknoepke's own reference to put in the correct perspective. If I thought the section was "mine" I would have deleted it.
Cknoepke wrote: "and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications". Again false. We had extensive discussion on the Discussion Page.
A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice?" That the terminology used in the references, so why can't that language be reflected in a Wiki article?
A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "I'd have to agree that that section is a mess." I used about 15 references so how can it be a mess? Albertoarmstrong ( talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi A Quest For Knowledge,
Actually, another editor inserted the "leery" word. Other than my edits, the rest of the article "implies" advice because its promotional material. Albertoarmstrong ( talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A major feature story ran on Rabbi Pinto, the largest story ever written about him and the few editors who control the board didnt allow neutral entrees to be placed. Need assistance from curious non interested parties.
The article was syndicated and picked up by Globes a major Israeli paper, The Real Deal a major NYC real estate publication and Vos Iz Neas Religious news service but entire chunks of article werent included. Can we have new eyes please ?
Would suggest adding: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.” 65.112.21.194 ( talk) 13:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
--A Jimbo quote...:
[...A]bout category:American alternative journalists - what is the category for, does anyone belong in it at all? I note that the category page gives no explanation nor justification, and it seems to me from checking a few links, that it is a POV category to stick people who someone, somewhere, wishes not to have identified as a "real" journalist (leftie or rightie, it seems to be a mix).
–Jimmy Wales (...@ Talk:James O'Keefe#cat)
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And here is where the phrase alternative journalist is used per a Google Books search (plus: plural; alt. journal-ism).
The problem is: Where do we draw the line for inclusion, with regard such a category? What constitutes its parameters as either a sub-set of "journalist" or a grouping that partially overlaps with it?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 19:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HotPads.com Last 2 sentences in the intro paragraph seems out of place on a site like Wikipedia. I'm a little surprised it got past the editors. <<All features are designed to create the most user-friendly, comprehensive, and personalized location-based housing search experience online. Whereas many real estate websites are mash-ups of other mapping applications, like Google Maps, HotPads uses its own original mapping application.>> Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.68.91.86 ( talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
What has happened with this article in the last month is one of the worst examples of politically-motivated recentist bias I've ever saw on Wikipedia. Just compare this revision from February 21 and the current revision as of March 30.
The article is a big jumble of two different viewpoints, even mid-paragraph. Either the entire thing needs to be ditched and re-written, or at least somebody needs to separate out the bogus negative stuff with the valid ones, and put them together in some sort of different subsection. Every single symptom section seems to refer to some obscure study about how it didn't work for this symptom, while talking about how it's treated for this symptom.
Here's the "Major depressive disorder" section:
Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder. In three out of six well-designed properly controlled pre-marketing trials duloxetine performed better than placebo; the three other trials were inconclusive.[17] Recently, duloxetine was shown to be effective in elderly with recurrent major depressive disorder where it improved cognition, depression, and some pain measures.[18] A meta-analysis of these trials indicated that the effect size of duloxetine as compared with placebo was weak-to-moderate, and similar to other 11 antidepressants studied.[19] The rationale behind the development of duloxetine was that inhibition of the reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine would make it work better than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which inhibit only the reuptake of serotonin. However, in a comparative meta-analysis of clinical trials duloxetine appeared to be insignificantly less effective than SSRIs.[20] A head-to-head comparison of duloxetine with an SSRI escitalopram (Lexapro) found duloxetine to be both less tolerable and less effective.[21] Another analysis of the comparative efficacy of modern antidepressants found duloxetine to be significantly, by 30-40%, less efficacious than mirtazapine (Remeron), escitalopram, venlafaxine (Effexor) and sertraline (Zoloft). Duloxetine was similar to fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox) and paroxetine (Paxil). The tolerability of duloxetine was significantly worse than the tolerability of escitalopram and sertraline.[22]
A review in Prescrire International summarizing the existing evidence noted that duloxetine has limited efficacy in depression and no advantages over other antidepressants. Prescribers observed that, taking into account the risk of hepatic disorders and drug interactions, there is no reason to choose duloxetine when so many other options are available.[2] Similar analysis was presented by Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, which is a part of the respected BMJ Group.[23]
References or not, it's still slanted and biased, showcasing a minority opinion as front and center, while contradicting itself with somebody else's edits. This article has been on the Noticeboard before, but that was two years ago.
I have put in Conflict & Undue templates for the article until it is fixed. SineSwiper ( talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
We're really going around the houses on this one, I'm afraid.
It is argued that WP:WEIGHT only applies when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute. That is to say, that there is no problem from a WP:WEIGHT perspective with giving a point whose factual accuracy is undisputed significantly more weight than it is given in reliable sources.
In the case concerned, the point given significantly more weight than is present in reliable sources is accepted to be factually accurate (broadly, there are some disputes on detail), but are the points argued by those on one side of the modern dispute to further their cause.
Is this argument an accurate reading of policy? Pfainuk talk 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Gibraltar#RfC: Due weight & NPOV in the History section I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. -- 217.50.56.198 ( talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have cleaned up this article a bit and posted to the talk page, but I'm not very active on Wikipedia, so I won't be able to follow the discussion. This article provides no counterpoints and uses material sourced entirely from the webpages for the products, or third party webpages claiming that the products can be used off-label for birth control. NFP may or may not be a good method of birth control, and if any of this stuff checks out, it's great news. But if it doesn't, it shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.46.81 ( talk) 02:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
== Emehmotors.com ......THE RISE AND FALL.
This is the tiny little company started by a girl . He was supported by his brother and it grew to a mega company. They grew up poor with thier mother in a tiny village of West Africa. They all mi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginikanwaobivuilo ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it NPOV to describe the Viet Cong insurgency during the Vietnamese war as "communist terrorism" in the article Communist terrorism? TFD ( talk) 01:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The source says,
Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, police chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than thirty-three thousand South Vietnamese and abducted another fifty-seven thousand of them.... While the labeling stategy of the United States evolved over time, each of the related administrations linked terrorism and Communism as paired threats to American interests in the region. To reinforce the association, each relied on the convential Cold War narrative to publicly frame acts of terrorism during the war. The approach recalled the nation's war history by mapping the terrorist tactics of the Nazis during World War II onto the Communists in Vietnam. (In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World, Carol Winkler, SUNY Press, 2006, p. 17 [59]
This is rephrased in Communist terrorism#Communist Terrorism in The Vietnam War as,
In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand.
TFD ( talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The Four Deuces fails to point out it is taken from a chapter titled "The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists" So there is no issue here at all with either NPOV or OR. Tentontunic ( talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
@
Jayron. Your question "Do you have reliable sources which call it such?" is irrelevant to this noticeboard, because this thread is not about reliability, but about neutrality of the text we discuss. In my opinion, the same is true for the TFD's arguments, because if the author does not endorse the term "Communist terrorists", then this thread belongs to
WP:RSN or/and
WP:NORN, because, as
Marcus says, the text may have some synthesis issues. Nevertheless, I agree with
Marcus that it is possible to find some reliable sources that openly and explicitly characterise North Vientamese or Vietcong partisans as "terrorists", or even "Communist terrorists".
However, again, all of that has no relevance to the neutrality noticeboard. What is relevant to it, is the fact that many reliable sources exist that (i) explicitly state that the term "terrorists" in general should be applied with cautions to the national-liberation and partisan movements (see. e.g. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39: "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?"), or (ii) characterise the usage of this term in a context of Vietnam War as US, or, broadly speaking, Cold War propaganda. For instance, the current version of the article clearly explains (with sources) that "this term ("communist terrorism, P.S.) has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during
Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures."(Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006,
ISBN
0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.), therefore, we have no other choice but to conclude that, according to some reliable sources, the term "Communist terrorism" in this context is a Cold War legacy, and cannot be used without attribution. My conclusion is that the discussed section as whole contradicts to the neutrality principle and to other parts of the article and must be rewritten.--
Paul Siebert (
talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And of course on page 18, 25 and 32 of this book she says viet cong terrorists. Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue. Tentontunic ( talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And again all of this is more relevant to the umpteen attempts to delete the article than to any violation of NPOV at all. If one feels there is a POV, the procedure is to add balancing material, not to rehash the same ten thousand words over and over and over. This article has survived a sklew of AfDs - time to let it evolve and grow and not to keep sniping at it in every forum possible. Collect ( talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)