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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I can't find any guidance on this. Is it acceptable to refer to the Bible as 'the Holy Bible' when this is not the actual titles of a published version? Is this in fact covered at MOS:ISLAM which says "Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia."? I presume it is. I can't find it on any of our MOS pages. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment adding Holy is more than just a value judgment as it implies that it is the
Christian Bible, and not just the
Hebrew Bible. While "The Old(Jewish) and New(Christian) Testaments together are commonly referred to as "The Holy Bible" (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια). " the
Hebrew Bible and is not commonly referred to as the
Holy Hebrew Bible/Holy Bible. Since the Christian Bible is sometimes known as the Holy Bible:
Christian Bible lead sentence:
...Christian Bible (sometimes known as the Holy Bible)...
it can be used in a non POV way to differentiate it with the older versions of the Christian Bible that do not contain both Testaments(Like the
Hebrew Bible). It also is not Wikipedia making the value judgment, but rather reporting on how it is commonly referred to as(like referring to the
The Boston Massacre as "the Boston Massacre" is not making a judgment on it as being a massacre, but referring to it by how others refer to it).--
AerobicFox (
talk) 08:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In the introduction of English Defence League the following sentence currently stands:
However, some EDL members have chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators in London on 13 September 2009. [1]
On December 20 a section was opened on the talk page, Talk:English Defence League#Opening lines and anti EDL sentiment, taking issue with this on NPOV grounds. Some editors are adamant that having this sentence in the lede is unproblematic while the issue is being discussed. I have stated that on the contrary, this sentence is really bad POV and should be removed promptly. __ meco ( talk) 09:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In the lede of Climate change denial, there is a source that says,
Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science. Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics". But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change.
— Christoff, Peter, Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect, The Age Company Ltd
This is being used to support the text, "Climate change denial differs from skepticism which is essential for good science." There is another source that says,
We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
— Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman, Environmental Politics, The organisation of denial, Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism
There is a long discussion on the talk page that has debated whether these two uses of the word 'skeptical' are equivalent - the one that is essential to good science, and the one that is a political tactic. I would say that the present text not only misrepresents the source used, which goes on to say "There are now no credible scientific sceptics" in this area, but totally ignores the existence of other points of view per NPOV. I have tried to correct this but my edits have been reversed wholesale. I wonder if anyone here can help clarify the best way forward? -- Nigelj ( talk) 14:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There is another aspect of this that may be getting overlooked, the use of "skepticism which is essential for good science". While this is true in a strict sense, I have been seeing it used to justify climate skepticism as "essential for good science", which is not true. This kind of usage is a subtle non-neutral POV, a continuation of the effort to attribute certain kinds of "skepticism" with more respectability than warranted. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It might be worth adding the above article to a few watchlists. There are some single purpose accounts operating in this article about a British police operation against alleged downloaders of child pornography at least some of whom were convicted. The SPAs are active on both sides of the argument.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 21:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has become a coatrack for presenting critical views of US foreign policy. We need editors to help repair this problem by:
Thank you for helping. Jehochman Talk 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Slatersteven I don't understand the purpose of your statement, are you disputing that there are balance and POV issues with the article, or are you saying that one editor should just go fix the problems created by dozens of editors over the 4 years the article has existed? Jehochman, seems to have clearly stated the steps he feels are needed to improve the article(and I agree) he was just looking for help. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman has repeatedly been asked to provide reliable sources with contrary viewpoints that he doesn't feel are being included, and has so far failed to do so. He and another user are repeatedly making claims that "contrary views are being excluded", but have failed to provide any such views or examples of where they were excluded. I would ask that their unfounded allegations of censorship stop, unless they can substantiate them. Repeated allegations of "anti-American bias" are also meaningless without reliable sources presenting contrasting views to the ones used. All of the editors involved have welcomed the inclusion of such views, and have stated willingness to include them if they are presented. The real problem is that the users making the complaints have consistently refused to substantiate their allegations with reliable sources, or to make specific suggestions for changes other than deleting the article. In Jehochman's case, he says he isn't going to provide sources because he doesn't have the time to research the content. I find it perplexing that he believes something is biased when he hasn't researched it yet, but all of the editors at the page are willing to include anything he comes up with. But specific suggestions actually need to be made before anything can change. That said, I agree that there are serious problems with the article, which I was actually working on fixing before the recent protection came into effect. I welcome any specific suggestions that anyone might have for improvement. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Could a few people have a look at Trafigura. An IP editor has been removing lots of negative information and slanting the rest in a more positive light [8]. A couple of editors have reverted, prompting some long posts on the talk page - it's currently back on the IP's version. The article may well have too negative before, but now it's gone a long way in the opposite direction. Trafigura have tried to improve their image on wikipedia in the past ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-21/Trafigura); this might be good faith editing but I think more experienced eyes are needed.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
[9] is presented as (edit summary) undoing User:Collect's major edits, for which he has no WP:Consensus
Is the change in lede back to the huge version (which, by the way, was not removed from the article) an advance to NPOV? Was the shorter lede more NPOV in any event? Does the article have significant POV issues? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is an open RFC and an ongoing discussion about the Lead. One user, be it User:Collect or anyone else, cannot just take matters into his own hand in the middle of an ongoing process, and unilaterally re-write the lead, in order to bypass the RFC/Consensus-building process. This is not how Wikipedia works. Kurdo777 ( talk) 20:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just been given a Level 3 warning for presumably this edit: [10]. The editor, Wangond ( talk · contribs) removed the entire sentence (not just my edit) and a citation request of mine at [11] . There been a brief discussion at the article talk page and I certainly didn't expect this, although I note that he removed a citation to Sharri Cla earlier claiming it wasn't in the source, which was I believe just plain wrong. He appears to think that any suggestion that disagrees with h about mother goddesses is a " minority views npov violation". I don't want to get involved in an edit war (see his talk page, he's had a couple of warnings recently about 3RR), but Clark has a number of interesting things to say about the figurines - see [12] which should be in the article. The whole mother goddess issue is also not cut an dried as I've pointed out at Talk:Indus Valley Civilization#Religion and mother goddess.
The violation was made by you. According to wp:npov, such sentences are not allowed to have prominence like the majority view. Furthermore, Clark doesnt contenst the majority view, but giving stimulus to other views. The addition of Clark have thus no basis for inclusion, especially not in a dispute way. The word Malaysia is not thought to be from Sanskrit. This is not referenced by any source, the editors have given in the Malaysia article. The sources say only, that there is a Sanskrit work, which references to Sumatra as Malayadvipa. Etymology is about the sorces of words, not references from works to this word.-- Wangond ( talk) 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor added this note to one of the Chinese gov't response to the incident. I just want to know if this violates WP:NPOV.— Chris! c/ t 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is devoted to criticism of theory. But in fact protects theory against critics by hiding the facts.
There are others views:
But authors of articles do not want to see them. Пуанкаре ( talk) 06:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
:This is a piece of
Forum shopping. The user has already started a discussion about this at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What is it?, and all comments should go there, rather than fragmenting discussion of the question.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is dominated by one user named User:Barnstarbob pushing a pro-Vega agenda. The Chevrolet Vega is widely considered to have been one of America's worst cars, but criticisms are shunted to bottom paragraphs and overwhelmed with positive detail. The article dominator deletes inline citations, reverts "COI" tags by other users, is uncooperative and doesn't participate with WP:AGF. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Germanic Saints?
Are there any official Germanic saints?
Grevenko Sereth 122.49.167.49 ( talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to dispute the neutrality of the article on this man, specifically one sentence in the first paragraph. This is what I stated on that page's discussion board:
Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST (as pointed out by some prominent evolutionists,) the statement, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a blatant POV violation. First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even a POV source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."
Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?
Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence.
The page has been locked and the original POV sentence has been retained. Therefore, I would like a POV tag placed on this article until a proper substitute sentence is placed. Thank you. — Dimestore ( talk) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Because the information you opposed is gone and because tagging the article is possible now that it is unlocked, I am marking your request for help as resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
A new editor is making some very problematic changes to the lede of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Specifically, he's adding information to a reference that doesn't appear on the website referenced (that: "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." and is replacing some general lede-appropriate summary information with a very specific reference to an FBI file that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I am particularly disturbed that the editor chose to include a quote about an allegation made against the organization while leaving off the part of the quote that stated the allegation was "unsubstantiated". Here is his latest edit. (removed by Bluerasberry). GabrielF ( talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the use of the word "claim" perjorative in the case of longevity claims about living people? I think it is. Especially when the "claim" may or may not be made by the person whose lifespan is in question. It could be a relative, government, or sloppy reporter making the claim. The World's Oldest People WikiProject could use some outside guidance here. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Follow WP:CLAIM and avoid that word. If its necessary, for some reason, to qualify the statement, then attribute it to the person or source, in the text, so that the reader knows its not a widely held fact and can make their own judgment as to its relative merit. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The intro of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai seems to be full of POVs. I don't know if that's how it is done with all other articles on Presidents or someone has with an agenda is at work. Thanks.-- Hkrclu ( talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I recently found out that there is simply no mention of Tibetan politics on the main article of Tibet. All articles of regions and territories around the world contain the mention of politics in the main article along with other aspects. It has been claimed by a few editors that the main article should only consist of ethno-cultural Tibet while there are separate articles about Economy of Tibet and Tibetan culture on wikipedia. I would request administrators to intervene. The present political section which was recently added still does not give due weight on politics and recent events. There have also been attempts to retain Chinese history on Tibetan article which clearly represents bias.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm in a content dispute with some editors at coconut oil. Could people here give an assessment as to whether I'm being pig-headed or the other parties are being unreasonable? I'd probably accede to the wishes of the other parties more readily if their edits didn't overlap so much, if the article was being improved before I took an interest in it, and I got the feeling they're going to build it if I left it to them—but I don't.
They say I'm pushing a POV but in my defense I'd say the tone and POV of the version of the article I'm working on isn't substantially different from what one sees in this New York Times article: Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World. Moreover I'm backing up my additions with detailed sources that contain discussion and I've brought a great many of them to the RS Noticeboard where some were supported; and while others received no comment, IIRC I don't think any I kept in were rejected. The sources I am adding are then being removed wholesale at the article with little productive discussion and my edits reverted with seemingly little critical thought. Detailed sources supporting their position are not being provided by them, therefore there is an imbalance of material to work with, and that is used as a pretext to remove information I have added.
Here is a comparison of the article versions: ( current) ( my preferred version) ( diff).
Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the correct way to proceed. Lambanog ( talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not even sure what the dispute is over anymore. Looking at the health section of Lambanog's "preferred version", there's only one real sentence I would outright remove (the importation of the saturated fat dispute using an article that doesn't mention coconut oil at all), and I'd move the information on breast milk to another part of the page, but otherwise there's some minor wordsmithing and reference checks that need to be done but that's about it. This is again why I would like to see a clear statement of what the problem is at talk:coconut oil rather than bother discussing it here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain your purpose in tracking the versions? Comparing selected revisions via diffs generated from the article history is much easier than comparing current version to a version in a subpage.
The version I am working on pretty much highlights all the areas where I see improvements can be made. You and WLU could just as easily comment on them instead of asking me to repeat myself on the talk page. I note from the preceding comments above it seems that WLU did not even look at my improvements to see what he could agree with before reverting them and you have not commented on the particulars of my edits either despite saying that you are tracking them. Lambanog ( talk) 05:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
If we're interested in efficiency, I think it is simpler to start from the version I'm working on since it has more to work with. It has more information backed up by more sources. Please identify the areas you think it isn't better, the nature of the problem, and suggest modifications. Lambanog ( talk) 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This BLP of a minister of a suburban megachurch keeps getting prettied up by a series of s.p.a. editors, to such an extent that one suspects them of being either admiring members of his congregation or press agents. The latest of these is determined to add anything and everything that the guy does, and generally treats this as a hagiography of his Dear Leader. Could we get some fresh eyes on this? -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This article about a dead politician has a problem with a succession of s.p.a.s ( User talk:Chumirethics, User talk:Chumirethicsfoundation, User talk:Publicengagement, User talk:Buffalomaverick) who keep trying to put back in the same worshipful language sourced to the website of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation (not exactly an NPOV source), complete with firstnaming and fulsome praise. When I revert one account a few times, a new s.p.a. takes up the cudgel. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not? needs fresh uninvolved eyes so a more clear consensus might emerge. The RFC is not that complicated or long I promise! Jnast1 ( talk) 22:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I boldly put this article in chronological order. Initially it was just a matter of having a clear timeline instead of jumping all over the place. But I got in up to my wrists in potential WP:UNDUE weight issues. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on it, to clean up any further issues, and prevent anyone pushing this away from a WP:NPOV chronology. Dzlife ( talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
For a while the debate seemed closed (the debate can be found here), but then a new editor brought up the subject, and discussion is at a standstill, so I think it would be a good idea to mention it here. The basic discussion was at the List of Christian punk bands, and was over whether the band Kutless should be included.
The main problem is an Allmusic biography of Falling Up]. In this biography, it discusses the similarities and differences between Falling Up and Kutless, and says quote: "But where Kutless is a fairly standard-issue Christian gloss on metal-tinged emo, Falling Up..." Now, emo is a punk rock style, and if a band is emo it should be on the punk list. The problem is, Allmusic is the only solidly reliable source that calls the band emo (there are one or two less reliable ones), and as such WP:UNDUE has been invoked, partially because the editor feels the reference is too vague. This has in turn been questioned, as there are no sources that contradict this statement, there are just more that call the band a host of other styles. I was the one who originally protested the WP:UNDUE invocation but I went with it, but now a new editor has revitalized the discussion.
So I guess the basic question is, how clear is the reference, and is one reference in a very reliable source, plus one or two in more questionable sources, enough to qualify the band for the list, or is it a case of WP:UNDUE?-- 3family6 ( talk) 13:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have edited many controversial articles and BLPs but this is the most difficult in terms of entrenched pov bias (the pov being that this matter's "truth"(that Obama was born in Hawaii) is obvious and must be reflected in the article's title, section titles and general content). This is also the first such article where consensus seems unwaverable for retaining the pov in the title,section titles and content
There are 3 npov issues that I think need addressing;
Here are the links o the talk page discussions.
[24] [25] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Editors should be aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Maybe we need to notify some editors about this. Dougweller ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with all of Mr.Grantevans2 claims above, but he is certainly right that there are some WP:OWNERSHIP / entrenched POV issues with this article. A few editors reject every substantive change, citing "long-term consensus", regardless of how many potential editors might come along and disagree. I made what I thought to be a couple pretty reasonable suggestions (as you can see on the talk page), and they were either ignored or rejected immediately. On the requested move, my first comment on the matter included the statement "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit", and yet I was dismissed without much thought. Never a "hmmm, yeah, maybe we can come up with somebody better than conspiracy theories that we all agree on". – CWenger ( ^ • @) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire article should be deleted as a WP:BLP violation and redirect to his bio article.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The only "POV entrenchment" I see on that article is the desire to actually follow Wikipedia policies. People who think it is pushing a POV to not give equal validity to the birthers' fringe views just do not get how encyclopedias work in general. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that several editors have mentioned that the article is a BLP violation. I would suggest that they haven't a clue what that means. They should reread the WP:BLP policy. Any information, even the most offensive, is not a BLP violation IF PROPERLY SOURCED. There may be other arguments against using such information, but BLP isn't one of them. It must not only be properly sourced, but framed correctly. If framed as a notable opinion, it's still okay. BLP should not be used as an argument for censorship and whitewashing. We're already seeing plenty of that on all the articles related to the Koch brothers, where even articles by notable prize winning journalists published in RS like the LA Times aren't being allowed by certain entrenched tag teaming editors, in violation of NPOV. They too claim anything negative is a BLP violation, so those articles are hagiographies. That mustn't happen here.
As to redirecting, that's not appropriate because this isn't an improper fork. It's more about birtherism (IOW Obama's enemies) than about Obama, and a tweak of the title might be in order for that reason (not sure to what though ). Per FRINGE the phenomena deserves short mention in the Obama article, but that's all. The article deserves its own life as documentation of a very notable political phenomena, just like other ridiculous beliefs that are also documented in RS. It's notable enough that some statistics show that over half of the Republican membership are fooled by it. We can't ignore something that notable. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
These claims are baseless. The facts are, reliable sources describe the Birther claims as " conspiracy theories"( these just in the last week or two). It is not POV to describe them as such, and there are a plethora of reliable sources that describe them both as conspiracy theories and fringe views. In fact, the claims by the OP and a couple others here that wish to give "equal weight" to fringe views is the real problem. Both by Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sourced reality. I was reading but ignoring this thread, hoping an uninvolved Admin would just close it and the requested move down, because we have to go through these hoops and ladders in what seems like every other month or so. Many times with the same editors chiming in to declare the article POV. Perhaps we need a more detailed FAQ for the page, these claims are made way too often. Dave Dial ( talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'POV Entrenchment', the is a WP:Fringe theory that is not accepted as mainstream consensus and will never be without better evidence to the contrary. It may be a pain to go back in the archives and discover all of this, but that doesn't change this fact. SeanNovack ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr.Grantevans2: This is the type of argument that would impress me. However, the problem with Google hits is that it returns web sites that don't qualify as reliable sources. When you limit it to sources which are reliable, I get:
Another metric I like to use is the Google News Archive Search.
NapoliRoma: There's a flaw in your first search string. "Obama citizenship controversy" returns hits on other topics such the controversy over the citizenship of illegal immigrants. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow... This really cuts to the core of WP objectivity and standing behind NPOV. Who officially defines "reliable sources" in your search engine? Sources generally don't support the current POV of the article. We're apparently now getting into weighing "reliability" or, as you would have it, deferring to an oracle of reliablity. Does WP want to trust that source? Doesn't it make more sense to have a free exchange of ideas and let the listener decide? I guess that's a uniquely American and obsolete approach I have. John2510 ( talk) 02:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In that this discussion went totally off the rails in regard of any identified NPOV issue, and that publication of the the "long form" certificate seems to have taken some of the wind from the participants, perhaps this would be a good time for closing this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like other comments on this organisation's article, in particular the opening sentence "The New Century Foundation describes itself as "a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations so as to better understand the consequences of America's increasing diversity. It sponsors publications and books, and holds occasional conferences."[1] From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund.[1][2][3]" and the reversion of the category Category:White supremacist groups in the United States for which I can find several sources in Google Books [35] [36] [37] and many in Google News [38]. American Renaissance (magazine) may also be relevant here. Dougweller ( talk) 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some third+ opinions on the Amway Australia article. WP:STRUCTURE indicates that "controversy" sections should be avoided as they can be inherently POV. In my view that's exactly what is occurring here, with two issues which engendered pretty much no "controversy" at all in their sources, and one having no secondary sources at all, being labelled as "controversy" in the article. I rewrote the article by "folding in to the narrative" as the policy suggests, however another editor Financeguy222 disputes this approach. Diff of the versions here.-- Icerat ( talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A BLP exists on Roberto Palazzolo, written by Don Calo, which is defamatory. Palazzolo has a case to answer, of which there is no question; aspects of which I have tackled in many places; see at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Palazzolo Talk and User Talk Fircks and ANI 679 and ANI 684.
It is difficult to know where to go to in Wikipedia to resolve this very urgent matter, and I have made no progress to date. My apologies if I have been barking up the wrong trees, increasingly frustrated, but a few of the editors concerned appear to be more concerned with the letter of the law (
Research, or
Advocacy or
Wikipedia as a court source or
Verifiability or
What constitutes a legal threat) while forgetting that a living man is being defamed by Wikipedia. And we all know that Wikipedia exists and thrives because it provides, or promises to provide, a Neutral POV.
Roberto Palazzolo is anything but neutral. It is scurrilous and, given that I have pointed out it's errors many times, it is dishonest.
The existing BLP fails to note his side of the story, which has been distorted for many reasons, primarily by the Media. There is now a "given" version of his story, promoted by the Media, who then make weak disclaimers like, "Palazzolo denies all allegations". But the fact is that this is a long (running since 1982) and complex story, and Palazzolo claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. So it is not a BLP an amateur can simply churn out, using newspapers for sources. What I am saying therefore is that this article goes against Wikipedia's central tenet, which is to have a
Neutral Point of View. This POV is biased.
It has been difficult to get my point across to Wikipedia. Don Calo merely excised my revisions to the article, as well as those put in by one of Palazzolo's lawyers, so an edit war began. Any interventions I made were treated by Wikipedia as if I had broken into someone's house. I came to warn that the house was on fire (one of your BLP's was defamatory) and was treated, in some cases, like a thief. Someone called [
Quabar] on 9th Feb 2011 posted my "abuse" to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/fircks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. See at
Ongoing Vandalism.
There has been some ineffectual slander where, because I had posted Palazzolo's lawyer's presentation to Wikipedia (at
http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983), which was ignored, I must also be a "Mafia guy". Whoever wrote this paragraph failed to sign, with good reason: I'd also like to add that this mafia guy doensn't make the fact that he isnt happy with this article a secret ( see
http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983 ). Id like to point out that the IP (41.182.20.179) that helped vandalize this article is from namibia, and fircks claims that he is a 'friend' of palazzolo. In my opinion there is a big possibility that both firks and the ip are sockpuppets of palazozolo. ill look into the history of the article and see what else i can find. 109.160.184.79 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Don Calo's defamation continued.
Suffice it to say that I went to the
ANI, where you will see that I was advised on many aspects of Wikipedia law including
Wikipedia as a Court source. Which was helpful to a degree but what I needed was to research is Wikipedia using court docs as a source (i.e. primary sources). Not the other way around. Palazzolo's case rests on what the judges in 4 countries have said about him, over nearly 30 years. His case does NOT rest on what the newspapers ascribe to him. Least of all the tabloid press. Hence my enquiry, again: Why would someone allow newspapers as the source for a BLP, but not a High Court judge or an internationally acclaimed lawyer? All that anyone can tell me is, in effect, "those are the rules". Allow me to draw your attention to
Ignore All Rules, which is the 5th of Wikipedia's 5 pillars, filled with wisdom such as: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." etc
Well, there is a BLP out there, written by a man who knows nothing about Palazzolo except what he reads in the Mail & Guardian in South Africa. Therefore it is heavily slanted and, given that often the courts have said the opposite, highly defamatory.
I look forward to bringing Palazzolo's case to you. Not his innocence, which will be established in good time in court, if he is innocent, but his side of the story, which is not only compelling but will raise issues that will resonate for many years to come. All he must be allowed to do is match the charge or allegation with the explanation and the court judgement.
This is where everything to date has been written:
Vito Roberto Palazzolo; and
Reliable Sources Noticeboard and
Fircks and
Archive 679 and
ANI re: Palazzolo
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.
Fircks ( talk) 11:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Fircks ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - what happen's now? Will someone look at this and adjudicate?
Thanks -
Fircks (
talk) 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I wrote this article 10 days ago, hoping that wikipedia will stop to consider both sides of a BLP. Any news? -- Fircks ( talk) 11:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In the article about women's tennis player Julia Goerges, the title misspells her last name as "Gorges", with an umlaut above the "o". This should be changed immediately if not sooner, as Goerges is the actual spelling of the woman's name. Also, anytime "Gorges" is used inside the article, it should be changed to reflect the correct spelling. There are many sources that can be used to verify the correct spelling of her last name, including her own website, so I won't go into that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 ( talk) 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In an article about the actor Kurt Russell, I added several factual sentences about his minor-league baseball career, most of which is verified by BaseballReference.com, but the content was deleted. In editing the article, I noticed that several facts already in there used BaseballReference.com to back up their content. If the editor(s) had bothered to check the information for Russell in BaseballReference.com, they'd have noticed that I was correct and factual about the added content and it should not have been deleted. My additions included the fact that Russell played for the team that his father, Bing, owned (from 1973-1977), called the Portland (Ore.) Mavericks, a single-A short-season Northwest League independent team (no major league affiliation). Wikipedia even verifies the fact that Bing Russell owned the team in its own article about Bing, which means that deletion of that was highly inappropriate. I also included a fact about a story he told on "Late Night with David Letterman" regarding his days in Portland as a player, a fact that could easily be checked by contacting Letterman's production company, WorldWidePants, but editors failed to do so. Rather than simply deleting the accurate passages from the articles, the editors shouldn't have checked Bing Russell's article, BaseballReference.com and contacted WorldWidePants first to confirm whether they were true. This to me, was lazy and irresponsible editing. Wikipedia's editors must do a much better job in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 ( talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Evolutionism
2. diff
3. Some users insist on describing evolutionism through the term "belief". I tried to replace it because the term has religious connotations, being used in this way in the well known creationism-evolutionism disputes. The second phrase is "The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution" which implies that cultural and social evolution are also beliefs, so the first two phrases sound ridiculously and are obviously biased. This specifically breaks WP:LABEL. Also the article in it's whole focuses on the use of the word in the English language by religious groups, a rather irrelevant aspect which is inexistent in all of the top dictionaries in different languages that I have consulted, while the main meaning of the word and topic is almost ignored. This breaks the rule that articles should have a global point of view.
4. Talk:Evolutionism#Evolution.3Dbelief.3F -- ANDROBETA 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Over the past few days it has come to my attention that Binksternet has been deeply involved in Pro-Choice POV pushing in a number of Abortion / Pro-Life Articles primarily through elaborate gaming the system. I have seen this on both the Pro-life feminism and Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute articles. It primarily involves writing information in such away as it intentionally casts all any pro-life view in a negative or unscholarly light, removing sourced information that would cast it in a positive light, and removing page tags that would alert anyone to ongoing problems in the article. Any attempts at making the article more neutral are thwarted until interested editors just go away. I realize he is a very involved editor and administrator and his positive contributions are nearly countless but sometimes bias is present on a particular topic. POV runs high in these types of articles and it my hope that perhaps at least some neutrality can prevail with more involved working on behalf of neutrality. Personally I think I may be getting a bit too frustrated with it to continue. PeRshGo ( talk) 10:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Amina Bokhary was speedied for being an attack page. The article has been userfied by the deleting admin for rework, and is now in my userspace. I would appreciate any ideas/help for cleaning it up. One idea I have is to transform the article into one about the incident causing the 2010 controversy. Some elements appear insane, but I believe this is more of a reflection of the rather unhealthy body politic of Hong Kong and the tabloid nature of the press than a deliberate attempt to attack the subject. The attacks are at a political and societal level, and I feel the article reflects the sentiment on the ground. That is not to say the article cannot be improved. Most of the sources used in the article are reliable conventional sources. There are no "tabloid" citations. Any help or suggestions would be most appreciated. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
We're trying to work out what to do with the Thor (film) page. Basically, there has been some controversy stir about Idris Elba and a very, very small minority of white supremacists threatened at the time to Boycott the film.
What I am suggesting is that, it is not neutral, it gives far too much weight to this controversy stir. There is no mention whatsoever of anything except Idris addressing the controversy stir. Compare the character cast to all the others in this article and you can tell that there is something clearly wrong. I have attempted to rectify the issue, but have been unable to get through. I suggest only the following is needed on this section about the controversy stir:
or
The rest of the article should not address the controversy stir at all, but how Idris felt playing the part, based on
WP:NPOV. Therefore the following should be deleted: "In response Elba said, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean,
Cleopatra was played by
Elizabeth Taylor, and
Gandhi was played by
Ben Kingsley".
[4] At the moment, there is NO mention of how Idris feels, or his thoughts about playing the part. It's all just addressing this blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir. It's too weighty in my opinion. For the past week or so I have tried to get this through but to no avail. And just to clarify what Wikipedia policy says: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " KN→
talk •
contribs 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Mention of this controversy stir is even mentioned on the
Heimdall (comic) page, which I have left a comment about:
see here. KN→
talk •
contribs 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
undue weight?
template a long time ago, and no doubt been deleted.It was released already in Australia; I think it's this weekend for the U.S. Not sure about anywhere else. From some blogs I follow that have pointed out the controversy, I gather that the race-based objectors are still actively trying to encourage/organize their little boycott so present tense may be appropriate (hard to tell since it's blog tag in sites reacting to the stupid). Millahnna ( talk) 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The mention of the boycott on the Thor (film) article has been up for one year and yet no boycott has even happened. I am calling for this non-notable issue to be deleted. But TriiipleThreat is still
insisting on it being included At the very least delete until we know the legitamacy in this whole thing. It's not the first time the CCC has misled people. KN→
talk •
contribs 10:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have some concerns that the new article Where's the Birth Certificate? does not reflect a neutral point of view, in its claims relating to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - as the book has not been published, and due to concerns regarding sourcing that I've stated on the talk page. I think it would benefit from more people checking it over. Chzz ► 06:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
One specific issue: The article claims that it was/is on the list of Amazon 'best-sellers' before it actually goes on sale. That is supported by refs, [42] [43]. However, looking on Amazon itself, the book does not appear on their list [44]. Therefore, I removed the claim [45] but my edit was reverted [46]. Chzz ► 12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Summary and Request to Close—This claim should be closed. NPOV was never discussed on the TALK page itself prior to Chzz starting this claim. The claim is stated in very general terms by Chzz with no diffs linked, as suggested by the directions "Before posting a question". The questions stated by Chzz here are mainly not NPOV issues. The result, after four days on this board, is that one editor, an experienced admin, Dougweller, has found just one word that he thought was not NPOV. That does not mean the article is perfect, of course, but it certainly does show that NPOV issues can be handled on the talk page itself and that a non specific posting on this venue was and is unneeded. Therefore I am asking that this claim be closed. KeptSouth ( talk) 06:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate any others assisting with this. Above, KeptSouth wrote,I do not believe off hand that Chzz followed proper dispute resolution procedures - I'm worried by that, and if I have done anything at all wrong, I would like to know what, so that I do not make similar errors in the future.
I'm finding it very challenging to discuss any of this with KeptSouth, so perhaps input from others might help. Best, Chzz ► 21:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This method is being misrepresented by Wiki in the opening sentences. Changes to remedy this are being constantly reverted. Editors are either clueless or have an agenda. As for example a reversion for the same change with these three comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=428548788&oldid=428547389
It is just simple accounting that the customer money becomes the banks asset and it would be fraud to say otherwise. The ordinary depositors are unsecured creditors in a private firm who are last in line behind higher ranking more knowledgeable investors.
Additionally, the relending model of fractional reserve banking is presented on the page with paragraphs highlighting limitations in how banks can create money. Meanwhile I have provided endless citations from central bankers and specialist economists who say this idea of limitations is false.
Which famous economists support the idea in the simplistic mechanical fashion shown by wiki? Surely a reliable economist has heard of the expression 'extend credit'? Or has heard of lending and borrowing of excess reserves at LIBOR? None of these basic things can be explained on the page because they have been described as being fringe beliefs that do not support the relending model. As a result, the Wiki page is misrepresenting how banks really operate.
Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Re: "Perhaps a summary should be added specifically addressing known issues with the textbook model". I'd be much happier with that rather than the current state which is presenting the textbook model as fact and presenting the known issues as fringe. Reissgo ( talk) 11:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Title NPOV issue. We should surely be using a more neutral title here, even if this is a term some parties use to discuss the matter. Eyeballs? FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There is continuing controversy on whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is appropriate. The disagreement is whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is NPOV, and whether the reliable sources referenced in the article cover this subject under the term Pure blood theory or ethnic nationalism. In my opinion, the current title is offensive and keeps many editors, including myself, from providing constructive contributions to the subject matter, and much of the article's contents were written by a selective group of editors with a history of anti-Korean bias, and should the current title be maintained, it will remain so for the foreseeable future. The current debate is largely limited to a few non-neutral editors, so I'd like to ask neutral editors to drop in their opinions on this matter to put in some fresh perspective. Cydevil38 ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template Talk:Rescue. Rescue Tag guidelines are often not followed. Do the instructions for the Rescue Tag need to change, or does the wording for the tag need to change? Avanu ( talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
Discussion should take place at
Template Talk:Rescue, not here.
|
---|
|
RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. — [d'oh] 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The following claims have been made in the article talk page:
All this arose as I noted that "Nazi Germany" should not be used to deliberately attaint any person as being a "Nazi collaborator" (the person initially had asserted that "Nazi Germany" was the actual name of Germany -- "Nazi" is quite relevant. It is the name of this country during that period , but appeared to back down and now just asserts that moving to Nazi Germany should be noted as making the person a collaborator. No source aserts that Louveer was a Nazi, by the way. Is use of "Nazi Germany" in order to promote the implication of any person as a Nazi Collaborator in line with WP:NPOV? Lastly, is all this subject to Digwuren sanctions? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Paul "@ Peters. To say that someone escaped to the Nazi Germany does not automatically mean that he was a Nazi supporter. However, although the fact that he was not a Nazi supporter does not change the fact that this person voluntarily moved to the Nazi Germany and stayed there until German defeat. The word "Nazi" is relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC"
There you go, using "voluntarily" as if people had a choice. The only two places boats were going were Sweden and Germany, and the only place where Latvians would know the local language and have a better chance of fending for themselves was Germany, most educated Latvians being polyglots (Latvian plus either Russian or German, or both). To characterize becoming a refugee, fleeing likely deportation if not death by Soviet hands, as "voluntarily" fleeing to Germany (and as if there were more choices!) is both provocative and grossly offensive.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 21:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
@Paul and "This person made a choice between two totalitarian regimes, and this choice was made absolutely voluntary." No it was not. Because of the Nazi Germany invasion a week after the first Soviet mass deportations, the next Soviet wave of mass deportations was interrupted. Those deportation lists were left behind. My mother was warned not to go home and avoided deportation with the rest of her family; however, both my mother and father were listed for subsequent deportation. Staying and not fleeing would mean definite deportation and likely death to stay. Of course Looveer was forced to flee. Your contention of "absolutely voluntary" choice between two evils is uninformed and insulting. Really, have you not yet scraped the bottom of the barrel in tarring Looveer? As for the choice of where, there were far fewer boats heading to Sweden, many were also small and many lives were lost in the crossing. When the Soviets are coming to take you away, you don't ask where the boat is heading as long as it's away. You get on the first boat you can and leave and hope the Soviet bombs dropping all around you don't sink your boat. (In Looveer's case the last boat to get out of Tallinn before the Soviets retook the city and ripped down the Estonian flag.) I'm disgusted by your morally grotesque "preferring the Nazis to the Soviets" line of reasoning. You should not be allowed to participate at any articles having to do with Soviet or Nazi actions or legacies regarding WWII in the Baltics.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Christoff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I can't find any guidance on this. Is it acceptable to refer to the Bible as 'the Holy Bible' when this is not the actual titles of a published version? Is this in fact covered at MOS:ISLAM which says "Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia."? I presume it is. I can't find it on any of our MOS pages. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 19:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment adding Holy is more than just a value judgment as it implies that it is the
Christian Bible, and not just the
Hebrew Bible. While "The Old(Jewish) and New(Christian) Testaments together are commonly referred to as "The Holy Bible" (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια). " the
Hebrew Bible and is not commonly referred to as the
Holy Hebrew Bible/Holy Bible. Since the Christian Bible is sometimes known as the Holy Bible:
Christian Bible lead sentence:
...Christian Bible (sometimes known as the Holy Bible)...
it can be used in a non POV way to differentiate it with the older versions of the Christian Bible that do not contain both Testaments(Like the
Hebrew Bible). It also is not Wikipedia making the value judgment, but rather reporting on how it is commonly referred to as(like referring to the
The Boston Massacre as "the Boston Massacre" is not making a judgment on it as being a massacre, but referring to it by how others refer to it).--
AerobicFox (
talk) 08:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
In the introduction of English Defence League the following sentence currently stands:
However, some EDL members have chanted "We hate Muslims" at pro-Palestinian demonstrators in London on 13 September 2009. [1]
On December 20 a section was opened on the talk page, Talk:English Defence League#Opening lines and anti EDL sentiment, taking issue with this on NPOV grounds. Some editors are adamant that having this sentence in the lede is unproblematic while the issue is being discussed. I have stated that on the contrary, this sentence is really bad POV and should be removed promptly. __ meco ( talk) 09:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In the lede of Climate change denial, there is a source that says,
Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science. Those scientists who test some uncertain part of the theories and models of climate change with ones of their own are, in a weak sense, "sceptics". But almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the "big" debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change.
— Christoff, Peter, Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect, The Age Company Ltd
This is being used to support the text, "Climate change denial differs from skepticism which is essential for good science." There is another source that says,
We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
— Peter J. Jacques; Riley E. Dunlap; Mark Freeman, Environmental Politics, The organisation of denial, Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism
There is a long discussion on the talk page that has debated whether these two uses of the word 'skeptical' are equivalent - the one that is essential to good science, and the one that is a political tactic. I would say that the present text not only misrepresents the source used, which goes on to say "There are now no credible scientific sceptics" in this area, but totally ignores the existence of other points of view per NPOV. I have tried to correct this but my edits have been reversed wholesale. I wonder if anyone here can help clarify the best way forward? -- Nigelj ( talk) 14:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There is another aspect of this that may be getting overlooked, the use of "skepticism which is essential for good science". While this is true in a strict sense, I have been seeing it used to justify climate skepticism as "essential for good science", which is not true. This kind of usage is a subtle non-neutral POV, a continuation of the effort to attribute certain kinds of "skepticism" with more respectability than warranted. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It might be worth adding the above article to a few watchlists. There are some single purpose accounts operating in this article about a British police operation against alleged downloaders of child pornography at least some of whom were convicted. The SPAs are active on both sides of the argument.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 21:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has become a coatrack for presenting critical views of US foreign policy. We need editors to help repair this problem by:
Thank you for helping. Jehochman Talk 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Slatersteven I don't understand the purpose of your statement, are you disputing that there are balance and POV issues with the article, or are you saying that one editor should just go fix the problems created by dozens of editors over the 4 years the article has existed? Jehochman, seems to have clearly stated the steps he feels are needed to improve the article(and I agree) he was just looking for help. Voiceofreason01 ( talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman has repeatedly been asked to provide reliable sources with contrary viewpoints that he doesn't feel are being included, and has so far failed to do so. He and another user are repeatedly making claims that "contrary views are being excluded", but have failed to provide any such views or examples of where they were excluded. I would ask that their unfounded allegations of censorship stop, unless they can substantiate them. Repeated allegations of "anti-American bias" are also meaningless without reliable sources presenting contrasting views to the ones used. All of the editors involved have welcomed the inclusion of such views, and have stated willingness to include them if they are presented. The real problem is that the users making the complaints have consistently refused to substantiate their allegations with reliable sources, or to make specific suggestions for changes other than deleting the article. In Jehochman's case, he says he isn't going to provide sources because he doesn't have the time to research the content. I find it perplexing that he believes something is biased when he hasn't researched it yet, but all of the editors at the page are willing to include anything he comes up with. But specific suggestions actually need to be made before anything can change. That said, I agree that there are serious problems with the article, which I was actually working on fixing before the recent protection came into effect. I welcome any specific suggestions that anyone might have for improvement. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 20:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Could a few people have a look at Trafigura. An IP editor has been removing lots of negative information and slanting the rest in a more positive light [8]. A couple of editors have reverted, prompting some long posts on the talk page - it's currently back on the IP's version. The article may well have too negative before, but now it's gone a long way in the opposite direction. Trafigura have tried to improve their image on wikipedia in the past ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-21/Trafigura); this might be good faith editing but I think more experienced eyes are needed.-- Physics is all gnomes ( talk) 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
[9] is presented as (edit summary) undoing User:Collect's major edits, for which he has no WP:Consensus
Is the change in lede back to the huge version (which, by the way, was not removed from the article) an advance to NPOV? Was the shorter lede more NPOV in any event? Does the article have significant POV issues? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is an open RFC and an ongoing discussion about the Lead. One user, be it User:Collect or anyone else, cannot just take matters into his own hand in the middle of an ongoing process, and unilaterally re-write the lead, in order to bypass the RFC/Consensus-building process. This is not how Wikipedia works. Kurdo777 ( talk) 20:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just been given a Level 3 warning for presumably this edit: [10]. The editor, Wangond ( talk · contribs) removed the entire sentence (not just my edit) and a citation request of mine at [11] . There been a brief discussion at the article talk page and I certainly didn't expect this, although I note that he removed a citation to Sharri Cla earlier claiming it wasn't in the source, which was I believe just plain wrong. He appears to think that any suggestion that disagrees with h about mother goddesses is a " minority views npov violation". I don't want to get involved in an edit war (see his talk page, he's had a couple of warnings recently about 3RR), but Clark has a number of interesting things to say about the figurines - see [12] which should be in the article. The whole mother goddess issue is also not cut an dried as I've pointed out at Talk:Indus Valley Civilization#Religion and mother goddess.
The violation was made by you. According to wp:npov, such sentences are not allowed to have prominence like the majority view. Furthermore, Clark doesnt contenst the majority view, but giving stimulus to other views. The addition of Clark have thus no basis for inclusion, especially not in a dispute way. The word Malaysia is not thought to be from Sanskrit. This is not referenced by any source, the editors have given in the Malaysia article. The sources say only, that there is a Sanskrit work, which references to Sumatra as Malayadvipa. Etymology is about the sorces of words, not references from works to this word.-- Wangond ( talk) 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor added this note to one of the Chinese gov't response to the incident. I just want to know if this violates WP:NPOV.— Chris! c/ t 01:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is devoted to criticism of theory. But in fact protects theory against critics by hiding the facts.
There are others views:
But authors of articles do not want to see them. Пуанкаре ( talk) 06:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
:This is a piece of
Forum shopping. The user has already started a discussion about this at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What is it?, and all comments should go there, rather than fragmenting discussion of the question.
JamesBWatson (
talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is dominated by one user named User:Barnstarbob pushing a pro-Vega agenda. The Chevrolet Vega is widely considered to have been one of America's worst cars, but criticisms are shunted to bottom paragraphs and overwhelmed with positive detail. The article dominator deletes inline citations, reverts "COI" tags by other users, is uncooperative and doesn't participate with WP:AGF. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 14:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Germanic Saints?
Are there any official Germanic saints?
Grevenko Sereth 122.49.167.49 ( talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to dispute the neutrality of the article on this man, specifically one sentence in the first paragraph. This is what I stated on that page's discussion board:
Putting aside that evolution itself requires a belief that a creator DOES NOT EXIST (as pointed out by some prominent evolutionists,) the statement, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a blatant POV violation. First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even a POV source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."
Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?
Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence.
The page has been locked and the original POV sentence has been retained. Therefore, I would like a POV tag placed on this article until a proper substitute sentence is placed. Thank you. — Dimestore ( talk) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Because the information you opposed is gone and because tagging the article is possible now that it is unlocked, I am marking your request for help as resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
A new editor is making some very problematic changes to the lede of American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Specifically, he's adding information to a reference that doesn't appear on the website referenced (that: "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." and is replacing some general lede-appropriate summary information with a very specific reference to an FBI file that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I am particularly disturbed that the editor chose to include a quote about an allegation made against the organization while leaving off the part of the quote that stated the allegation was "unsubstantiated". Here is his latest edit. (removed by Bluerasberry). GabrielF ( talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the use of the word "claim" perjorative in the case of longevity claims about living people? I think it is. Especially when the "claim" may or may not be made by the person whose lifespan is in question. It could be a relative, government, or sloppy reporter making the claim. The World's Oldest People WikiProject could use some outside guidance here. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 16:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Follow WP:CLAIM and avoid that word. If its necessary, for some reason, to qualify the statement, then attribute it to the person or source, in the text, so that the reader knows its not a widely held fact and can make their own judgment as to its relative merit. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The intro of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai seems to be full of POVs. I don't know if that's how it is done with all other articles on Presidents or someone has with an agenda is at work. Thanks.-- Hkrclu ( talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I recently found out that there is simply no mention of Tibetan politics on the main article of Tibet. All articles of regions and territories around the world contain the mention of politics in the main article along with other aspects. It has been claimed by a few editors that the main article should only consist of ethno-cultural Tibet while there are separate articles about Economy of Tibet and Tibetan culture on wikipedia. I would request administrators to intervene. The present political section which was recently added still does not give due weight on politics and recent events. There have also been attempts to retain Chinese history on Tibetan article which clearly represents bias.-- UplinkAnsh ( talk) 11:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm in a content dispute with some editors at coconut oil. Could people here give an assessment as to whether I'm being pig-headed or the other parties are being unreasonable? I'd probably accede to the wishes of the other parties more readily if their edits didn't overlap so much, if the article was being improved before I took an interest in it, and I got the feeling they're going to build it if I left it to them—but I don't.
They say I'm pushing a POV but in my defense I'd say the tone and POV of the version of the article I'm working on isn't substantially different from what one sees in this New York Times article: Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World. Moreover I'm backing up my additions with detailed sources that contain discussion and I've brought a great many of them to the RS Noticeboard where some were supported; and while others received no comment, IIRC I don't think any I kept in were rejected. The sources I am adding are then being removed wholesale at the article with little productive discussion and my edits reverted with seemingly little critical thought. Detailed sources supporting their position are not being provided by them, therefore there is an imbalance of material to work with, and that is used as a pretext to remove information I have added.
Here is a comparison of the article versions: ( current) ( my preferred version) ( diff).
Thank you for your comments and suggestions on the correct way to proceed. Lambanog ( talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not even sure what the dispute is over anymore. Looking at the health section of Lambanog's "preferred version", there's only one real sentence I would outright remove (the importation of the saturated fat dispute using an article that doesn't mention coconut oil at all), and I'd move the information on breast milk to another part of the page, but otherwise there's some minor wordsmithing and reference checks that need to be done but that's about it. This is again why I would like to see a clear statement of what the problem is at talk:coconut oil rather than bother discussing it here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain your purpose in tracking the versions? Comparing selected revisions via diffs generated from the article history is much easier than comparing current version to a version in a subpage.
The version I am working on pretty much highlights all the areas where I see improvements can be made. You and WLU could just as easily comment on them instead of asking me to repeat myself on the talk page. I note from the preceding comments above it seems that WLU did not even look at my improvements to see what he could agree with before reverting them and you have not commented on the particulars of my edits either despite saying that you are tracking them. Lambanog ( talk) 05:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
If we're interested in efficiency, I think it is simpler to start from the version I'm working on since it has more to work with. It has more information backed up by more sources. Please identify the areas you think it isn't better, the nature of the problem, and suggest modifications. Lambanog ( talk) 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This BLP of a minister of a suburban megachurch keeps getting prettied up by a series of s.p.a. editors, to such an extent that one suspects them of being either admiring members of his congregation or press agents. The latest of these is determined to add anything and everything that the guy does, and generally treats this as a hagiography of his Dear Leader. Could we get some fresh eyes on this? -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
This article about a dead politician has a problem with a succession of s.p.a.s ( User talk:Chumirethics, User talk:Chumirethicsfoundation, User talk:Publicengagement, User talk:Buffalomaverick) who keep trying to put back in the same worshipful language sourced to the website of the Sheldon Chumir Foundation (not exactly an NPOV source), complete with firstnaming and fulsome praise. When I revert one account a few times, a new s.p.a. takes up the cudgel. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Rosie O'Donnell#Does the "Chinese language parody" merit inclusion or not? needs fresh uninvolved eyes so a more clear consensus might emerge. The RFC is not that complicated or long I promise! Jnast1 ( talk) 22:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I boldly put this article in chronological order. Initially it was just a matter of having a clear timeline instead of jumping all over the place. But I got in up to my wrists in potential WP:UNDUE weight issues. I would appreciate a second pair of eyes on it, to clean up any further issues, and prevent anyone pushing this away from a WP:NPOV chronology. Dzlife ( talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
For a while the debate seemed closed (the debate can be found here), but then a new editor brought up the subject, and discussion is at a standstill, so I think it would be a good idea to mention it here. The basic discussion was at the List of Christian punk bands, and was over whether the band Kutless should be included.
The main problem is an Allmusic biography of Falling Up]. In this biography, it discusses the similarities and differences between Falling Up and Kutless, and says quote: "But where Kutless is a fairly standard-issue Christian gloss on metal-tinged emo, Falling Up..." Now, emo is a punk rock style, and if a band is emo it should be on the punk list. The problem is, Allmusic is the only solidly reliable source that calls the band emo (there are one or two less reliable ones), and as such WP:UNDUE has been invoked, partially because the editor feels the reference is too vague. This has in turn been questioned, as there are no sources that contradict this statement, there are just more that call the band a host of other styles. I was the one who originally protested the WP:UNDUE invocation but I went with it, but now a new editor has revitalized the discussion.
So I guess the basic question is, how clear is the reference, and is one reference in a very reliable source, plus one or two in more questionable sources, enough to qualify the band for the list, or is it a case of WP:UNDUE?-- 3family6 ( talk) 13:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I have edited many controversial articles and BLPs but this is the most difficult in terms of entrenched pov bias (the pov being that this matter's "truth"(that Obama was born in Hawaii) is obvious and must be reflected in the article's title, section titles and general content). This is also the first such article where consensus seems unwaverable for retaining the pov in the title,section titles and content
There are 3 npov issues that I think need addressing;
Here are the links o the talk page discussions.
[24] [25] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Editors should be aware of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Maybe we need to notify some editors about this. Dougweller ( talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with all of Mr.Grantevans2 claims above, but he is certainly right that there are some WP:OWNERSHIP / entrenched POV issues with this article. A few editors reject every substantive change, citing "long-term consensus", regardless of how many potential editors might come along and disagree. I made what I thought to be a couple pretty reasonable suggestions (as you can see on the talk page), and they were either ignored or rejected immediately. On the requested move, my first comment on the matter included the statement "I understand the desire to not legitimize the topic in the title, but conspiracy theory doesn't really fit", and yet I was dismissed without much thought. Never a "hmmm, yeah, maybe we can come up with somebody better than conspiracy theories that we all agree on". – CWenger ( ^ • @) 17:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire article should be deleted as a WP:BLP violation and redirect to his bio article.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The only "POV entrenchment" I see on that article is the desire to actually follow Wikipedia policies. People who think it is pushing a POV to not give equal validity to the birthers' fringe views just do not get how encyclopedias work in general. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that several editors have mentioned that the article is a BLP violation. I would suggest that they haven't a clue what that means. They should reread the WP:BLP policy. Any information, even the most offensive, is not a BLP violation IF PROPERLY SOURCED. There may be other arguments against using such information, but BLP isn't one of them. It must not only be properly sourced, but framed correctly. If framed as a notable opinion, it's still okay. BLP should not be used as an argument for censorship and whitewashing. We're already seeing plenty of that on all the articles related to the Koch brothers, where even articles by notable prize winning journalists published in RS like the LA Times aren't being allowed by certain entrenched tag teaming editors, in violation of NPOV. They too claim anything negative is a BLP violation, so those articles are hagiographies. That mustn't happen here.
As to redirecting, that's not appropriate because this isn't an improper fork. It's more about birtherism (IOW Obama's enemies) than about Obama, and a tweak of the title might be in order for that reason (not sure to what though ). Per FRINGE the phenomena deserves short mention in the Obama article, but that's all. The article deserves its own life as documentation of a very notable political phenomena, just like other ridiculous beliefs that are also documented in RS. It's notable enough that some statistics show that over half of the Republican membership are fooled by it. We can't ignore something that notable. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
These claims are baseless. The facts are, reliable sources describe the Birther claims as " conspiracy theories"( these just in the last week or two). It is not POV to describe them as such, and there are a plethora of reliable sources that describe them both as conspiracy theories and fringe views. In fact, the claims by the OP and a couple others here that wish to give "equal weight" to fringe views is the real problem. Both by Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sourced reality. I was reading but ignoring this thread, hoping an uninvolved Admin would just close it and the requested move down, because we have to go through these hoops and ladders in what seems like every other month or so. Many times with the same editors chiming in to declare the article POV. Perhaps we need a more detailed FAQ for the page, these claims are made way too often. Dave Dial ( talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'POV Entrenchment', the is a WP:Fringe theory that is not accepted as mainstream consensus and will never be without better evidence to the contrary. It may be a pain to go back in the archives and discover all of this, but that doesn't change this fact. SeanNovack ( talk) 19:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr.Grantevans2: This is the type of argument that would impress me. However, the problem with Google hits is that it returns web sites that don't qualify as reliable sources. When you limit it to sources which are reliable, I get:
Another metric I like to use is the Google News Archive Search.
NapoliRoma: There's a flaw in your first search string. "Obama citizenship controversy" returns hits on other topics such the controversy over the citizenship of illegal immigrants. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow... This really cuts to the core of WP objectivity and standing behind NPOV. Who officially defines "reliable sources" in your search engine? Sources generally don't support the current POV of the article. We're apparently now getting into weighing "reliability" or, as you would have it, deferring to an oracle of reliablity. Does WP want to trust that source? Doesn't it make more sense to have a free exchange of ideas and let the listener decide? I guess that's a uniquely American and obsolete approach I have. John2510 ( talk) 02:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In that this discussion went totally off the rails in regard of any identified NPOV issue, and that publication of the the "long form" certificate seems to have taken some of the wind from the participants, perhaps this would be a good time for closing this discussion? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like other comments on this organisation's article, in particular the opening sentence "The New Century Foundation describes itself as "a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations so as to better understand the consequences of America's increasing diversity. It sponsors publications and books, and holds occasional conferences."[1] From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund.[1][2][3]" and the reversion of the category Category:White supremacist groups in the United States for which I can find several sources in Google Books [35] [36] [37] and many in Google News [38]. American Renaissance (magazine) may also be relevant here. Dougweller ( talk) 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some third+ opinions on the Amway Australia article. WP:STRUCTURE indicates that "controversy" sections should be avoided as they can be inherently POV. In my view that's exactly what is occurring here, with two issues which engendered pretty much no "controversy" at all in their sources, and one having no secondary sources at all, being labelled as "controversy" in the article. I rewrote the article by "folding in to the narrative" as the policy suggests, however another editor Financeguy222 disputes this approach. Diff of the versions here.-- Icerat ( talk) 16:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
A BLP exists on Roberto Palazzolo, written by Don Calo, which is defamatory. Palazzolo has a case to answer, of which there is no question; aspects of which I have tackled in many places; see at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Palazzolo Talk and User Talk Fircks and ANI 679 and ANI 684.
It is difficult to know where to go to in Wikipedia to resolve this very urgent matter, and I have made no progress to date. My apologies if I have been barking up the wrong trees, increasingly frustrated, but a few of the editors concerned appear to be more concerned with the letter of the law (
Research, or
Advocacy or
Wikipedia as a court source or
Verifiability or
What constitutes a legal threat) while forgetting that a living man is being defamed by Wikipedia. And we all know that Wikipedia exists and thrives because it provides, or promises to provide, a Neutral POV.
Roberto Palazzolo is anything but neutral. It is scurrilous and, given that I have pointed out it's errors many times, it is dishonest.
The existing BLP fails to note his side of the story, which has been distorted for many reasons, primarily by the Media. There is now a "given" version of his story, promoted by the Media, who then make weak disclaimers like, "Palazzolo denies all allegations". But the fact is that this is a long (running since 1982) and complex story, and Palazzolo claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. So it is not a BLP an amateur can simply churn out, using newspapers for sources. What I am saying therefore is that this article goes against Wikipedia's central tenet, which is to have a
Neutral Point of View. This POV is biased.
It has been difficult to get my point across to Wikipedia. Don Calo merely excised my revisions to the article, as well as those put in by one of Palazzolo's lawyers, so an edit war began. Any interventions I made were treated by Wikipedia as if I had broken into someone's house. I came to warn that the house was on fire (one of your BLP's was defamatory) and was treated, in some cases, like a thief. Someone called [
Quabar] on 9th Feb 2011 posted my "abuse" to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/fircks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. See at
Ongoing Vandalism.
There has been some ineffectual slander where, because I had posted Palazzolo's lawyer's presentation to Wikipedia (at
http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983), which was ignored, I must also be a "Mafia guy". Whoever wrote this paragraph failed to sign, with good reason: I'd also like to add that this mafia guy doensn't make the fact that he isnt happy with this article a secret ( see
http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/?page_id=1983 ). Id like to point out that the IP (41.182.20.179) that helped vandalize this article is from namibia, and fircks claims that he is a 'friend' of palazzolo. In my opinion there is a big possibility that both firks and the ip are sockpuppets of palazozolo. ill look into the history of the article and see what else i can find. 109.160.184.79 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Don Calo's defamation continued.
Suffice it to say that I went to the
ANI, where you will see that I was advised on many aspects of Wikipedia law including
Wikipedia as a Court source. Which was helpful to a degree but what I needed was to research is Wikipedia using court docs as a source (i.e. primary sources). Not the other way around. Palazzolo's case rests on what the judges in 4 countries have said about him, over nearly 30 years. His case does NOT rest on what the newspapers ascribe to him. Least of all the tabloid press. Hence my enquiry, again: Why would someone allow newspapers as the source for a BLP, but not a High Court judge or an internationally acclaimed lawyer? All that anyone can tell me is, in effect, "those are the rules". Allow me to draw your attention to
Ignore All Rules, which is the 5th of Wikipedia's 5 pillars, filled with wisdom such as: "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." etc
Well, there is a BLP out there, written by a man who knows nothing about Palazzolo except what he reads in the Mail & Guardian in South Africa. Therefore it is heavily slanted and, given that often the courts have said the opposite, highly defamatory.
I look forward to bringing Palazzolo's case to you. Not his innocence, which will be established in good time in court, if he is innocent, but his side of the story, which is not only compelling but will raise issues that will resonate for many years to come. All he must be allowed to do is match the charge or allegation with the explanation and the court judgement.
This is where everything to date has been written:
Vito Roberto Palazzolo; and
Reliable Sources Noticeboard and
Fircks and
Archive 679 and
ANI re: Palazzolo
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.
Fircks ( talk) 11:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Fircks ( talk) 17:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - what happen's now? Will someone look at this and adjudicate?
Thanks -
Fircks (
talk) 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I wrote this article 10 days ago, hoping that wikipedia will stop to consider both sides of a BLP. Any news? -- Fircks ( talk) 11:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In the article about women's tennis player Julia Goerges, the title misspells her last name as "Gorges", with an umlaut above the "o". This should be changed immediately if not sooner, as Goerges is the actual spelling of the woman's name. Also, anytime "Gorges" is used inside the article, it should be changed to reflect the correct spelling. There are many sources that can be used to verify the correct spelling of her last name, including her own website, so I won't go into that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 ( talk) 21:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In an article about the actor Kurt Russell, I added several factual sentences about his minor-league baseball career, most of which is verified by BaseballReference.com, but the content was deleted. In editing the article, I noticed that several facts already in there used BaseballReference.com to back up their content. If the editor(s) had bothered to check the information for Russell in BaseballReference.com, they'd have noticed that I was correct and factual about the added content and it should not have been deleted. My additions included the fact that Russell played for the team that his father, Bing, owned (from 1973-1977), called the Portland (Ore.) Mavericks, a single-A short-season Northwest League independent team (no major league affiliation). Wikipedia even verifies the fact that Bing Russell owned the team in its own article about Bing, which means that deletion of that was highly inappropriate. I also included a fact about a story he told on "Late Night with David Letterman" regarding his days in Portland as a player, a fact that could easily be checked by contacting Letterman's production company, WorldWidePants, but editors failed to do so. Rather than simply deleting the accurate passages from the articles, the editors shouldn't have checked Bing Russell's article, BaseballReference.com and contacted WorldWidePants first to confirm whether they were true. This to me, was lazy and irresponsible editing. Wikipedia's editors must do a much better job in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.47 ( talk) 22:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Evolutionism
2. diff
3. Some users insist on describing evolutionism through the term "belief". I tried to replace it because the term has religious connotations, being used in this way in the well known creationism-evolutionism disputes. The second phrase is "The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution" which implies that cultural and social evolution are also beliefs, so the first two phrases sound ridiculously and are obviously biased. This specifically breaks WP:LABEL. Also the article in it's whole focuses on the use of the word in the English language by religious groups, a rather irrelevant aspect which is inexistent in all of the top dictionaries in different languages that I have consulted, while the main meaning of the word and topic is almost ignored. This breaks the rule that articles should have a global point of view.
4. Talk:Evolutionism#Evolution.3Dbelief.3F -- ANDROBETA 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Over the past few days it has come to my attention that Binksternet has been deeply involved in Pro-Choice POV pushing in a number of Abortion / Pro-Life Articles primarily through elaborate gaming the system. I have seen this on both the Pro-life feminism and Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute articles. It primarily involves writing information in such away as it intentionally casts all any pro-life view in a negative or unscholarly light, removing sourced information that would cast it in a positive light, and removing page tags that would alert anyone to ongoing problems in the article. Any attempts at making the article more neutral are thwarted until interested editors just go away. I realize he is a very involved editor and administrator and his positive contributions are nearly countless but sometimes bias is present on a particular topic. POV runs high in these types of articles and it my hope that perhaps at least some neutrality can prevail with more involved working on behalf of neutrality. Personally I think I may be getting a bit too frustrated with it to continue. PeRshGo ( talk) 10:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Amina Bokhary was speedied for being an attack page. The article has been userfied by the deleting admin for rework, and is now in my userspace. I would appreciate any ideas/help for cleaning it up. One idea I have is to transform the article into one about the incident causing the 2010 controversy. Some elements appear insane, but I believe this is more of a reflection of the rather unhealthy body politic of Hong Kong and the tabloid nature of the press than a deliberate attempt to attack the subject. The attacks are at a political and societal level, and I feel the article reflects the sentiment on the ground. That is not to say the article cannot be improved. Most of the sources used in the article are reliable conventional sources. There are no "tabloid" citations. Any help or suggestions would be most appreciated. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
We're trying to work out what to do with the Thor (film) page. Basically, there has been some controversy stir about Idris Elba and a very, very small minority of white supremacists threatened at the time to Boycott the film.
What I am suggesting is that, it is not neutral, it gives far too much weight to this controversy stir. There is no mention whatsoever of anything except Idris addressing the controversy stir. Compare the character cast to all the others in this article and you can tell that there is something clearly wrong. I have attempted to rectify the issue, but have been unable to get through. I suggest only the following is needed on this section about the controversy stir:
or
The rest of the article should not address the controversy stir at all, but how Idris felt playing the part, based on
WP:NPOV. Therefore the following should be deleted: "In response Elba said, "We have a man [Thor] who has a flying hammer and wears horns on his head. And yet me being an actor of African descent playing a Norse god is unbelievable? I mean,
Cleopatra was played by
Elizabeth Taylor, and
Gandhi was played by
Ben Kingsley".
[4] At the moment, there is NO mention of how Idris feels, or his thoughts about playing the part. It's all just addressing this blown-out-of-proportion controversy stir. It's too weighty in my opinion. For the past week or so I have tried to get this through but to no avail. And just to clarify what Wikipedia policy says: "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. " KN→
talk •
contribs 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Mention of this controversy stir is even mentioned on the
Heimdall (comic) page, which I have left a comment about:
see here. KN→
talk •
contribs 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
undue weight?
template a long time ago, and no doubt been deleted.It was released already in Australia; I think it's this weekend for the U.S. Not sure about anywhere else. From some blogs I follow that have pointed out the controversy, I gather that the race-based objectors are still actively trying to encourage/organize their little boycott so present tense may be appropriate (hard to tell since it's blog tag in sites reacting to the stupid). Millahnna ( talk) 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The mention of the boycott on the Thor (film) article has been up for one year and yet no boycott has even happened. I am calling for this non-notable issue to be deleted. But TriiipleThreat is still
insisting on it being included At the very least delete until we know the legitamacy in this whole thing. It's not the first time the CCC has misled people. KN→
talk •
contribs 10:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have some concerns that the new article Where's the Birth Certificate? does not reflect a neutral point of view, in its claims relating to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - as the book has not been published, and due to concerns regarding sourcing that I've stated on the talk page. I think it would benefit from more people checking it over. Chzz ► 06:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
One specific issue: The article claims that it was/is on the list of Amazon 'best-sellers' before it actually goes on sale. That is supported by refs, [42] [43]. However, looking on Amazon itself, the book does not appear on their list [44]. Therefore, I removed the claim [45] but my edit was reverted [46]. Chzz ► 12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Summary and Request to Close—This claim should be closed. NPOV was never discussed on the TALK page itself prior to Chzz starting this claim. The claim is stated in very general terms by Chzz with no diffs linked, as suggested by the directions "Before posting a question". The questions stated by Chzz here are mainly not NPOV issues. The result, after four days on this board, is that one editor, an experienced admin, Dougweller, has found just one word that he thought was not NPOV. That does not mean the article is perfect, of course, but it certainly does show that NPOV issues can be handled on the talk page itself and that a non specific posting on this venue was and is unneeded. Therefore I am asking that this claim be closed. KeptSouth ( talk) 06:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate any others assisting with this. Above, KeptSouth wrote,I do not believe off hand that Chzz followed proper dispute resolution procedures - I'm worried by that, and if I have done anything at all wrong, I would like to know what, so that I do not make similar errors in the future.
I'm finding it very challenging to discuss any of this with KeptSouth, so perhaps input from others might help. Best, Chzz ► 21:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This method is being misrepresented by Wiki in the opening sentences. Changes to remedy this are being constantly reverted. Editors are either clueless or have an agenda. As for example a reversion for the same change with these three comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=428548788&oldid=428547389
It is just simple accounting that the customer money becomes the banks asset and it would be fraud to say otherwise. The ordinary depositors are unsecured creditors in a private firm who are last in line behind higher ranking more knowledgeable investors.
Additionally, the relending model of fractional reserve banking is presented on the page with paragraphs highlighting limitations in how banks can create money. Meanwhile I have provided endless citations from central bankers and specialist economists who say this idea of limitations is false.
Which famous economists support the idea in the simplistic mechanical fashion shown by wiki? Surely a reliable economist has heard of the expression 'extend credit'? Or has heard of lending and borrowing of excess reserves at LIBOR? None of these basic things can be explained on the page because they have been described as being fringe beliefs that do not support the relending model. As a result, the Wiki page is misrepresenting how banks really operate.
Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Re: "Perhaps a summary should be added specifically addressing known issues with the textbook model". I'd be much happier with that rather than the current state which is presenting the textbook model as fact and presenting the known issues as fringe. Reissgo ( talk) 11:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Title NPOV issue. We should surely be using a more neutral title here, even if this is a term some parties use to discuss the matter. Eyeballs? FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
There is continuing controversy on whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is appropriate. The disagreement is whether the title Pure blood theory in Korea is NPOV, and whether the reliable sources referenced in the article cover this subject under the term Pure blood theory or ethnic nationalism. In my opinion, the current title is offensive and keeps many editors, including myself, from providing constructive contributions to the subject matter, and much of the article's contents were written by a selective group of editors with a history of anti-Korean bias, and should the current title be maintained, it will remain so for the foreseeable future. The current debate is largely limited to a few non-neutral editors, so I'd like to ask neutral editors to drop in their opinions on this matter to put in some fresh perspective. Cydevil38 ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template Talk:Rescue. Rescue Tag guidelines are often not followed. Do the instructions for the Rescue Tag need to change, or does the wording for the tag need to change? Avanu ( talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
Discussion should take place at
Template Talk:Rescue, not here.
|
---|
|
RFC was called about the NPOV dispute for National Broadband Network. — [d'oh] 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The following claims have been made in the article talk page:
All this arose as I noted that "Nazi Germany" should not be used to deliberately attaint any person as being a "Nazi collaborator" (the person initially had asserted that "Nazi Germany" was the actual name of Germany -- "Nazi" is quite relevant. It is the name of this country during that period , but appeared to back down and now just asserts that moving to Nazi Germany should be noted as making the person a collaborator. No source aserts that Louveer was a Nazi, by the way. Is use of "Nazi Germany" in order to promote the implication of any person as a Nazi Collaborator in line with WP:NPOV? Lastly, is all this subject to Digwuren sanctions? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Paul "@ Peters. To say that someone escaped to the Nazi Germany does not automatically mean that he was a Nazi supporter. However, although the fact that he was not a Nazi supporter does not change the fact that this person voluntarily moved to the Nazi Germany and stayed there until German defeat. The word "Nazi" is relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC"
There you go, using "voluntarily" as if people had a choice. The only two places boats were going were Sweden and Germany, and the only place where Latvians would know the local language and have a better chance of fending for themselves was Germany, most educated Latvians being polyglots (Latvian plus either Russian or German, or both). To characterize becoming a refugee, fleeing likely deportation if not death by Soviet hands, as "voluntarily" fleeing to Germany (and as if there were more choices!) is both provocative and grossly offensive.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 21:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
@Paul and "This person made a choice between two totalitarian regimes, and this choice was made absolutely voluntary." No it was not. Because of the Nazi Germany invasion a week after the first Soviet mass deportations, the next Soviet wave of mass deportations was interrupted. Those deportation lists were left behind. My mother was warned not to go home and avoided deportation with the rest of her family; however, both my mother and father were listed for subsequent deportation. Staying and not fleeing would mean definite deportation and likely death to stay. Of course Looveer was forced to flee. Your contention of "absolutely voluntary" choice between two evils is uninformed and insulting. Really, have you not yet scraped the bottom of the barrel in tarring Looveer? As for the choice of where, there were far fewer boats heading to Sweden, many were also small and many lives were lost in the crossing. When the Soviets are coming to take you away, you don't ask where the boat is heading as long as it's away. You get on the first boat you can and leave and hope the Soviet bombs dropping all around you don't sink your boat. (In Looveer's case the last boat to get out of Tallinn before the Soviets retook the city and ripped down the Estonian flag.) I'm disgusted by your morally grotesque "preferring the Nazis to the Soviets" line of reasoning. You should not be allowed to participate at any articles having to do with Soviet or Nazi actions or legacies regarding WWII in the Baltics.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Christoff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)