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.

History2007 has proposed changes to Reliability of Wikipedia in an attempt to promote the improvement of Wikipedia articles. History2007 has, for example, proposed an expansion of the discussion of reliability tools in Reliability of Wikipedia. I have argued against this expansion, saying (1) these tools get little coverage in reliable sources, (2) WP:WEIGHT says that the coverage of tools in Reliability of Wikipedia should be limited to the coverage they receive in reliable sources and (3) WP:WEIGHT is part of NPOV, which is non negotiable. History2007 has given various reasons why s/he thinks that WP:WEIGHT should not apply here, such as these

Statements made about Wikipedia in WP:RS sources may have become outdated by the time they are published, given the dynamic nature of the online encyclopedia.

the fact that there are very few tools used to measure the reliability of Wikipedia gets little coverage because there are so few. So that issue is simple: there are very few tools (as I said below one just started a larger trial). So that glaring fact is not going to get coverage

The article needs more focus on what Wikpedia is doing about reliability, while mentioning historical items such Nature study as part of the past. So: more focus on what is being done about the future, less about the past.

Most of the discussion has taken place in Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article takes at face value antiquated conception of reliability, but there's also some discussion in Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article feedback tool and Talk:Wikipedia#Reliability).

I would appreciate any feedback from people on the noticeboard about this issue. Thanks. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not have any immediate changes planned - I am beginning to explore and figure out the issues in the next month or two, as I said there. But I would like to see more coverage of what is being done today, rather than what Nature wrote years ago. The content of the article should be about the title, i.e. "reliability" not about the "history of reliability". I think the Article Feedback Tool, is at long last, a nice and necessary step by Wikipedia towards assessing reliability. I do not see why it should not be mentioned in the article. But it will take me a month or two to figure out how to present these items. I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability and would like to get that in better shape before chatting about it for ever. When the issues take shape there, I will propose specific changes to the article in question. And now let me plug that project and invite everyone here to join it and provide ideas there.

By the way, where and when did I say "I think WP:WEIGHT should not apply here"? I must have typed that one in invisible ink I guess.

Now that we are here: why is there an NPOV flag on that article already? What needs to happen to remove it? History2007 ( talk) 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to the subject of this section before discussing a different topic (the NPOV tag). Here is the answer to your question about where and when you said WP:WEIGHT shouldn't apply. These quotations come from Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Article takes at face value antiquated conception of reliability:

"Now how about planning a good sized section on what Wikipedia is doing to assess its own reliability? That is where the tools will come in. I must say that I was surprised when the DYK of Wiki-Watch received only 4,000 hits. I had expected it to be a lot more. So there is significant need for increasing awareness of reliability measures within Wikipedia. History2007 ( talk) 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)"

"... WP:WEIGHT determines what size the tools discussion can be in the article. Again, do tools really get enough coverage in reliable sources to justify a significant change in focus toward tools? -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)"

"No, I do not agree with your characterization of the situation. ... History2007 ( talk) 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)"

Seems pretty clear to me, but in case it's not, let me ask you this.

Yes or no, do you think that the amount of coverage of reliability tools in the Reliability of Wikipedia article should be limited based on the amount of coverage in realible sources as WP:WEIGHT requires? -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, we do not seem to agree even on a framework for discussion, or your characterization of it. There is an article with an NPOV flag at the top, you want to ignore that and then talk about a talk page discussion? Go figure.... So when I have finished my homework on the topic, and start to edit the article I may spend time to discuss it - no point in spending time here on this. Until, then, keep cool and try to fix the NPOV flag problems first. History2007 ( talk) 14:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you won't answer a simple yes or no question about a core Wikipedia policy. It sounds like you do not intend to follow WP:WEIGHT and the frameworks and characterizations will be your rationalization for doing so. If so, we might be back here on this noticeboard in a month or two. The rest of the discussion will have to wait.

Now that we've covered the first issue, I can talk about the NPOV flag. That's a separate issue. Per WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONSENSUS, please discuss that issue on the article's talk page before discussing on a noticeboard. -- JTSchreiber ( talk) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, regarding guesses about edits that I may "intend to do later", I think I should go and watch Minority Report (film) again - it is about foreknowledge provided by psychics about what people may do in the future. It would be fun to watch that after this. This is the last I will type on this. I happen to have foreknowledge of that one. History2007 ( talk) 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we get a few more eyes at an RfC at Talk:Pro-life feminism? Both sides have expressed NPOV concerns, so I figured this might be a good place to ask; the discussion's dormant at 3-2 with no previously uninvolved users commenting, so it'd be good to have some fresh eyes. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Does WP:due weight mean that there should be more coverage on Wikipedia of American feminism than feminism in other countries, because American feminism is written about more often in English sources? Should American feminism be given more prominence and space in English articles about worldwide feminism because of this? (For example, History of feminism) -- Aronoel ( talk) 18:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see your due weight and raise you WP:CSB :-)

Feminism is important in all parts of the world. If there are sources discussing other aspects of feminism in French or Arabic or Xhosa, feel free to use those sources too; there may be practical difficulties in doing so, but much of this encyclopædia has an (entirely understandable) bias towards whatever is written in English, online sources simply because they're the lowest-hanging fruit. An encyclopædia should strive to cover all fields of knowledge, not just the stuff that's easily googled by an anglophone. So, maybe it's inevitable that we have more text about american feminism right now, but that isn't necessarily how things should be... no?

As an aside, it's important to distinguish between America and the English language. There are several other parts of the world where feminism might be written about in English; obviously in other anglophone countries, but English may even be used, academically, in non-anglophone countries, and scholars don't always confine themselves to writing about what has happened in their own country. bobrayner ( talk) 10:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Non English sources are okay on Wikipedia and you should probably look at them too if there is a problem about weight this way which makes life a little difficult. I am surprised if the sources talk about 'American feminism' rather than just feminism but if there is a preponderance that talk about that then yes that should get the greatest weight if you know of no good reason otherwise (though not in proportion to the actual numbers). As to how important something is in a particular country compared to another I would also consider the relative populations but I guess that's not what being asked here. Dmcq ( talk) 10:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. There are a lot of sources, even in English, that cover feminism in other countries, so that wasn't really the problem. The problem was that I believe that different countries should be covered in equal proportions in articles like History of feminism, while another editor was saying that this violated WP:Due weight because the history of feminism in the US and UK is covered more often in English sources. (The discussion, which was already resolved, is at Talk:Feminism.) I didn't think this was a situation in which WP:Due weight made much sense, so I wanted to make sure I understood this policy. Thanks -- Aronoel ( talk) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see how the history of feminism would rightly have an English-speaking emphasis, or at least a Western emphasis, but not all of history and not the subject in general which is dear to the hearts of people the world over. Binksternet ( talk) 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, see WP:ANI#Dungane and Arilang1234 where it has been necessary to collapse a chaotic thread - uninvolved editors are welcome to comment there, but this thread is closed - Arilang, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, please take heed - trying to use other venues while there is a discussion at ANI is a bad idea. Dougweller ( talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Should the section regarding a prostitute who was shot to death be entitled "Murder of Kathleen Smith" or "Death of Kathleen Smith"? Thanks! Location ( talk) 04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to that article, even Newton admitted that it was "my first non-political murder" so I'm unsure why naming the section using that term would be contentious. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this subject, so I posted here to see if it can get some attention, because this article has obviously been taken over by the free-range people.

More than half the article is the section "issues with poultry farming." Even the "techniques" section has hardly anything to do with actual techniques. I cannot, for example, find out how eggs are incubated in commercial farms from this article. Instead there's a long discussion of the various ailments that non-free-range chickens suffer.

The related article Poultry farming in the United States actually has a bit of good info, but a lot of quality issues. I don't know enough to know whether that one should be merged into the main one or not. LRT24 ( talk) 03:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC on the question of whether the campaign can be described as "Eurosceptic". It was raised here in April (Archive 21). Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be good to have some more uninvolved comments. Only a few of us are currently involved in the discussion. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. [45] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (not the bio article) NPOV issues:

Is the inclusion of the possible maximum sentence if Strauss-Kahn is convicted a NPOV vio?

• No. because Wikipedia articles as well as news accounts include this as a routine matter because it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. patsw ( talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of details of the indictment (i.e. the counts and the class of felony or misdemeanor) a NPOV vio?

• No. (again) because Wikipedia articles as well as news accounts include this as a routine matter. The indictment is an accusation, not a finding of fact, the result of a legal process backed up by sworn testimony before a grand jury. It is a public document. patsw ( talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Should content be deleted so that the amount of content implicating Strauss-Kahn be equalized to the amount of content exonerating him?

• No. Relevant content appears in reliable sources as events unfold. There is no requirement (nor is it desirable) to balance the content implicating Strauss-Kahn with the content exonerating him. patsw ( talk) 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, none of that inclusion is an NPOV vio. Do bear in mind that we need to avoid systematic bias that might arise from considering only the English-language media. I was just looking at the French newspaper Liberation [46] and they are distinctly favourable to DSK. They have a story saying that Vladimir Putin believes it could be a conspiracy. All this is RS for the article, even if it looks like blather to an English-speaking reader. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Another aspect of this is being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Leaks patsw ( talk) 00:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

After a lengthy RFC, some additions were made at Political activities of the Koch family, specifically this (the bottom part of the diff, about the Roosevelt quote and BEST study). After an exhausting and ridiculous thread on the talk page ( Talk:Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Roosevelt_redux), some editors still insist on a formulation that links the quote the RFC was about with the "context" of the article. That sounds fine, but what's being edit warred over is this, which is simply ludicrous, and requires the talkpage thread to make any sense of at all. Please, for the love of God, let's have some third parties come in and sort this out. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The above is emblematic of the POV problems - Roosevelt wrote an article referring to a specific study, and some asseet they "know" she was referring to something other than what is clearly in the article. Problems stated here should be done in an extraordinarily neutral manner not reminiscent of CANVASS. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

These boards are utterly pointless if the only people to comment are those already involved. And the diff speaks for itself, replacing relevant context (year of statement) with irrelevant context (subject of article the statement was in, which has no relevance for interpreting the statement, so including it violates the "Chekhov's gun" rule of not including irrelevant facts, because people will try to read relevance into them). Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not Without My Daughter is a mainstream American film from 1991 that is widely viewed by Iranians as portraying their country in a very negative light. The film is included in two categories Category:Anti-Iranian sentiments and Category:American propaganda films that I find somewhat problematic. The only other films in the American propaganda films category seem to be war propaganda and non-fiction films that make an explicit point about morality. Clearly "propaganda films" and "Anti-Iranian sentiments" have a negative connotation and calling Not Without My Daughter (or the film 300 which is listed in Category:Anti-Iranian sentiments) "propaganda" or "anti-Iranian" is an opinion, perhaps even a widely-held one, rather than fact. Is it appropriate to categorize films like this? I remember that there was a very long debate over Category:Antisemitism which concluded with the decision to exclude "articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic" from the category. Is a similar policy applicable for the propaganda films and anti-Iranian sentiments (and other, similar) categories? GabrielF ( talk) 17:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a propaganda film. Like Borat is loathed in Kazakhstan. I doubt if Zulus adore the film Zulu. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

propaganda implies intent, which is ridiculous for a mainstream Hollywood movie. It's a film of an autobiographical book. "anti-Iranian sentiment" categorisation is harder to evaluate, not least because the concept is rather vague. Rd232 ^talk 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've removed Category:American propaganda films from the article. I also removed a propaganda films category from Red Terror on the Amber Coast because the article doesn't really say anything about it being a "propaganda" film, as opposed to a political documentary.

I've spent a little time reviewing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias_categories. It looks like there's a very explicit consensus that categories of some kind of bias should not include individuals, organizations and media accused of that bias. It seems like this standard should also hold for the subcategories of Category:Anti-national sentiment. Is there any reason not to explicitly apply this consensus to these categories (by posting a note such as the one that exists at Category:Antisemitism) and then purging these categories accordingly? GabrielF ( talk) 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Prescott Bush was stable for a very long time.

Recently the claim the Bush was a Nazi agent through the Union Banking Corporation conspo\iracy theory has been "un-NPOVed" substantially - removing an RS document belying the claims (one editor now asserts it may be "fake" even though the link was from hnn.com, and furnished by the accuser!). (There was prior lengthy discussion on the talk page).

I would like fresh eyes to look at the conspiracy theory being promoted there. I would note that the "conspiracy theorists" involved are generally considered to be such - including "9/11 truthers" and the like. [47], [48], and so on.

At this point, the theory sppears to be given vastly undue weight, while the theory was fairly mentioned prior to the current instability (although IPs occasionally sought to remove the ADL's denunciation of it), and Wikipedia does not theoretically promote pushing such theories as fact. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

2-person dispute at Talk:feminism and more opinions are needed. Does adding a picture of a female shaman and info on effeminophobia promote androgyny on the page Femininity? Thanks -- Aronoel ( talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Recently an editor has raised concerns regarding NPOV with some articles I had worked on prior to an extended wikibreak.
• I have committed to no longer edit or watch these pages.
• However, I would appreciate it if others could look them over with NPOV in mind, and discuss on their talk pages and make appropriate changes if need be.

Here are the articles:

1. Joel Anderson
2. Jose Peralta
3. Hiram Monserrate
4. Corbin Fisher
5. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day
6. Knight and Day

I will not object to any changes proposed, discussed, or implemented.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This "request" is way too much work. Please choose something specific if you have a genuine question, and ask that.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My quickie look-over of one article suggests the Joel Anderson article about a California state-senator is way too long for its importance -- that is, my guess is that a state senator should merit perhaps a few paragraphs at most, not a novel. My sense is the article is essentially an advertisement for a candidate running for office. The pictures of the candidate with his family -- essentially political WP:SPAM.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's weird that you would put so much work into these articles to not participate in discussion on whatever improvement may be sought (I have merely looked over the articles by now). And not objecting to any changes is weird, especially since changes are not improvements by default. Where there any edit-wars going on or what else happened? It's a little puzzling. Hekerui ( talk) 14:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hekerui.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 15:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it has something to do with this comment and resulting discussion on Cirt's talk page ( User talk:Cirt#Advocacy concerns), and the subsequent ANI discussion. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't scrolled up far enough on Cirt's talk page to see that big discussion. As for the notice given, it doesn't seem like a specific task for this board, but something for people interested in checking out the specific articles in detail. Hekerui ( talk) 23:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors have been insisting that the first sentence in the lede of an article describe an individual as a "controversial" religious leader, because one source says he described himself that way. They argue that, despite WP:LABEL specifically stating one should not use the bare word "controversial", he did a lot of controversial things, and we do have one source in which he describes himself that way, so it must go in the first sentence (or at least the lede). A larger number of more experienced editors disagree, and have further argued that the insertion is WP:UNDUE, but so far have made no headway. If possible, it would be very helpful if members of this board could express their views here and at Talk:Elazar Shach#Shach - "controversial and divisive"?. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion on WP:RSN that also concerns issues related to WP:NPOV. Editors from this board are invited to join the discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a reversion spat about this page. Anonymous user from several IP addresses (most notably 140.160.###.### at Western Washington University in Bellingham) persists in having the most prominent information on this page be about the criminal background of one of the owners. That information is not relevant to the day-to-day functioning of the 10 or so Woods Coffee shops. I have visited Woods Coffee many times in many of their locations and have never encountered the person in question. By featuring that information first and not mentioning any of the positive achievements of the same person, the page does not have a neutral point of view.

I have made a number of comments on Talk:Woods_Coffee suggesting adding information or moving to a Biography of a Living Person. The only response is for the other editor(s) to revert and badmouth me.

As can be seen in the Revision as of 22:59, 5 May 2011 by 140.160.168.111 and more current reversions, IP 140.160.###.### adds nothing to the discussion beyond reverting and commenting on this talk page and on my user talk page User talk:Dubyus.

It can be seen from Revision as of 20:12, 25 April 2011 by 140.160.117.250 what the underlying issue might be. In an entry later reverted by another user for lack of references, anonymous user at 140.160.117.250 made the following edit...

"Boycott

"A Bellingham coalition consisting of gay-rights advocates, fair-trade, anti-censorship, pro-choice and peace groups started a boycott of Woods Coffee in mid-April, 2011. The boycott organizers cite several concerns with Woods Coffee, including their banning of a gay-rights bulletin, The Betty Pages, and the Cascadia Weekly from their locations for ideological reasons. According to the chair of the Whatcom Human Rights Task Force and the former director of the Whatcom Peace & Justice Center, Woods Coffee refused to participate in both the Bellingham Fair-Trade campaign and the UN's International Day of Peace. More allegations concerning political contributions by the Herman family to conservative slush funds and campaigns have surfaced since the beginning of the boycott. ^[1]

"This comes partially as an extension of the Bellingham-based campaign against The Woods Coffee's corporate art public scandal, involving a sculpture commissioned by the Herman family of a giant Woods Coffee cup dumping plastic coffee on the public sidewalk, which was eventually scrapped ^[2]." (Incidentally, Woods Coffee voluntarily changed their sculpture plan, which was the result of a public contest.)

The essence of the conflict is that anonymous user at 140.160.###.### wants to have a say in how Woods Coffee is operated--what newspapers they carry, where the owners donate money, and is trading in rumors to bring pressure. The efforts of anonymous user at 140.160.###.### includes vandalizing the Woods Coffee wikipedia page and not engaging in reasoned discussion about what should appear.

I request that the Woods Coffee wikipedia page be stabilized with NPOV information that reflects Woods Coffee, and that a separate page be created if necessary according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Dubyus ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional conflicts with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP guidelines from anonymous user @ 140.160.11.220:

• "You are the only one playing games here. Wes Herman is a convicted felon, and as such, is not allowed to vote or own a gun. He also does not pay his taxes. He engages in censorship. He makes his employees conform to his ridiculous interpretation of Christianity. The man is a con. But that is not what the website says. You have a personal problem here. Stop your disruptive editing and move on with your life. 140.160.11.220 ( talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)" Removed from Talk:Woods Coffee. I am not affiliated in any way with Woods Coffee except as a customer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubyus ( talk • contribs)

I have been in the processes of removing, what I think are promotional sections from a number of Law firm articles, some of (but not all) have been edited by members of the firm.

The sections in particular are :

• Lists of offices, with colourful flags, that mimic sections of a corporate brochure and in my eyes do not have a place in an encyclopaedia
• Lists of non-notable "awards" that the firm has "won", again which do not have a place in an encyclopaedia.

However someone ( User:Rangoon11) disagrees with me on the following :

• Linklaters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DLA Piper (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Norton Rose (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clyde & Co (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clifford Chance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Berwin Leighton Paisner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Allen & Overy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding the office lists User:Rangoon11, claims (on his talk page) that the lists are "encyclopedic and appropriate" and "The locations of the offices help the reader to understand the subject better" he goes on to say that "removing this content would be pure censorship". I contend that they are not encyclopedic, it may be appropriate if in was conveyed in prose eg :" Company A, has its head office in B with another x offices in country C. It also has offices in y other countries covering z continents." providing that can be sourced to a reliable source.

Regarding the lists of non-notable "awards" since this is an sector that hands out awards like confetti so in the end everyone has them and most of them are meaningless I think that unless a third party is writing about the awards (in which case they pass WP:GNG and an article can be written about them) then they should not be listed.

Can I have other editors views on this please.

Mtking ( talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

N.B. The offices issue is primarily being discussed here: Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section. Rangoon11 ( talk) 11:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also some discussion between myself and Mtking here: User talk:Rangoon11#List of Offices and Award Cruft. Rangoon11 ( talk) 11:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RFC at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename.2C redirect.2C and merge content that may be of interest to editors here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Office of Public Diplomacy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Moved here from talk. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The page "Office of Public Diplomacy" relies upon a single source and makes statements without citing its sources. For instance, it claims that stories about the Sandinista government receiving Soviet MiGs turned out to be a hoax, without citing its sources that it was a hoax. In the case of the Soviet MiGs, several sources have confirmed Soviet intentions to bring MiGs to Nicaragua's air force, such as Christopher Andrew in The World Was Going Our Way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.58.204 ( talk) 17:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on 2011 energy crisis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_energy_crisis

Claims that capitalism as we know it will soon end, and that most jobs in the financial sector will vanish. The only source cited on this is an opinion piece here: http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/8133-the-peak-oil-crisis-2011--a-pivotal-year.html

The article states no alternative to this prophesy.

I think an editor might want to have a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.23.4 ( talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is in really bad shape. In light of its many problems - POV, SYNTH, very poor sourcing, etc. - I've proposed it be deleted. Additional opinions are welcome. ElKevbo ( talk) 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted too, but not via PROD because I don't think it's an uncontroversial deletion. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been an attempt to remove what I see as relevant categories to this article - the categories are Category:Mexican legends and Category:Legends with an edit summary " Centainly no consensus that he was only legendary". In fact it is the stories about the supposed appearance of the Virgin Mary that are the legends in question, and I think that the editor is actually disputing that these stories are legends but they are described as such in reliable sources, and the article itself uses legend several times although those are being replaced by the word 'story' by the same editor. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mexican legends is clearly appropriate. Was going to note such on the talk page, but that's a ridiculous mess. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It is. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article in dispute is this version of Wet bulb temperature, and whether the subsection titled wet bulb temperature and human health is within the scope of the article.

Note: (1) wet bulb temp and (2) wet bulb globe temp are different things, and there are articles for both.

The proposal is to simply delete the human health subsection, or alternatively offer limited text to simply point to wet bulb globe temperature while omitting all discussion of the Sherwood paper even though that study specifically addressed wet bulb temperature (not wet bulb globe temp)

The precise issues are concisely summarized at The relevant talk page.

In general AC44CK wants to suppress mention of a peer reviewed paper that takes an original look at what wet bulb temperature can be survived by humans, and estimates the potential for such temperatures to occur in a warming world. I've already sought compromise by leaving out any mention that the world is warming.

IMO, the POV challenge is AC44Ck's previously-debated relevance challenge with a new label. But I'd be interested in what other editors' have to say. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Could some unbiased eyes take a look at the recent edit to Renaissance Books? I've worked for the guy (part-time) for 33 years and have an obvious COI that disposes me to leave it to others, although I have occasionally (very cautiously) done what I think of as model edits for an editor with a (clearly disclosed) COI. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The information added was a snippet of a non-notable op-ed, whose content was unencylopedic and added nothing to the article. I have removed it, along with another related bit. Cheers. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Actually, that was not an op-ed but an article by one of the main business reporters for the J-S. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, the tone and content was unencylopedic, and it was given far too much weight. At best, it might have deserved a "So-and-so from the J-S claims that neighbors are concerned with the appearance of the building". But really, I think the article is much better without getting into it at all. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 06:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a question regarding NPOV in religion related topics. How can I formulate NPOV and give proper weight to academic and religious views? Based on the number of publications on that topic? or based on the number supporters of a certain POV?

• If the number of supports matters. What weight should I give to scientific and religious POVs about evolution theory, where studies in America show that still 40-50% of Americans still believe that first humans were Adam and Eve!?
• On any topic related to Islam thousands or hundred hadith or Islamic sources can be found written by Muslim Mullahs. However, academic publications on these topics written by acceptable scientific research methodologies are very very few. If number of publications matters how I can formulate NPOV in Islamic topics. What is the traditional Islamic views weight? and what is academic views weight in articles?-- Penom ( talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

First, you need to decide the academic discipline to which an article relates. If it is a science articles then only scientific sources should be used. On religious topics, use religious sources. For example, evolution is a science topic, so our references are to scientists. Christian views on evolution is a religious topic, so there should be reference to a variety of Christian authors, and the official views of the various churches. Get help from the relevant WikiProjects. Itsmejudith ( talk) 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Chick tract#Section titles & NPOV.

At issue: does WP:SPADE apply to article building, or only to interpersonal relations? Does it take precedence over WP:NPOV? What about Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade and Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black? Elizium23 ( talk) 12:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPADE is just a bit of advice to apply commonsense and moderation. WP:NPOV, on the other hand, is a pillar of policy. I hadn't heard of these "tracts" before. Obviously they are extremely controversial, but it is still possible to write in a detached and neutral way about them. Your section heads sound better than the previous ones. There are some scholarly books cited, they could probably be used more. A section called "Reception" is frequent in articles on controversial books; it would take both favourable and hostile opinions. I'm not particularly impressed with the argument "they're anti-gay and we should call them that". Having never seen them, I don't have a clue as to whether they are or not. If many people have denounced them as anti-gay, I don't want to take Wikipedia's word for that. I want to see some examples showing me clearly how and when they were so denounced. HTH. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Judith... the issue here is whether labeling his tracts "Anti-Catholic" or "Anti-Masonic" or "Anti-Gay" etc is neutral. I think it absolutely is. Chick takes a definite stand against each of these things in his tracts. Being against is the definition of "Anti". Blueboar ( talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue. The headings are acceptable, per WP:ASTONISH. The issue is whether WP:SPADE applies to articles, or editor relations, and how does it apply in the context of WP:NPOV, and contradicting essays such as Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade, and Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black.

Is WP:SPADE telling us to apply common sense and moderation to writing articles, and if so, why does it specifically and consistently use verbiage such as Although editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other. which seeems to specifically address behavior on discussion pages and notice boards, i.e. the forum side of Wikipedia, not the article space. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree... the page entitled " WP:SPADE" is really a behavior focused essay, not a content focused essay; and as such, I think it was an error to point to it in the discussion at the Chick tract talk page. That said, we certainly have several content policy and guideline statements that center on the idea that it is OK to "call a spade a spade" in content (although none use that exact phrase)... An example is WP:NPOV#Naming (which talks about using common but non-neutral names)... another is WP:FRINGE/PS (which talks about labeling pseudoscience as such). So, in terms of the debate that is behind this question... someone is pointing to the wrong essay to support the right idea. Blueboar ( talk) 13:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right per WP:SPADE. About the headings, Blueboar, you're probably quite right that these descriptions aren't inaccurate and it is no violation of NPOV to use them. But are they actually the best headings? Couldn't even more neutral wording be found? It's about presenting the facts to the readers and letting them draw their own conclusions. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW applies, which is a behavioral guideline. "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." -- Atama 頭 22:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

After I added some materials in this The total article was redirected along with many topics which reached concesus and had materials from very reliable sources. Quran and science. If this is merged then science and the bible should be merged too meet WP:NPOV. Tauhidaerospace ( talk) 21:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet if I agree with the redirect. But your argument about science and the bible is irrelevant. We do not have to have matching articles on Christian and Islamic themes. Better to think about the quality of the Islam-related material. What is there in Qur'an and science that needs to be covered and doesn't fit in Islam and science? Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The sourced content was merged into Islam and science and Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts first. The article wasnot comparable to science and the bible, that article is about the view of the physical world as found in the bible. The Quran and science article had been turned into some sort of Erich von Däniken or creationist tract saying how Mohamed knew all about science and everything he said is confirmed by modern science. People were sticking in things direct according to their own interpretation without secondary sources. It was just a mess. Dmcq ( talk) 23:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that care has been taken to keep the appropriate material and split it between two existing articles, so the redirect is correct. Itsmejudith ( talk) 06:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Quran and science has a critisism section since it does not have much secondary sources. . It has been worked by 100s of editors since 2008. Redirecting it certainly would diminish WP creditibility. This has been discucessed several times about it please look at this discussion. It has been proposed 4 times . Tauhidaerospace ( talk) 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Canoe River train crash is currently a good article nominee, see Talk:Canoe River train crash/GA1. Under the section Trial and aftermath, there is a issue regarding the neutrality of the coverage of a court case. This comes from the bias of the sources which are used. The defense attorney was a high-profile person (later Prime Minister of Canada), and has had several biographies written about him. In addition, the media at the time took sides with the accused, which means that there are essentially no NPOV sources available. As a result, it is only possible to write about the article from the view of the defense, which is POV. Any feedback on how to resolve the issue would be appreciated. Feel free to make comments about this at the review page. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm the nominator. I don't think the coverage from the time was particularly POV, it is just that the defence tends to get more press and be more colourful, and in this case John Diefenbaker was a press favourite for that reason. I'd also appreciate some guidance from editors.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Subject Steven Downes has been exchanging accusations with an MP. The information we have has been sourced to a local paper, but a series of editors (most recently an IP with no other edits) have been changing the article to state Downes' POV on the incident, with the phrase "potentially libelous" being used on the latest edit summary to describe the newspaper account and explain why Downes' own website should be our preferred source of information. Could somebody take a look at this mess? -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked, I agree that they are changing the point of view to his where it is no longer neutral anymore. Since you said the article is having these incidents with mostly IP editors, I suggest you make a request at WP:RPP so you can get the page semi-protected to stop the point of view change until the issue settles down.  JoeGazz   ▲  16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This editor is showing a pattern of extremely selective editing on Wisconsin politicians, specifically those involved on either side of the upcoming recall elections in Wisconsin, apparently with the intention of making the Democrats look as good bad as possible and the Republicans as bad good, at least by his lights, as can be done by cherry-picking votes from VoteSmart that fit his agenda. Since I have strong opinions on these matters, I've reverted my latest edit, but feel his edits should not be left to stand. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that the votes which I have added to Democratic state rep. Sandy Pasch's article add undue weight to make Pasch appear in too favorable of a light you are free to add votes which you feel may be less popular. The votes which I added were selected because they are more notable and have received a greater level of press coverage than other votes that I did not include.-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but my response stays the same. The votes that were added are notable, and if you feel that there are other votes that she has taken that are either more or less popular that are worthy of inclusion, you are free to add them yourself.-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 20:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Such lists are not customary content for state legislator articles, due to the temptation to pick and choose among votes to fit an agenda. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not customary content? Numerous articles of legislators including some state legislators list notable votes and positions that they have taken. And secondly, unless a policy or guideline exists that you can point to, wouldn't your argument be merely a deletionist version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added secondary non partisan sources from notable, respected newspapers and TV stations to illustrate the notability of the votes that are included and to remove any problems which may arise from reliance on primary sources. Hopefully this will clear up any remaining objections. -- Tdl1060 ( talk) 22:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I feel that the selectivity of the votes picked is a clearcut violation of WP:UNDUE. On a global basis, her vote on raw milk is incredibly trivial; but it might annoy a few farmers (or raw milk advocates) in her district, and cost her a few votes. These edits seem clearly hand-tailored in an effort to alienate as many people as possible in her district, and to ignore other votes less controversial among the swing voters necessary in order for her to win her election. The same goes for the other Wisconsin articles you've edited, each related to the recalls and the candidates therein. If I were not so close to the subject, I'd be much more agressive in this matter; but I'm typing this a few hundred yards from the boundaries of her district, and look forward to the elections with great glee; so I felt that other non-involved editors should be judging the merits of my interpretation of your edits. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your own statement undermines your claim that my edits are made with the intent of influencing the election, as there are no farmers who would live in Pasch's district, and very very few farmers in Alberta Darling's district. There are certainly not enough farmers in the 8th district to make any difference in this election. However I have provided a reference (and could provide more if need be) to show the issue regarding the legality of raw milk has emerged as an issue both nationally and in Wisconsin in particular due to its status as a dairy farming state. Maybe the way that a Wisconsin lawmaker voted on the legality of raw milk may be trivial on a global basis, but the legality of raw milk is not only being debated in Wisconsin [54]. Secondly; you have raised the issue of other edits to articles related to Wisconsin politics. Yet aside from Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling, what edits have you found objectionable, to support your claim that I have demonstrated a "pattern of extremely selective editing"? -- Tdl1060 ( talk) 23:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to Dan Kapanke seemed rather disingenuous, since the tenor of the discussion made it pretty clear that the intention was to distract the Democrats, delay the election, and make it easier for Kapanke to beat the recall. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the wording and choice of the text at Sandy Pasch is intended to be negative, more so than a neutral telling of her political record. For instance, one of the votes makes it appear that Pasch is against "businesses who create jobs in Wisconsin". This is utter tripe, of course; the vote in question was about tax incentives which would have allowed some businesses to put less money into the state budget. Also, Pasch is painted in a bad light for not censuring Jeffrey Wood, with Wood's full ugliness trotted out to smear Pasch in its filth. Pasch isn't even mentioned in the Fox News bit about the Wood censure.
To make the choice easier of which votes are described for the reader, each vote must be accompanied by a news or editorial connection to Pasch's vote. The use of the Project Vote Smart website, a raw accounting of how Pasch voted on an issue, is not enough to establish that Pasch's vote on the issue was significant. Binksternet ( talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the poorly supported voting records from the Sandy Pasch and Jennifer Shilling biographies. The guideline I quoted was WP:SYNTH in which we are instructed not to cobble two sources together to make a new argument that neither source makes. The combination of a news source saying that the legislation was important, combined with a raw voting record of the legislator taken from Project Vote Smart, is not enough to say that the legislator's vote was significant. The legislator must be mentioned in the news regarding her vote. The news sources that Tdl1060 added were ones without a connection of the vote under discussion made to the legislator. Pure synthesis, and unsuited to a BLP. Binksternet ( talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a concern for BLP and reliable sourcing, I have raised a related question about Project Vote Smart at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Project_Vote_Smart_and_politician_voting_records. See you there! Binksternet ( talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMike on this one. Look at Rep. Sandy Pasch (Democrat) and Sen. Alberta Darling's (Republican) pages. Look at the revision history for each of the pages. I played Devil's advocate to see Tdl1060's reactions would be to things posted to each politician's Wiki article. Just like clockwork, Tdl1060 starts adding votes to try to cast Sen. Darling in a positive light and when I tried to be balanced on Rep. Pasch's article by modifying this sentence, "Sandy Pasch was a deciding vote in passing the 2009 Doyle Budget, which included $1.7 billion in tax and fee increases and allowed for local property tax hikes of 3.2%," to "Sandy Pasch voted to pass...," and Tdl1060 reverted my changes fairly quickly, stating falsely that it was in the source when it was not explicitly stated. I believe that most people would agree that "Sandy Pasch voted to pass..." sounds more neutral than what Tdl1060 is trying to defend. I would ask Wikipedia moderators to keep a closer eye on this user. -- Idq000 ( talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem continues: I found that the Doyle Budget of 2009 was misrepresented by User:Tdl1060 by only describing its worst aspects. There are good aspects of the budget! I added new referenced text to the article describing the budget as Doyle's bid to fix a $5 billion shortfall in the state finances, and I reworded Pasch's incremental one-vote contribution to that in a neutral tone. :Tdl1060 appears to spin every bit of text against Democrat and for Republican politicians; that's his purpose for being on Wikipedia. This is not the activity of somebody who wishes to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet ( talk) 15:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The following sentence:

One must take into account the importance of its psychological effect as an essential background for the terrorist in Islam

currently appears in the article on 'Asma' bint Marwan, of what Penom ( talk · contribs) claims to be a statement made by a University of Madrid scholar. Yet this statement is not properly attributed to the mentioned scholar in quotations or any other form, rather as it stands now, it is expressed in Wikipedia's voice as quoted above. Penom has repeatedly reinstated the content, unmodified, numerous times ( here, here, here, and here) despite being told via edit summaries and eventually on the article's talk page that the statement is not neutral. He reinstated the quote even after being told by an admin that the statement is "very poorly written".

This is only a sample of his editing, as he also added views by other scholars expressed in a similar fashion. For my reverts and edits, I've heard nothing from him but accusations of censorship, disruption, vandalism, pushing my POV...etc and including views by the Taliban. Thank you. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 02:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Elorza's view actually is written as follows not the one quoted by Andelousi : " The psychological effect of such actions by Mohammad cannot be ignored, when studying the background of terrorism in Islam. "

Well! Andelousi is trying to push traditional Muslim views for a long time he deletes sourced materials and views by secular scholars. He changes non-Muslim views to `claims`, "alleged", "purported". He has a long history of pushing traditional Islamic views in other articles. Just look at hist talk page, you will find many warnings by other users, complaining about Andelousi POV pushing in Islam related articles.

For the long history of his disrupting edits please see here and here and here.-- Penom ( talk) 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I re-wrote Antonio Elorza view in a natural language and provided the quote in discussion page. Therefore A_I claim about Antonio Elorza view is incorrect

Admins please see the amount of efforts that me and other users spent to convince him let non-Muslim academic views stay on the article (see article discussion page)

-- Penom ( talk) 03:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Penom, you are only being asked to avoid stating Elorza's opinion as a fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. You are required to do that by policy (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view). You could just add "According to Elorza, the psychological effect..." etc and move on. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what I exactly did. I wrote: "Antonio Elorza suggests: ...." Does it meet WP policies?-- Penom ( talk) 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. There are 2 sentences. The first, S1, is clearly attributed to the source of the view, Elorza. The second, S2, is in Wikipedia's narrative voice. S2 needs to be changed to make it clear that it is (still) Elorza's view that is being described. The attribution of the view expressed in the second sentence isn't carried over from the first sentence by placing the sentences next to eachother.

S1 = Antonio Elorza, historian and professor at Complutense University of Madrid, reviews Asma's execution and similar cases and suggests that eliminating political opponents by any and all means possible, was common practice during Muhammad's time.

S2 = The psychological effect of such actions by Mohammad cannot be ignored, when studying the background of terrorism in Islam.

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The entire paragraph is about Elorza, so it should be fairly obvious, but I added the phrase "Elorza notes..." at the beginning of the sentence in question. That should resolve the issue, and was a much neater solution than repeatedly deleting the line. Doc Tropics 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of the verb "notes" takes for granted that what he says is an impartial observation of a fact; a better verb would be something like "states" or even better "asserts". -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Either of those would be fine too; it's an easy thing to fix. If Al-A had ever tried to resolve the issue, rather than simply deleting referenced text, this would never have come up. Doc Tropics 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Any chance to put the blame on me, even after a number of admins have ruled in favour of my position. For the record, I added "Gabriel argues that" to one of the views expressed in WP's voice, yet it has been removed multiple times by Penom ( here) and you ( here) which you strongly defended on the talk page, claiming that the opinions of scholars should be treated as facts. So I don't believe you were accurate in describing what happened, and I also find it really hypocritical to be dictating that to me. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 16:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps now that Penom has a better understanding of attribution this problem won't happen again. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As Doc said. All statements are associated their authors and addressed as their view. Not as the fact. The problem is that Andelousi has so much affection toward Islam and Muhammad and cannot stand no view other than traditional Muslim views. Using terms such as "claim" for academic views or deleting views shows his attitude toward non-religious views.

Andelousi says "claiming that the opinions of scholars should be treated as facts" but it is not true. I have never said that. On the contrary he insisted to represent traditional Islamic POV and orthodox Muslim views as fact.

As the position of admins he is again not true again. On the contrary he got warned by admins and admins pointed that "there is a problem" with his edits Penom ( talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article when it was named China Stock Frauds, which I renamed to its current less POV title. Though toned down a little at my request, I'm still concerned about sourcing and possibly painting these companies with too broad a "fraud" brush. I have the same concern with P Chips Frauds, created by the same editor. It's good to see articles in this subject area but I think we need to be careful when using the word "fraud." A fresh perspective on this and the P Chips article would be helpful. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The chart is blatant SYNTH and the sources are poorly formatted and scattered. I doubt you'll find an uninvolved editor willing to sift through the sources and provide an independent opinion. Wikifan ^{Be nice} 11:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There's definite issues, but there's the glimmer of something there. A couple of the sources I skimmed yesterday seemed to talk about a pattern. I'm not totally sure about the title, but I also haven't been able to come up with something better. I've raised a couple of concerns about sourcing, or/synthesis and tone on the talk page. As I get time, I'm planning on doing more here. I've got a financial planning background, so this is an interesting topic to me (and pisses me off to no end that crap like this (investment fraud) happens). Ravensfire ( talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see this as a POV issue, but the users involved apparently do, so I'm bringing it here in the attempt to stave off an edit war... Battle of Cádiz (1669) was a battle between an English warship and several Algerine warships. Algiers being part of the Ottoman Empire at the time, should the flag in the infobox be the Ottoman flag ( this), or a striped Algerine flag ( this)? (Or another flag entirely?)

No source appears to strongly favor either. We have a website that says that it was the Ottoman flag that flew over Algiers, but this website is both not RS and gives a date for this fact which is later than the battle in question. (As well, the same website also gives, further down and for the same date, a striped flag, so it's by no means conclusive even if we accepted it as RS and fudged the date!) Contemporary images of the battle show the Algerine ships with a striped flag, but the images are in black and white, and one user has also suggested that it might be a naval ensign rather than a national flag.

Pending the resolution of this issue, I've removed the flag from the article, but outside input would be appreciated.

-- Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Imho, it is not a POV case but an OR one, since the source used on Commons for the red-and-yellow flag is the same one that attests that the only flag used on all the Vilayets of the Ottoman empire at this time is the Imperial one (red with a yellow crescent), that the other flags were the ones of regiments/battalions or pacha/beylical/deylical dynasties, but not the national ones.

The only thing we are sure about is that the North African regencies were part of the Ottoman empire.

Regards,

Omar-Toons ( talk) 17:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Further down on the same page, however, is a section on a striped flag which also says it was the flag (not just an ensign) from 1671 (same date which it gives for the flag you wish to use). No source directs us to use the Ottoman flag, and sources all refer to the force as Algerine. It would be original research to describe that party to the battle as Ottoman or to use that flag. Again, the red and yellow flag might not be right (the right flag might be the blue-red-white one on the linked page) but the Ottoman flag is certainly not right. (I took this here because you described your edit as reverting POV.) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be an (ongoing) problem with the Acupuncture page.

Militant skeptics have substantially hijacked the page, negating, criticizing, or qualifying much of the content -- this should instead be moved to a separate page.

There is clear, highly biased POV:

1) Acupuncture safety/ deaths are presented as a problem. US figures for deaths due to medical error are 250,000 per year; with harmful side-effects of prescription drugs, and pain-killer addiction, also being very major problems.

2) Many studies, by reputable Western institutes, find clear benefits/ advantages to acupuncture. Yet certain studies or reviews, eliminating Asian publications & not finding benefits, are seized upon as "authoritative". Search PubMED for acupuncture examples -- there are over 16,000 publications in this database alone.

3) Discussion has degenerated into argument, about trivial technicalities -- skeptics happily arguing, about how to & how much, acupuncture has been disproved.

4) Aggressive skepticism being pushed, has discouraged & driven off any of the genuine Chinese contributors & actual "domain experts" -- people who know acupuncture, are being literally driven off from contributing.

5) Claims of "publication bias" used to reject positive Chinese evidence, are not matched by consideration of very major "funding bias" -- present in much so-called "evidence", for Western medicine. Western medicine, and the claim of impeccable science, are vastly weighted by pharmaceutical & medical-devcie funding. Publication bias in this field, is also well established.

6) Attempts to discuss this on the Talk:;Acupuncture page, have been rejected and wiped.

7) Attempts to propose & write more neutral (factualyl correct) content, have been reverted.

8) The page has been taken over by 'Skeptics' -- who are attempting to push their POV. Users such as Usertalk:OrangeMarlin explicitly state a pre-assumption on their page, that "Alternative Medicine is bullshit". This is a gross logical error, and a violation of scientific principles -- science is meant to be about genuine inquiry, rather than attempting to prove pre-formed assumptions.

Diffs of neutral content, and reversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Acupuncture&action=historysubmit&oldid=429176041&diff=428574416

Section on talk page

This article is inappropriately negative. It's meant to be about Acupuncture, not 'Acupuncture Skepticism'.

Acupuncture is a long-established form of treatment, coming from a pre-scientific background. The fact of this background does not in way, prove it is not effective or does not work -- that is a logical fallacy.

It is inappropriate for this page, intended to be about Acupuncture, to be hijacked to convey a clear skeptical POV. This page should be removed from the purview of the 'Skepticism Project'. They can write a counter-page if they want.

Acupuncture has been of significant scientific interest, for a long time. With many studies ongoing. It is unlikely it would be of such interest, in finding the means, if there were no effect.

Many current studies, appear to find it useful for Cardiology, Anasthesia as well as Musculo-Skeletal and other conditions.

Here are just a very few studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15078586 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9330670 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452622 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12528093

There are dozens or hundreds more, searching PubMed alone. (Published under auspices of the US Government NIH).

If acupuncture were any empty phenomenon, there would not be this level of scientific investigation (16,457 published papers). This is a subject, which is receiving genuine & substantial amounts of investigation -- to uncover why it appears to be efefctive.

However, acupuncture is the primary phenomenon -- not the partial and limited understanding of it, yet gleaned by science. *That* should not be the topic, or focus, of this article.

I also challenge the objectivity & neutrality of skeptics -- very few surgical procedures have been validated by double-blind trials, and 'medical error' is a leading cause of death in industrialized countries.

195,000 deaths from errors in hospitals, per year in US: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deadbymistake/6555095.html

up to 780,000 deaths from wider medical errors, per year in US: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

[Iatrogenesis] [26] $19.5 billion cost per year, from medical errors in US http://www.soa.org/news-and-publications/newsroom/press-releases/2010-08-09-med-errors.aspx

Where are the skeptics defacing pages, on surgery & Western medicine? I'm a supporter myself, but this a clear embedded bias which the skeptics seem too irrational & uninformed to acknowledge.

It is unnecessary -- and outright incorrect -- to garnish every single statement about acupuncture, with criticisms or negatives based on a limited & skeptical understanding and 'selective viewing' of evidence.

By comparison with Western medicine, acupuncture is safe. Article on gardening, do not immediately focus on legionella deaths from planting mix -- articles on rocketry, do not immediately focus on rocket explosions -- articles on Western medicine, cover the 'positive purpose & benefit' with little mention of the 20% - 33% rate of hospital complications and 250,000 deaths per year (in the US).

Yet the supposed 'rationalism' of skeptics -- actually, a *logically false* and erroneously argumentative form of criticism -- comes from a weak & limited understanding of their own 'embedded mindset' and accepted background. Things considered to be 'normal' or 'accustomed' practice, by them, are not equally considered or subjected to such criticism.

Such 'skepticism' is logically false, and should not be the major feature in this article. This is exceptionally hostile, exceptionally POV, and both exceptionally weak & arrogant -- to assume that a raft of selective minor criticisms, should assume first-class status & take over the article.

I call upon the editor to remove this page from the purview of the skeptic's group -- and to edit the page, so it provides a genuine neutral view of Acupuncture rather than this negatively biased POV.

Furthermore, I'd like and expect this discussion of 'purpose', 'bias' and 'criticism' to REMAIN IN THIS TALK PAGE -- until such time as it becomes unnecessary, or a better and more comprehensive NEUTRAL DISCUSSION succeeds it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhitmore.nz ( talk • contribs)

Would you be satisfied with a treatment something like what we've done with the Cold fusion controversy? Say that proponents have published arguments and evidence in favor of acupuncture, but that the Western medical establishment has dismissed all pro-acupuncture advocacy as irreproducible, i.e., that only proponents can get the effects, while skeptics get nothing? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 21:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The editors of the page seem to hold a consensus of excluding certain criticism based on a violation of NPOV and a misunderstanding of nobility. The section in question reads as such:

The liberal watchdog group, Media Matters has criticized many of Sowell's remarks ^[3] such as a comparison Sowell made between President Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler in an editorial for Investor's Business Daily ^[4] after the creation of a relief fund "as a result of negotiations between BP and the White House". ^[5] However, Republicans such as Sarah Palin ^[6] and Representative Louie Gohmert ^[7] have endorsed Sowell's comparison. Sowell was also criticized for an editorial in which he stated that the Democratic Party played the Race card, instigating ethnic divisions and separatism, and argued that a similar situation occurred between the Tutsis and the Hutus in Rwanda. ^{[8] [9]}

I've addressed the non-POV arguments on numerous occasions (nobility of media matters etc.) (Diffs: [55] and [56]) leaving obvious POV arguments.

These are the POV arguments made by the users:

Chris Chittleborough

• (Diff: [57])

PokeHomsar

• (Diffs: [58] and [59])

Unfortunately the culmination of these arguments creates an unjustified consensus for the page.

(Note: This could also belong in BLS and if an admin wants to end the discussion here I'll move it)

CartoonDiablo ( talk) 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The full discussion is available at Talk:Thomas Sowell#Media Matters Criticism. 6 editors (4 usernames, including the 2 quoted above and myself, and 2 IPs) have expressed concerns about the inclusion of this content–some with a bit of soapboxing to be sure, but nonetheless. User:CartoonDiablo is the only one that supports it. I personally feel that Media Matters, being an organization with a blatant liberal bias, is unsuitable for a BLP. The fact that they criticize Sowell is not notable because they criticize virtually every conservative. This would be akin to adding Media Research Center criticism to the BLP of a liberal economist. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 03:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've argued that the criticism is notable since it was commented on by politicians (ie Sarah Palin) cited by secondary sources such as Politico, with media matters as an example of the criticism. Even if it was based on nobility argument alone I don't think the consensus would justify it. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo keeps reverting into the article 2 cites to articles at mediamatters.org which make false claims about 2 of Sowell's columns, backed up by cleverly selective quotes from Sowell. (The Politico article does the same.) If needed, I can explain the dishonesty at length, but a careful read of Sowell's articles and his attackers responses should be enough.

Worse still, CartoonDiablo also keeps reinserting a cite to every article on mediamatters.org tagged "Thomas Sowell", which requires us to believe not only that MMfA has been honest and decent in every article with that tag currently on their website, but will be honest in every future article with that tag.

It is not a violation of WP:NPOV for me to point out that a partisan activist organization is prone to dishonesty, particularly when I can demonstrate numerous examples of that organization being maliciously deceptive. (That is, my low opinion of MMfA is not just my POV, it is backed up by facts.) To edit Wikipedia in accordance with policies such as WP:BLP, editors need to discuss which possible sources can be used in conformance with those rules, and give opinions like I did, so we can come to consensus like we have in this case.

(While I'm here, let me point out CartoonDiablo's edit summary here: "The fact that I have to undue POV edits means those editors are the ones edit warring." As said above, the consensus is 6 to 1.)

More importantly: this is the wrong noticeboard for this dispute. The proper place for discussing this is WP:BLPN (or, alternatively, WP:RSN?). Cheers, CWC 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Edited 17:44, 18 June 2011

And I should have mentioned that CartoonDiablo has been asked more than once to find alternative, better sources for this partisan criticism of Sowell, but has not done so. CWC 12:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Thomas Sowell is a Republican and a Conservative. As such he would be a target for criticism from Democrats or Liberals. Media Matters consistently promotes a pro-Democratic or pro-Liberal viewpoint. Perhaps we could label MM as "pro-Liberal" as in:

• The pro-Liberal group Media Matters criticized Thomas Sowell, citing remarks like the following . . .

In partisan politics and in several high-profile controversies, the practice of quote mining is a regular part of presenting a one-sided argument to support a favored position. Rather than (a) accusing a source of bias or (b) endorsing a source as objective, we might try (c) describing their position fairly. Meanwhile, we should also try to describe the position they oppose, fairly. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, I was thinking the section should focus more on the actual statement and then have the reactions of groups like media matters and politicians like Palin. As it stands it seems centered on Media matters. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 05:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Billy Bob Thornton about the inclusion or removal of certain information. The disagreement seems to involve conflicting interpretations of whether inclusion or removal of the information would comply with or violate the policies on BLPs and undue weight. Additional comments and perspectives from uninvolved editors would be welcome. BashBrannigan ( talk) 06:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit complicated. The 3rd paragraph of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Material evidence of possible contact is a bit of a mess as it mixes up statements about two substances (cocaine and nicotine) and the time line of the reports. After I added a statement from a 2008 report dealing with a failure to replicate findings of cocaine (" Two attempts to replicate Balbanova finds of cocaine failed, suggesting "that either Balabanova and her associates are misinterpreting their results or that the samples of mummies tested by them have been mysteriously exposed to cocaine." an editor added right after that sentence " Skeptical of Balabanova's findings, Rosalie David Keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum had similar tests performed on samples taken from the Manchester mummy collection and reported that two of the tissue samples and one hair sample did test positive for nicotine, however. In response to these results Balabanova said, ""The results of the tests on the Manchester mummies have made me very happy after all these years of being accused of false results and contaminated results, so I was delighted to hear nicotine had been found in these mummies, and very, very happy to have this enormous confirmation of my work." Note that the new addition is not about cocaine, but about nicotine and refers to work discussed earlier in the paragraph and uses the same source as that discussion. But it could easily be read as referring and contradicting the statement about cocaine. The quote from Balabanova also seems a bit undue. I've been discussing the editor's edits on the talk page but not getting very far as can be seen there. This is the sort of article that almost always is prone to NPOV issues. (And I don't mind being told my edits aren't perfect, again these articles are difficult) Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The tone of this article is clearly that of support for the woman's controversial claims. The article barely talks of the woman herself, rather it serves to advertise her statements and viewpoints. Several paragraphs do not even discuss subjects connected to Ms. Iserbyt, instead focusing on topics related - only to the contents of her writings such as Ronald Reagan's affiliations and Yale societies. Further, there is a dearth of citations for the numerous claims in the article, and two of the three references are the author's website and an amateur Youtube video. In all, this is a very poorly written article that requires a serious rewrite to establish any amount of neutrality. Trorbes ( talk) 19:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very poor article not meeting our standards for WP:BLP. My first question is whether she is notable. She was a rather junior policy advisor, if the article is to be believed, and has written two books, one of a conspiracy theory nature, probably with minor publishers or self-published. Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The new article about nair posted in wikipedia is full of misinformation. One paragragh reads like this "Pork was also noted as one of their favourite foods,[107] and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat.[108]" In india, everybody knows that Beef or Pork is not cooked in Hindu homes, even in this day. Another one "The worship of snakes, a Dravidian custom,[5] is so prevalent in the area that one modern historian notes: "In no part of the world is snake worship more general than in Kerala."[6] There is no proof that it is purely a dravidian custom, even other hindus in different parts of northern india also practised this. In the first paragraph itself there is an attempt to show the whole community in badlight. it says "the pre-puberty thalikettu kalyanam and the later sambandham. The practice, in which some women, predominantly from central Kerala, bore legitimate children with their several husbands lasted in some areas until the late nineteenth century and in others until as late as the 1960s. Some Nair women from higher sub divisions also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area." Actual is the pre-puberty thaliketty kalyanam is just a ritual and the girls need not continue any relationship with the brahmin boy and will get married to another nair, sometimes with same brahmin boy also. But not all nair women had multiple hunsbands and Sambandam with Brahmins are not limited to malabar area. Too many mistakes are there in the article. In the Etymology section, deregatory reference and comparison to dogs are mentioned citing an unknown author who recently published a book full of nair, brahmin hatred In the military history, an unknown alliance with portughese is mentioned, also proposing that portughese were influencial enough to bestow the "nair" name to all people who fought with them, thus making many, instantanious upper class. This is ridiculous!

The section of caste system should not have been there as it is irrelevent to the article subject. this section and sub group section cites a lot of foreign authors who dont really understand the subject and subsequently the facts are distorted in those sections as well. Under the section, Historical customs and traditions, which says "Pullapilly has suggested that the Nairs may share a common heritage with the Ezhava caste. This theory is based on similarities between numerous of the customs adopted by the two groups, particularly with regard to marking various significant life stages such as childbirth and death, as well as their matrilineal practices and martial history. The theory is that only a common parentage can explain some of these issues.[32]" Ezhavas didnt follow the matrilineal practice and it is common knowledge. these two castes are entirely different from each other. Who is pullapilly? nobody has heard about him. There is a very sick attempt to bring down the nair caste in all the sections of the article.

The editors should be warned or the Nair community will come together and approach the government and the courts to punish such culprits. There have been previous instances of people from Ezhava community and Christian community who indulged in such activities and they were arrested by police for spreading false information. The whole article is edited by such people and we will not rest until such nonsense published in Wikipedia is removed. Thanks The king555 ( talk) 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Above user now blocked for making the legal threat. Most of what is alleged above is a distortion of the article. The article is currently being closely watched by at least two non-involved admins & there has been substantial POV-pushing, probably orchestrated off-wiki, by people who claim to be members of the Nair caste. There are at least two SPIs in the queue right now, and the article has on several occasions - including today - featured at WP:ANI. - Sitush ( talk) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Is there anyone here willing to read or partially read through the long discussions about this and help out? I feel that a few editors there are controlling the lead in a way that is not consistent with the Manual of Style, and that they are also going against Wikipedia's principles. There is more than one thing that femininity encompasses, including biological factors, and yet a few editors at the Femininity article are trying to keep the definition of femininity limited to only or mostly a social construction, despite the reliable sources I have provided that demonstrates that femininity is considered to be due to both biological and sociological factors. They only want to stick to their sources, instead of having the lead present a wider definition of the term. And per WP:LEAD, all the ways the term is defined should be included in the lead, especially any significant controversies or debates, such as the biological vs. sociological debate in this case. With such a narrow version of the lead, it also currently violates WP:Neutral. And as one editor weighing in on the RfC stated:

The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph.

So please...can (or rather will) anyone here help out? I don't believe this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work regarding its leads (excluding or under-representing other ways a term is defined) simply because editors prefer one particular definition.

I would provide diffs, but there isn't any one diff that I can provide to show that I have tried to resolve the matter on the talk page. The linked section above, which leads to the other sections where the discussion is still going on, shows how I have tried to resolve the matter (including the RfC, which has been a bust so far). I have even tried to compromise, but the few editors are insistent upon limiting the lead. 209.226.31.161 ( talk) 13:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP editor can't see that we're in agreement and is arguing again and again over a non-issue. EVERYONE (not an exaggeration) agrees with the IP, and yet we still argue for some reason. I've suggested that we're just not communicating well. Despite full agreement with the IP, the IP insists on seeing this in contentious terms with 2 'sides', when in reality every single person in the discussion fully agrees on the points. So, if anything, come and help explain things in a way to end this pointless debate. -- Avanu ( talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We were not entirely in agreement, which is why extensive debate took place on the talk page and there were people who agreed with me about the lead being narrow in its scope and non-neutral. Even so, this matter now seems resolved. 209.226.31.161 ( talk) 18:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This illustrates a frequently recurring problem in content disputes with climate change regulars so I'd appreciate some outside views.

As we all know, ostensibly reliable sources sometimes still contain loosely worded sentences as well as statements better described as opinions which just happen to appear in otherwise reliable sources.

To illustrate in relation to the present content dispute, the following sentence from Fred Pearce in The Guardian has been added as a fact in Wikipedia's voice to the Hockey stick controversy (now redacted in prose) and has been a bone of contention:

The contrarians have made [the hockey stick graph] the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists.

The various problem with the sentence are that (a) obviously not all 'contrarians' wanted to destroy climate scientists' credibility, and some were presumably motivated by curiosity (i.e. it's a generalisation); (b) we have removed the sentence from its context in the article; (c) the sentence insinuates that the HS graph's chief critic Stephen McIntyre had an alterior motive; and (d) we find in Fred Pearce's more carefully written book that he actually believes Stephen McIntyre & similar bloggers were motivated by other factors such as intellectual curiosity, desire for openness, and so on, and certainly it is not said that their chief aim was character assassination. In other words, I don't believe the sentence is the considered view of its author.

For all these reasons I believe use of this sentence in the article is not consistent with NPOV (or V or BLP).

I would also appreciate comments on the general point, i.e. that just because a sentence appears in a reliable source it does not automatically follow that the sentence makes a fact that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Cheers, Alex Harvey ( talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor. I support Alex's analysis and query. Ongoing problem at Hockey stick controversy and other controversial CC pages. Thanks for outside opinions and advice. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm involved, both Alex and Pete have been arguing on the talk page for interpretations not found in reliable sources, and despite repeated requests have failed to provide reliable sources supporting their contention that clear majority views by respected mainstream authors are in some way disputed. If such sources are provided, we can discuss it on the talk page, but there has been a consistent pattern of original interpretation by these editors: for example, in Alex's argument above the repeated attempts to "destroy the credibility of climate scientists" as well attested in Pearce's writings, somehow becomes "their chief aim was character assassination" which is not the same thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• In other words, a reliable source says something that Alexh19740110 does not agree with, so he wants it removed or qualified. I frankly don't see a valid reason for either; WP:RS is pretty clear here, and WP:SYNTH covers the latter. Tarc ( talk) 18:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  No, Tarc, I was hoping that other Wikipedians interpreted NPOV as it is actually written, rather than deferring instead to the 'Word of God' interpretation of WP:RS. NPOV is quite clear that reliable sources sometimes say things which we should avoid repeating. In this case, we almost certainly have attributed to Fred Pearce a view that he doesn't actually hold. Alex Harvey ( talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have written to The Guardian to point out that this sentence is not accurate and to ask if possible for Fred Pearce's view on Wikipedia's use of the sentence. Alex Harvey ( talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce has written back and agreed with me on every point, i.e. that (1) as I guessed, he didn't actually write this in the Guardian article in the first place, but that one of his editors changed the sentence without his knowledge; (2) as I said, he expressed a quite different view in his book The Climate Files; (3) he agrees with me that the statement is a "bald over-generalisation". I am not sure at this stage whether The Guardian intends to make a correction to the online article, but I'll reproduce his email with permission in the relevant talk page.
I trust some editors can see this is a good example of why NPOV says that we should not assume that just because a source is reliable we can or should simply quote every word. Alex Harvey ( talk) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unless there is an official editorial correction/retraction, none of this "I got an e-mail" stuff...if it even to be believed...is even remotely applicable to making an editorial decision here. Tarc ( talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I have reproduced the correspondence in the talk page at the Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy. I am happy to write to Fred Pearce and request on behalf of Wikipedia a formal retraction. This should not, of course, be necessary. The statement is, self evidently, an over generalisation. NPOV say, therefore, we should not use the wording, whether it's in an RS or not. You are just plainly wrong. You are answering here at NPOVN but have you actually read NPOV? Alex Harvey ( talk) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I have, as opposed to you who clearly have not. All you do is pop up about once a month to whine about how your fringe POV isn't being represented in the climate change topic area. Guess what? That's why they call em "fringe". Take care, unwatching this dead-end discussion now. Tarc ( talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite Tarc's smear, my question is a serious and I would be grateful for a serious response. This isn't the RS/N so if all that was required were reliable sources there would be no need for the NPOV policy at all. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there have been about six edits to this page in as many days. Does this mean there are hardly any active editors left? Or am I in the wrong place? Alex Harvey ( talk) 11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A Sikh is a follower of Sikhism. Sikhism primarily originated in the 15th century in the Punjab region with the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji. The term "Sikh" has its origin in Sanskrit term शिष्य, meaning "disciple, student" or शिक्ष, meaning "instruction". A Sikh is a disciple of the Guru. According to Article I of the "Rehat Maryada" (the Sikh code of conduct and conventions), a Sikh is defined as "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Sri Guru Gobind Singh; Sri Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru; and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion". Sikhs believe in the One Supreme God (Ik Onkar), the Guru who is main driving force behind Sikhs, truth, equality of humankind, universal brotherhood, truthful earning, respect towards life and all other creations/decisions made by GOD and they believe that no one can understand the supreme God without the blessings of the Guru and outmost love. Sikhs are recognized by their 5 Ks. 1) Kesh, specially maintained hair 2) Kara, special metal ring like bracelet 3) Kirpan, special small sword in a Strap called gatra. 4) Kashera, specially designed underpants, 5) Kanga, special comb for hair. These are applied to Baptised Sikhs called Khalsa. Sikhs are recognized by their distinctively wrapped turban, uncut hair, beard and moustache and they are supposed to wear an iron/steel bracelet (kara). The surname Singh (lion) being used by men and Kaur (princess) by women (Waheguru) the name of One Supreme God, (Sharbat da Bhala) selfless service and believe for the benefits of all is an integral part of Sikh worship, Due to their distinct identity they can be very easily observed in the masses as well as in the Gurdwara where visitors of any religious or socio-economic background are welcomed, where langar (free and unbiased food for all) is another way to break the caste system (as observed by Hindus) by serving people of all origins with the same (vegetarian) food, while sitting together on the same level of the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.214.108 ( talk) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be great to have more editors involved in the discussion. The article's highly contentious and has been flagged for neutrality violations since September 2010. I'd love to have input regarding peacock terms ("notable," "foremost," etc.) puffing up people quoted in the piece.

Please see discussion at Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#Chomsky.

Thank you.-- Scaleshombre ( talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky does not need to be "puffed up" to place him among the topic's strongest proponents. He is certainly notable, and perhaps foremost. This is not puffery or peacockism, it is simply an accurate description of the most vocal gadfly on the topic. Binksternet ( talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Then his work can speak for itself. The role of Wikipedia is to be an impartial chronicler, not a cheerleader.-- Scaleshombre ( talk) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

We are correct to tell the reader new to the topic that Chomsky is notable. Many observers have described him as such. It seems obvious, but the casual reader should be told the state of scholarly thought including a bit of who's who on the topic. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact the source says that he is one of the notable writers on the subject. TFD ( talk) 04:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Reeks of agenda, potential BLP violations, and the like. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh god. Someone obviously had a very large amount of prose to unload, but it's virtually impenetrable. I'm tempted to simply stub the article, keep the references, and start all over again, but someone better than me at salvaging content should have a crack at it first. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed in several places. Please look at the merge discussion flagged at the top of the page which will also lead to other discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 09:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In the article for conspiracy theories a vested contributor has relinquished any responsibility to write for the opponent since he or she assumes that the opponent might not be supported by reliable sources. Of course, this assumption is based on nothing but sheer arrogance.

Is it acceptable or fair to write for only one viewpoint unchallenged then soft-own the article by demanding consensus for the opposing viewpoint? Tsnuemuozobh ( talk) 23:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for an opinion on an editor's conduct? You might consider reviewing WP:AGF, as your questions strike me as pretty abrasive. Editors often disagree about content, but our goal is to present material in a neutral manner, according to reliable sources. To choose an extreme example, on an article about cigarette smoking, we say that it is bad for you based on the vast number of sources supporting that view. We are not obligated to balance that view with statements arguing how it is good for you, unless reliable sources support those claims. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification about accepted standards for Wikipedia articles. The article contains more quotes from sociologists than from conspiracy theorists. The appeal to emotion in the article is an example of the lack of balance resulting from bias or anecdotes rather than facts. Informing about the harmful effects of cigarette smoking is necessary for the public good. Writing an article for the sake of "debunking" conspiracy theories, on the hand, appears to be motivated chiefly by a political agenda. Tsnuemuozobh ( talk) 02:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have only had a very quick look at Talk:Conspiracy theory#This article is full of judgmental statements, but it appears that Loremaster has explained WP:NPOV very well ("we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view"—that is of course a slightly simplified version of the policy, but in essence it is correct). It also appears as if the disagreement started very recently; assuming that's correct, such a matter should not normally be reported to a noticeboard unless there is some kind of urgent need for action (that's just a general thought, and is a minor issue). The next step would be to focus on some content in the article and explain your problem about that (on the article talk page). Johnuniq ( talk) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)