This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

There's a dispute in Dick Durbin about how much attention--if any--should be paid to the support Durbin received from AIPAC, a pro-Israel group, during his primary election challenge to a sitting Rep. at the beginning of Durbin's career. I feel that as it currently stands, the weight given the subject violates WP:UNDUE. Would others mind chiming in? Meelar (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's assertion of thirty-one different pro-Israel PACs is subject to WP:NPOV. It is unreasonable to rely on "The Israel Lobby, pg 157, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt" as valid verification of the claim and further sourcing is necessary. Also, I'm inclined to agree that the correlation of AIPAC funding and success at election violates WP:UNDUEand is immaterial to the article. AIPAC President Robert Asher's beliefs, and the detailed funding of the AIPAC 1982 average funding is unnecessarily discursive and impertinent to a Dick Durbin article. "And the gates opened" should be removed and expressed more professionally.

AnkhMorpork ( talk) 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the relevant page in The Israel Lobby. It does not really discuss the extent to which this one issue/constituency changed the outcome of the election. On the other hand, this NY Times book review states: "he was narrowly beaten in 1982 by a combination of an able opponent, the recession, redistricting and a heavy infusion of money from pro-Israel political action committees. (The money only enabled his challenger to match him, more or less, in campaign spending.)". The Dick Durbin article should not discuss the election solely from the perspective of this one issue, and it shouldn't use a quote from Asher. Given that Asher's job involved influencing politics, he has every reason to exaggerate his own influence. GabrielF ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section based on some NY Times articles from the period. GabrielF ( talk) 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The amended form addresses these issues and is satisfactory. Thank you AnkhMorpork ( talk) 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly condemn the rewrite by GabrielF which heads off on a totally unrelated direction to the contested insert I gave. Please read what he has written. Please read carefully the references he gives which does nothing to support what he has written. What is this, a Kangaroo Court? I agree with one of the commentors above, "Let's be professional here"-- 99.112.186.58 ( talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, Please explain what you just agreed to? Are you the judge and executioner in this forum? -- 99.112.186.58 ( talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Meeler, how is it that your "contested" warning could be removed by GabrielF? I don't see a concensus anywhere here to add what he added. Certainly my reasoning was not considered on this page and I was the one who inserted the AIPAC quote. Is this how Wikipedia decides cases. You present the evidence and there is no cross-examination allowed? Certainly, GabrielF's rambling unsupported insertion just muddies the water more than before, and he unilaterially starts editing before anyone agreed to his edits, as if the case was closed. -- 99.112.186.58 ( talk) 18:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion, it isn't a court. Nobody is making or has made a final ruling. I'm not even sure that, when it comes to content issues, there is such a thing as a final ruling on wikipedia. There is also no moratorium on an editor making a change while the discussion is underway. GabrielF ( talk) 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, just for clarification, does this look like NPOV?

Diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

Abhijay (
☎ Talk) (
✐ Deeds) 02:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole article looks like a violation of WP:NPOV to me. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The article itself is a mess of a coatrack that needs to be bulldozed and rewritten, with WEIGHT and structure derived from scholarly accounts. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any article on Wikipedia with a title that begins "Criticism of" or "Allegations of" that isn't a mess of a coatrack? GabrielF ( talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The adequate, but not systematic Criticism of Libertarianism, Criticisms of Marxism is fairly good. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised my are edits are being questioned for NPOV with absolutely no prior communication with me regarding them. I am somewhat aggrieved that Abhijay has brought this to the notice board' attention without informing me of this move at all and in contravention with "you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." I am a new contributor and it is only by chance that I discovered his actions. Surely, a discussion on the article's talk page is more appropriate? AnkhMorpork ( talk) 09:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. People should notify on the talk page of an article when they bring it to a noticeboard. I've had trouble with another noticeboard where they hardly every inform people about the discussion and it has got very nasty and cliquey and they descend on articles and act as a unit. Dmcq ( talk) 12:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This article requires review in detail. Please note how more than one editor have, not only reverted every attempted edit for the last few years, but also baised the "Discussion" page for this same article! All discussion attempts have been biased by editing to support the reverting done by the same editors. Reverts, to the article, are backed up by nonsense arguments such as "no conscensus" while any concensus in the discussion page, that attempt to correct article bias, have been removed. Several editors have been warned (some seems like nonsense) and banned for attempts at editing this article and the discussion page. Attempts at discusion have met with the same fate and edited out off the page. This would appear to potential editors as wiki "ownership of an article".

As an example of editor bias one editor removed a dead link and received a warning and was subsequntly banned, later for this disruption. Several days later the same reverting editor (Ronz) performed the same edit, after affirming the comments from the "bad guy".

If the wiki concept is to survive some corrections of the processes need to be improved or editor quality must be reaffirmed or even investigated for sock puppetry. Other articles have been noticed with infractions by same editors but I only have so much time for this nonsense.

Yes. I have used other IP addresses (never simultaneously) but, to use this unrelated fact as an evaluation point to this complaint would only the indicate more of the same flavour being reported. 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is to survive, it should preserve summaries of reliable sources, rather than allow lone editors to remove information they do not like to hear because it goes against their acceptance of fringe pseudoscientific diets. Unless you can provide some good diffs showing bias by other editors, a cursory glance of Alkaline diet article's history and talk page only make you come off as a POV-pushing advocate of the diet. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Observing the problem would take actual research of the history of these two pages. Please adhere to WP:NPOV and refrain from further ad hominem innuendos in this matter. I didn't express any bias for or against the article text, only the process used to protect it from outside editing. If there is a specific edit that you thought I had made with your prejudiced comment it can be discussed, civily. 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 06:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the editing behavior at the article but from reading the text of the article I would say it is clearly biased against the topic. For example; the first sentence in the lead says: "The Alkaline diet, is a diet based on the scientifically unsupported theory".... To say it is a theory is enough. The words 'scientifically unsupported' are POV pushing because of its prominent placement in the lead and is Original Research because nowhere in the article is this stated or supported by reliable sources. Additionally the "Criticism" section takes up half of the article. What I would suggest to the IP, is to bring up specific issues (such as the one I've outline above) on the talk page and if you feel the discussion is biased or that ownership is present, then bring that, isolated, specific issue to this page for examination by the community and please notify me on my talk page when you do so, and I will also participate at this board, on that topic. In the meantime, bringing up broad behavioral issues on this noticeboard is not likely to create any progress I think. And a reminder to all editors on the topic to please remain neutral and civil in all discussions. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my point for this whine. Many points and good references were posted and met with reversion each time and WP policies theya re violating themselves, if you analyse the history of both these pages. Currently the titles of sections, text and any conscensus indications are being deleted to make editor discussion stand unsupported (no consensus) by certain editors involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.114.120 ( talk • contribs)

Regarding "good" points being removed: Please provide diffs of those points being removed. Please explain which sources you were using, and please explain what information they were being used to support.

Regarding "scientifically unsupported": The Alkaline diet is currently a fringe topic. You need to provide an articles from peer-reviewed scientific journal publishing the results of experiments demonstrating the validity of the diet, or else "scientifically unsupported" is totally accurate and not POV pushing. Without any scientific journals (or even science textbooks) supporting the diet, it would be POV to not include the words "scientifically unsupported." The words are not exactly unsupported, one of the sources titled "Acid/Alkaline Theory of Disease Is Nonsense" says "Anyone who tells you that certain foods or supplements make your stomach or blood acidic does not understand nutrition." If the words are inaccurate, it should be simple enough to provide a peer-reviewed scientific source supporting it. Per WP:BURDEN, it's the job of those who want to say it's scientifically supported.

Regarding the criticism section: If all the scientific sources are doing is criticizing the diet, then we could have the article consist of nothing but criticism. Per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, we don't give opposing sides "equal" treatment, we give each side due weight accorded by reliable sources. If you can demonstrate that editors there are censoring truely reliable and scientific resources, I'll accept that they're the problematic editors in this. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Without any scientific journals (or even science textbooks) supporting the diet, it would be POV to not include the words 'scientifically unsupported.'"

Now, wait a minute, Ian. I think you're misinterpreting what NPOV means. It means that we report all the viewpoints that we can find documented in reliable sources, giving each its proper weight. It does not mean that we call a diet "scientifically unsupported" simply because we can't find sources that call the diet "scientifically supported". To do that would be a violation of WP:OR (as well as an argument from ignorance). Please note, I'm not saying that the phrase "scientifically unsupported" should be removed from the article. As you note, there actually appear to be sources (cited in the body of the article) supporting that phrase. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page regarding NPOV. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's fair to say that any article titled "[such and such] is nonsense", similar to Gabe Mirkin's Quackwatch article, is probably not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and should be used very cautiously. It's also not surprising that Mirkin's article has zero citations (although it is surprising that he was a teaching fellow at John Hopkins). Quackwatch is off-base in a lot of areas and really should not be used very often (except when necessary due to WP:PARITY); acid-base homeostasis, even related to diet, an area where there is a lot of actual research going back for decades. See, for example, the Journal of Nutrition's (perhaps the top nutrition journal in the world) article " Dietary, Metabolic, Physiologic, and Disease-Related Aspects of Acid-Base Balance: Foreword to the Contributions of the Second International Acid-Base Symposium" (see also Acid-Base Homeostasis: Latent Acidosis as a Cause of Chronic Diseases for a more detailed argument) . That's not to say that the plausible (according to many researchers) hypotheses have necessarily turned out in practice - for example, see Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease: a systematic review & meta-analysis applying Hill's epidemiologic criteria for causality. However, I think it is fair to say that the alkaline diet article totally misrepresents the perspective shown in the scientific literature. II | ( t - c) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The topic is fringe. From the sources we have, the claims made by the promoters of the diet seem to be pseudoscience when not complete nonsense. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Again responses confuse the stated complaint by subject shift. The diet being nonsense is not the issue. The real issue is the article and discussion has been biased by deletions of references and consensus arguments that do not support the negative flavour of the article in what appears to be an attempt to keep the article all negative to the subject matter. Even the titles of the discussion page have been edited to moderate the comments of supporting contributors. If one checks the editing revision history of the article he can see references to nutritionl studies showing how alkaline substances affect osteoporosis statistics. Another edit was made to remove a reference to a non-existent website and was given warning for it only to have the same edit reverted and then subsequently deleted again by the same warning editor. This indicates prejudice against an editor based on some previous history or emotional response and not responsible research. Many editors have commented onthe discussion pagethat the Quackwatch articleis nonsense and not a good reference. Somehave disapeared and retorts from have stated "it is a reliable source" without any explanation or factual information explaining why a medical doctor suddenly becomes an expert in an unrelated field. It would appear as article ownership from a personanalysing the edit history of either page. When discussions get moderated and protests quenched to support an article bias, we have a problem.

I would be sure that original research for technical articles has been discussed many times before but second hand resources for technical articles verges on the edge of hearsay. It appears some references were reverted based on primary sources given. I can understand primary sources not being desirable for many fields but technical articles appear to demand more primary material. Are we qualified to judge who is a valid "peer reviewer"? OTOH: Not the place for this deep subject. 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 04:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"The diet being nonsense is not the issue." On that note, I think we can close this discussion as a waste of time and a disruption. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

POV comments used to provoke emotional responses from contributors do not help resolve issues, similiarly to the techniques WP:ownership used in the actual article and discussion pages politics under dispute. These types of comments are viewed as a cheap shot technique used to "win" arguments instead of a real attempt to resolve the problem. Readers may be starting to see a pattern develop here. 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 17:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we can close this discussion as a waste of time, a disruption, and use of Wikipedia as a battleground. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronz is correct: this discussion should be closed. However, I agree with the comments above that nonsense needs very reliable and independent sources before it can be peddled at Wikipedia (see WP:REDFLAG). Per WP:PARITY, it is entirely acceptable to use sources like Quackwatch to provide information to counter the waffle. That is standard for articles like this, as no serious scientific organization is going to waste time and resources on investigating quack diets. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

John: did you read my summary of the science on the diet above? I would say that Ronz is very incorrect. II | ( t - c) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is incorrect? Nothing that I can see directly related to the article or the disruptive editing by 99.251.114.120. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's take your statement that "[t]he topic is fringe" and let's look at the most critical article I referred to above, "Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease" by Fenton et al (while this article is not cited in alkaline diet article, similar ones, including an earlier Fenton et al article, are). In the background section Fenton et al notes that the diet has been marketed to the public but also notes the following: "the acid-ash hypothesis has been broadly stated as a major modifiable risk factor for bone loss in osteoporosis in well cited scientific papers [9,10], textbooks [11], reference work [12], a government-funded workshop summary [13], and lay literature" - the reference work, notably, is the Institute of Medicine's 2004 DRI work for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate, generally recognized as authoritative in the field of nutrition. Meanwhile, the alkaline diet article says that the "diet based on the scientifically unsupported theory that certain foods, when consumed, leave an alkaline residue, or ash". To say that a heavily-researched and debated scientific theory is "unsupported" is as bad as misrepresentation as many of the major misrepresentations User:Jagged 85 was involved in. I notice that Ronz and Yobol are some of the major editors to the article; I'm not sure who exactly is responsible for the lead, but you should note that it is not a minor thing to significantly misrepresent facts and sources. II | ( t - c) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch. Fenton et al was published 30 April 2011. I'd guess that no one has tried to incorporate it since publication. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Many could consider your editing as disruptive, also (POV), especially to this discussion. One of the complaints is the removing of key opinions from the discussion page. This can be considered as a technique to disguise the bias being exerted and fake consensus. Since this editing style is one of the offences being discussed perhaps bullying is also being attempted in this discussion. Ridicule of the editing (disguises personal attack) (provocation) is not productive for the good of wikipedia accomplishment. Would you care to comment on the editing of Alkaline Diet Discussion page section headings? I saw no offensive wording in them or obvious vilolations of WP policies. How about the deletion of opposing POV comments in the discussion page to support the article bias? As one example I offer this:

Here is a article format recommendation left by one of the editors in the Talk:Alkaline_diet page.

"How about keeping the negatives "muzzled" t least until the appropriate section?? This article is a disgrace to wikipedia and all it's rules and policies. 99.251.112.162 ( talk) 03:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)"

To which a response was seen with a threat that appears to attempt to sidetrack the context of the comment.

"Personal opinions matter little here. Personal attacks are disruptive and may lead to a block or ban. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)"

Without any personal "attacks" and use of POV comment on a *talk page* this retort appears so overreactive and blinded by prejudice, that a policy based threat was launched, without enough forethought, as an emotional response. Does this demonstrate the revert editor thinking he "owns" the article or even wikipedia?

This would take many hours but I could copy many reverts and threats duplicating this style of WP:ownership, for years back. Persons studying the edit history can discover the same flavour by a handful of editors. It would appear that previous charges of this very nature, for one such editor, were never resolved. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive23 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 23:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a witch hunt. Such calls tend to boomerang. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have classic socking here..... 99.251.114.120 referring to himself ( 99.251.112.162) as though he was another person! WP:DUCK certainly applies. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the Stephen Barrett shills are encouraged to participate their bias there is no further point in attempting to neutralize the extreme bias used in this article or, after some research, most other Alternative Health sciences articles. Ronz was correct with his innuendos and threats and obviously has enough puppets to bully all Alternative Medical Science article editors from revealing anything via so-called scientific methods the Quackwatch shills do not not want out in the public. Obviously I am slated for the same fate as my alledged sock puppet. Anyone interested further should have a look at the extreme prejudice and bias on this page User:BullRangifer. Thanks for demonstrating bias so visibly in wikipedia to exemplify this very point and discourage any further editors from wasting so many hours of their time. Now let's see how many ridicule labels you can muster for this paragraph. /HAND/ 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 03:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The first week of January, an employee of Houghton College left a message Talk:Houghton University/Archive 1#Disputing information on this page on the talk page asking us to remove negative information about the college's president (see this set of changes, in which the negative information was added). After some discussion, I agreed that the information added needed support from reliable sources and removed it. It was immediately restored. Other users added {{ fact}} tags or re-removed the info; the user who added it tried adding some perfunctory sources, but they were hardly sufficient to support the negative claims.

The user who was re-adding this information stopped after my revert of January 23. A week later, however, a different user came in and added unsourced positive information about the college's president. Wanting to be fair, I removed it as well, since it was unsourced and we'd already removed negative information for the same reason. After the positive text was restored, I embargoed the text by commenting it out and placing a message on the talk page. My embargo was reversed but the user did not engage in discussion on the talk page.

I don't know what my next step should be. I would appreciate advice.

-- Powers ^T 15:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few edits and added the article to my watchlist. ElKevbo ( talk) 05:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Current or last discussion DR Recent discussion

The Occupy Wall Street article appears to have a section being inserted, possibly against consensus. The section in question is "Crime" that rounds up all mentions of alleged illegal activity of any kind and places it within this section and is being defended as "Needed" and "Common" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states a couple of things in this regard.

• Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. ^[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. ^[2]''

• In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and other relevant guidelines such as geographical names). Article titles which combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, Derry/Londonderry, Aluminium/Aluminum or Flat Earth (Round Earth) should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being the name of something. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint "for" or "against" something, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

The article is controversial and has been difficult to deal with in terms of content, as much of what is there loses focus on the subject and kind of wanders off in many directions. The article is not about the movement, but the original and ongoing protests in New York City. There seems to be a dispute about the inclusion of this section and why we would use the information, whether it is notable enough and if so, how it should be used according to Wikipedia policy.

Should we segregate the information in this biased manner? Negative material about living persons may violate privacy policies or damage the person's reputation, therefore, strict rules are in place to govern such information. _{See Biographies of living persons for details.} Shouldn't we (if the information is notable) integrate the negative criticism/allegations/controversies into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections as suggested in the Wikipedia Essay Wikipedia:Criticism?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 10:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Security concerns at Occupy Wall Street are notable and received significant news coverage from reliable sources. A protester getting arrested for making comments about a molotov cocktail being thrown through the window at macys, and protesters booing police for arresting him is notable. Protesters stating that the most serious concerns are for women at night, thus requiring women only tents. This is exemplified by three protesters being arrested for groping women, one being a chef at the OWS kitchen. OWS organizers stated "We are redoubling our efforts to raise awareness about sexual violence." Also OWS felt the need to establish their own security personnel. Protesters even kicked people out of Zuccotti park for security issues. These are not my point of view, these are not rumors, these are facts that are backed by reliable sources. These are significants issues that protesters faced. It is negative, but because something is negative does not mean it does not belong in the article, if that's the case then everything that is positive should be taken out of the article as well. Other similar articles have sections that appear negative and those sections should remain as well, see:

• Million Man March
• Tea Party movement

Racingstripes ( talk) 07:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying a negative can't be encyclopedic or that we shouldn't include all of the information and allow consensus to decide content......I'm saying it is not neutral to present the negatives tied up in a bow and presented with a tag in the form of a segregated section titled "Crime" or any other such sub sectioning. I feel this could be a good article, but it really doesn't seem neutral to direct the attention of the reader to random activity with a single thing in common...that they are alleged crimes. This isn't the subject as a whole in that context. The title's point of view is of crime in general, not crime that the group has committed....like storming a building in mass or some notable riot or act of civil disobedience. Due weight should be observed, in at least not grouping random acts to place a label on them in this context. Why not "Victim"? It's a point of view as well. Reading the information itself you see the victims of these crimes are being reported as being protesters as well. Theft within the protest group and sexual assault, assault etc. The one exception is the threat a man made about committing an act, but details show no proof he intended to carry out the threat. That piece is a crime a protester committed, but the crime was of making the threat. Why place this among the protester on protester "crimes"?

The examples you gave are of C class articles. Occupy Wall Street is a B class article and it’s a struggle to keep that rating if we accept the standard of articles with lesser quality. I hope we can keep the current standards of the article and hopefully improve them.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be enough to simply rename the section, "Security Concerns"? Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I could live with that if we were to reassess the quality rating to C and leave a note on each project involved so they could decide if it was anything they object to. We might as well, someone already reduced the rating once but I objected at the time, so I could just agree to that now and make the change and see if it sticks.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 11:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, I know nothing of Wikipedia's rating policy - could you direct me to the article that gives this information? Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 12:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Security Concerns" is fine with me. Racingstripes ( talk) 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For more than a decade has been known to have been paid by the NKVD, noted in Chicago Tribune, NYT, Boston Globe multiple books, etc. [8] Boston Globe, e.g. [9] (edit summary: Again: pathetic. I'm the 3rd editor you've reverted in as many days: do it again and you get to explain yourself at WP:3RR) is an example of edit warring to remove the simple fact that Dickstein was a spy from his biography. User:Calton since 2005 has periodically assailed the biography to remove well-sourced material to that effect. I deleted the Soviet spy accusation - there were NO direct citations, sources, or even details; just a bald statement as fact, and an acceptance of a single source as definitive. Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC) The only real problem ihe has is the multitude of sources making the "accusation".

I ask others to determine whether NPOV is violated by removal of "spy" as a category for this person. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This would be Samuel Dickstein (congressman) rather than Samuel Dickstein (mathematician), I presume. The search link doesn't work for me. The description "known to have been paid by the NKVD" does in itself not justify saying or categorizing him as a "spy" -- he might, for example, been an " agent of influence". You can label him as a "spy" if there are reliable sources that state he was a "spy". Possible sources include [10], [11] or [12]. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 12:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback asserts that we can not call a person not convicted of being a spy a spy. Forgetting that Dickstein was dead when the proof was found in the NKVD files, and is not contested <g>. My suggestion is that we should, using that argument, not call Booth an assassin of Lincoln. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentaion of what I said. Which sources specifically call the subject a "spy"? (Also, it's polite to mention on a talk page that you're starting a NB thread.)   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed it - I posted several explicitly using that term on the article talk page. Including Dickstein ran a lucrative trade in illegal visas for Soviet operatives before brashly offering to spy for the NKVD, the KGB's precursor, in return for cash and Not even Julius Rosenberg knew that Samuel Dickstein had been on the NKGB's payroll and he was, for many years, a 'devoted and reliable' Soviet agent whom his handlers nicknamed 'Crook' and the venal Soviet spy Congressman Samuel Dickstein spoke out publicly and mercenary spy, Congressman Samuel Dickstein, a New York .... I rather think you should get the idea from these how many sources describe a person who got money over a long period from the NKVD. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course I "missed" it - you posted those four hours after I replied here. Some of what you posted are book reivews of the same source. Multiple reviews of the same source don't equal multiple sources. As for the others:

The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case [13] does not call the subject a "spy", and it does not include any footnotes, but in the endnotes it cites the same source.

The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members [14] directly attributes the claim to the same source. So there's ultimately only one source for this claim: someone who says they saw something ins a secret file which is inaccessible to any other researcher. Do you think it's acceptable to brand a US congressman a Soviet spy long after his death based on a single source?   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter of rs, not npov. Collect, please provide the sources then we can all go home. TFD ( talk) 05:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources meet WP:RS and were posted on the article talk page. And there aare many more using the term "spy" in connection with the erstwhile HUAC founder. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This thread is basically about what strikes me as the clearly prejudiced actionsand conduct of User:John5Russell3Finley, the self-appointed coordinator of the above group. He has previously been blocked here for seeming to insist that the above named group must remain listed as active, even though despite the project's talk page it has rather clearly not been, and, so far as I can tell, raising false accusations. His broader record regarding NPOV is, so far as I can tell, not appreciably better. There are also very clear reasons to believe that he may have a problem regarding POV, as per this comment on his user talk page and some of his other conduct. He seems to be basically, at least to my eyes, incapable of acting in a neutral or acceptable manner regarding this subject. I believe perhaps he may need some further outside input regarding this matter. John Carter ( talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you point to specific edits, there is little anyone can do. Claret Ash 13:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been a bit of a storm in a teapot over variants of the following sentences in Lee Hsien Loong, a biographical article about the present prime minister of Singapore. The current proposal reads:

As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year.^[1] Despite a 28% pay cut, described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages"^[2], Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.^[3]

^{[1] — http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/asia/singapore-slashes-officials-salaries.html
[2] — http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168620110589932.html
[3] — http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/uk-singapore-politics-idUSLNE81503N20120206}

One side is arguing that inclusion of this in any form anywhere in the article is WP:UNDUE, because "there is no place in the article for a view that is either out of context or insignificant in the longer scheme of things", "UNDUE because this incident does not pertain to LHL specifically", and -- my personal favorite -- "impertinent". (See the talk page for full context.) I, obviously, think this is poppycock, as this is thoroughly and reliably sourced, a majority view (in fact, pretty much the sole view, as I'm unable to find any other theories for why the salary was cut), and directly relevant to the person whose salary is being cut on his own instructions. But additional opinions would be very welcome, either here or on the talk page in question. Jpatokal ( talk) 10:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Anybody? Jpatokal ( talk) 01:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This issue did receive significant international attention, in part because the salaries are so much higher than typical ministerial salaries. Based on WP:WEIGHT, it certainly deserves at least some attention in the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the reduction in the salary does. But to include vague hand-waving such as "widely interpreted as a response to public anger" and "public discontent" is not appropriate in the context of LHL's biography article, it belongs to the article on the current administration. The controversy was not over LHL's salary, but ministerial pay in general. Please see Talk:Lee Hsien Loong for the discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The implication is that the PM is overpaid. While the salary should be mentioned, we need to include commentary about whether it is reasonable. TFD ( talk) 04:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Including assertions based on "implication" constitutes original synthesis and is not acceptable in a biographical article. Would this also justify inserting similar commentary in the biographical articles of all the cabinet ministers in Singapore? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 04:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur, my friend.

1) There is no original synthesis involved in paraphrasing, much less directly quoting, a reliable source directly discussing the matter at hand, namely Lee Hsien Loong's salary and the reason it was cut.

2) All the sources above explicitly cover Lee Hsien Loong's salary, and do not even mention that of any other ministers. Jpatokal ( talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Despite a 28% pay cut, described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages", Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world."

This is not original synthesis? While it may seem perfectly reasonable to you to see the situation the way you are viewing it right now, but on Wikipedia, we have a policy against original research for the same reason that people draw conclusions all the time, but that we should not empower Wikipedians to take those kind of decisions on an encyclopedia. All the sources above discuss salaries of government ministers, not Lee Hsien Loong alone. Please read your sources carefully. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I already made my stand very clear on the article's talk page, but just want to point out that there is already a dedicated article on the 2012 ministerial salary review so all detailed breakdown and analysis of it can go there, and link from the subject's article. Wikipedia would benefit so much more if as much effort had been made in buffing that up (where inclusion is more clearcut) rather than get stuck fighting for inclusion on Lee's article. Zhanzhao ( talk) 07:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

William F. Buckley Jr., in the first issue of the prominent magazine National Review, defined the beliefs of American conservatives this way, in 1955: ^[1]

“

Among our convictions: It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.

”

The mission statement of the National Review can only be a reliable source for itself or its author. We would need a third party to explain the significance of the passage to the Right. The passage does not say that it is defining American conservatism and even use the term right-wing. It appears to be OR - an editor wants to present his own view of what being right-wing means to him. TFD ( talk) 14:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In itself, a statement of opinion can only verify the opinion of the one stating. To verify the opinions of others requires a separate statement, either directly from those others ("I agree with what so-n-so said"), or by investigative demonstration by a third party ("Her record indicates support for..."). Four Deuces is quite right in calling OR. Claret Ash 08:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TFD's assessment; the opinion of the National Review can only be used to cite the opinion of the National Review, not of "conservatism" in general, which appears to be OR. Yobol ( talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'd value a third opinion at the above article (or even a fourth and fifth oppinion too would be great). Among other unconstructive edits, a user persists in adding external links to blatantly biased sources. Normally, this would be a simple matter of reverting followed by escalated warnings. However, the user doesn't seem to understand the POV issues with their edits, to the extent that they suggest my reversion is biased. (I should point out here that the version to which I reverted was supported by consensus in a discussion last month). Nonetheless, as we can't both be right, others' thoughts on the article and the recent edits would be great. I've gone into more detail at Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab#POV again, so please reply there as I'd like to keep the discussion together.

Thanking you all. Claret Ash

Commented. As a courtesy to other users participating on this page, it would be wonderful if you could help out with some sections with your neutral and unbiased opinion. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I admit, I'm not certain what you're requesting above. I assume it's diffs you were requesting, in which case:

• The version supported by consensus in last month's discussion
• Last month's discussion
• The version prior to Qadri fan's edits
• Qadri fan's initial edits. In eight subsequent edits, I dealt with each of Qadri's edits on a case by case basis but was reverted by that user.
• A talk page warning from Qadri fan for "not including edit summaries"
• In this edit, I incorporated a wikilink into the article to show Qadri how it's done. The subsequent edits were to remove redundant and inappropriate external links, again on a case by case basis to make it easy for Qadri to understand each edit.
• Another wholesale reversion
• Everything else is on the article's talk page. Hope this helps. Claret Ash 06:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no. I am referring to the sections above this one. Help other people out with their disputes too. :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Blame it on me working late last night and again early this morning. Anyway, will do. Claret Ash 06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an RfC that about how to best neutrally summarize the position of various medical associations' position about circumcision in the lead of the article at Talk:Circumcision#RfC: how should the lead summarise positions of medical associations?. Any outside input would be appreciated. Yobol ( talk) 21:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I just read Christian Concern, and there appear to be OR/bias issues in play.

It is an offshoot of The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, which contains the same source.

'It was incorporated as an independent body, CCFON Ltd (Christian Concern For Our Nation), on 24 June 2008,[4] after the Channel 4 documentary In God's Name'

This seems like OR, to link the two events?

The 'Controversy' section relates almost entirely two the 'In God's Name' documentary and Andrea Williams. Although I have not seen the documentary in question, reports: [15] [16] are quite clear that 'The most significant activist, however, was shown to be Andrea Williams, Public Policy Director of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship.' 'Williams is also keen to warn Christians about the dangers of Islam, and one LCF event gave a platform to Sam Solomon, a former Muslim who teaches that Muslims are brainwashed to hate, and that the situation in Nigeria shows that hospitable Muslim neighbours are likely to become killers.' Note that the Telegraph article is by the documentary's producer, and it does not mention CCFON at all. It seems like OR to me to present this as activity of Christian Concern, although perhaps a shorter sentence describing Williams' views might be apt.

The second sentence 'Barrister, Mark Mullins, who left LCF with Williams, and who is listed on the CCFON website as a 'Public Policy Adviser',[17] was reprimanded by the Bar Council in July 2006, after he refused to represent a gay client.[18]' is obviously both OR, in generating 'controversy' that is not cited outside the Wikipedia page, and secondly in misrepresenting the case, he did not it seems refuse to represent a gay client, as much as refuse to defend an immigrant 'who wanted to use his homosexual relationship as grounds to stay in this country.' In any case, Mullins no longer appears on the organisation's personnel list. [17]

I am not entirely clear also whether the unrelated groups Christian Institute and Christian Voice should be listed as 'See Also'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.31.250 ( talk) 13:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be original research and synthesis issues here, compounded by missing sources. I've cut out some unsourced material. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 17:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that 'profiled the activities of the group (then part of LCF)' is supported by the sources. According to the sources, the actions were taken by The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship. As 'Christian Concern for our Nation' existed then [18], distinct from LCF, albeit as part of LCF, it seems like an unsupported claim to say that the actions were in fact taken by CCFON, and an unreasonable assumption to assume that a documentary maker claiming that he profile LCF actually was profiling only the CCFON aspect of LCF.

Saying for instance 'In particular, the programme highlighted the involvement of the LCF in lobbying the British Government on issues such as abortion, gay rights and the enforcing of laws relating to blasphemy' doesn't demonstrate relevance to the page 'Christian Concern', because as far as I can tell, while CCFON was a part, or offshoot of LCF, there are presumably some activities relating to the CCFON aspect, and some to the LCF aspect. If the source says 'LCF lobbied', that doesn't seem a great source for 'Christian Concern'. 81.141.31.250 ( talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that without an independent reliable source identifying this organisation as having been specifically discussed in the film, discussion of a film about the LCF from a time before CCFON was formed is undue. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it was OR to make a causal link between the Dispatches programme and the separation of CCFON from LCF. The timing did amount to circumstantial evidence giving credibility to the alleged link, but I do not know of any direct evidence, so it was right to remove that.

I also agree that Mullins' reprimand was irrelevant to the article.

However, I do not see that there was any need to expunge Willams' and Mullins' names from the article as founding members of staff. The LCF notice about Williams and Mullins' original role was a valid source, even though it is no longer online. CCFON's website has many mentions of Mullins confirming that he formally represented CCFON and CLC, and still credits Williams explicitly as a co-founder. This edit recorded with the edit summary "rm per WP:BLP, source cited has gone 404" is therefore hard to understand. WP:BLP does not appear to require excision of cited material just because a link has gone dead.

Taking the 28 October edits together, they could be interpreted as a deliberately planned series of edits designed to remove every mention that connected Williams or Mullins to CCFON, along with some mentions of LCF, with the end goal of entirely removing the "Controversy" section of the article in the next edit. This would not appear to be editing according to WP:NPOV.

The matter has since been overtaken by subsequent edits, discussion on the talk page and additional citations. However, Cusop Dingle appears to have set himself up for a warning about POV editing. Also, 81.141.31.250 has made few other edits, so a WP:CHECKUSER might help to clear Cusop Dingle of the apparent coincidence of interests between the two accounts. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The only point of view that I have here is that material must be duly related to the subject of the article and supported by reliable sources, and I have edited the article accordingly. Do you have a problem with that? Cusop Dingle ( talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest the balance of evidence is making it difficult for me to WP:AGF. It looks to me as if you made a series of edits claiming to be implementing policies but actually pursuing a POV agenda. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cusop Dingle should at least clear the air about the apparent consensus at the start of this section. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the criticism section was originally added as part of the move to provide citations in evidence of notability, to rescue the article at AfD, as well as to add balance in order to present a NPOV view of the organisation rather than citing only primary or supportive sources.

As for WP:DUE, since the LCF's public policy work seems to have been hived off to CCFON, it is arguable that the Dispatches programme only needs to be covered fully in the Christian Concern article, leaving just a brief mention of it in the LCF article. LCF's public policy page has said very little since late 2008. (archive) – Fayenatic (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And it looks to me as if FL has launched a series of unfounded allegations, culminating in a meritless SPI in a deliberate attempt to distract or silence an editor who has edited this article in a way they don't like. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The SPI is not a culmination, it's a spin-off following CD's request on my talk page to put up or shut up. That seems to be unfounded; good. Are the other allegations unfounded, though? It wasn't the edits that I didn't like, but the disingenuous edit summary linked above, citing WP:BLP but removing inoffensive, verified (in the past) and still-demonstrable facts, with no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation. On the article's talk page, another editor has likewise taken issue with CD's claim to be relying on WP:BLP when removing verifiable NPOV information. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit that FL complains of [19] removes assertions about living people because there was no verifiable source for those assertions at the moment of the edit -- the citation was to an online press release which had gone 404. Our policy on BLP applies to all articles whether or not the subject is a living person and states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed" and further that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". This material is controversial: I followed BLP exactly: I gave an edit summary which precisely summarised my reasons: and removed no other material in the process. If other editors have found good sources for that material then that's fine. FL's description of my edit summary as "disingenuous" is unsupported, false, insulting and a personal attack on my integrity as an editor. FL's insinuation that there was "no apparent aim in sight except to attempt to justify removing all criticism of the organisation" is equally unsupported, equally false, equally insulting and equally a personal attack. FL's pattern of repeated indirect and direct attacks on me, including this meritless SPI, now seems like harassment. FL needs to consider very carefully indeed why they persist in making false assertions about my motivation rather than on the content of this article. Cusop Dingle ( talk)

The material removed in that edit [20] was neither contentious nor likely to be challenged. Therefore it was spurious to justify it by reference to WP:BLP. Therefore I do not withdraw my use of the word "disingenuous".

I interpreted this set of CD's edits and edit summaries as indicating a clear motive, but he denies it. I was not the only one to see it that way; see User talk:Obscurasky#Christian Concern. In terms of the editing relationship, the personal slights are escalating with no sign of resolution. Nevertheless we have reached consensus on the article itself (CD referred at the SPI page to it looking better now), so we might as well wrap up this discussion. I hope that if we meet again that this spat will not prevent us co-operating effectively. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Dispatches material is obvious WP:synthesis. The content pertains to LCF--not CCFON. Nothing has been provided to prove otherwise. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're on your own in finding that "obvious", Lionel. Cusop Dingle seems to have agreed with Obscurasky and I that the Dispatches programme was critical of Andrea Williams' work leading the Public Policy division of LCF, which was hived off to CCFON around the same date that the documentary was made. There is now a current online citation in support of that separation. Williams is co-founder and CEO of Christian Concern. [21] Therefore the encyclopedic content about Williams' public policy work for the LCF now belongs mainly on the article about Christian Concern. If this section could conclude with a consensus to cover the documentary on the page Christian Concern and prune most of it away from Lawyers Christian Fellowship, in accordance with WP:DUE, it would be a useful outcome. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

" Cusop Dingle seems to have agreed" -- I have expressed no such opinion and do not agree with FL's conclusion. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to CD's comment "Subsequent edits by other users have found better sources for some of those assertions and the article is looking better IMHO" on the SPI page. I thought that meant he was satisfied that the criticism should remain now that an additional citation had been provided. I give up; he doesn't listen; so let him now have the last word. – Fayenatic (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To deduce from a comment about an article looking better with improved sources that I am happy with a particular section is a form of logic I am unfamiliar with. I note with regret that FL chooses to use his Parthian shot to make yet another personal comment on me. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 07:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) It seems to me that this can be resolved by returing to first principles: verification by reliable sources. It is claimed that the section "Criticism" should discuss a film made about the activities of the LCF at a time before CCFON was founded. For this to be sustainable we need to find independent reliable sources that verify (1) that the film is criticism (2) that the film is substantially about an identifiable group X and (3) that X is substantially identical with CCFON. Ideally we would have a single source for all three assertions, since to source each spearately runs the risk of synthesis, expecially this there is scope for undistributed middle term between 2 and 3. Currently the section is sourced to two stories in reliable newspapers, each of which is a first-person article by the film-maker, David Modell, and each of which predates the formation of CCFON. It is therefore questionable whether they can be regarded as independent. Even if they are, each story states that the film is about LCF and in particular Andrea Williams, its public policy director; neither story claims that the film is "Criticism" of LCF; neither story identifies any group within LCF as the subject; and of course neither mentions CCFON. So currently we have nothing in independent reliable sources that sustains this section. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 07:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the section is "Controversy". Cusop Dingle ( talk) 18:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The heading "Controversy" seems IMHO to be a fair summary of the drift of the articles, or snippets like "impose her narrow beliefs on the rest of society" or "so offensive they're barely printable." I've partly rewritten the section using the cited sources more closely, removing the word "critical".

The programme was about people that Modell saw as "Christian fundamentalists" seeking influence in public policy. A large part of it was taken up with Williams' public policy work. WP:SELFPUB says we can rely on the existing cited sources that describe this work being hived off from LCF to CCFON.

As this discussion is still going on, please would you finish explaining your view that the following is both contentious and likely to be challenged (those being your reasons for excising it under WP:BLP): [22] ... (text removed from the open record on this page by user:Fayenatic london on 14 February)

It still strikes me as entirely inoffensive. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

" WP:SELFPUB says we can rely on the existing cited sources" Which existing sources can we rely on and for what? It is impossible to address or assess such an imprecise claim.

"contentious and likely to be challenged" It is unsourced (or at least, sourced to a non-existent URL). It is contentious because it refers to real-life people leaving their jobs and the reasons for that; and because Williams and Mullins are considered controversial figures by some; it was not only likely to be challenged, it was challenged, by me, implicitly, when I removed it. See also this. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Before this section gets archived, let me say for the record that I fully accept this explanation from Cusop Dingle, and apologise without reservation for questioning his integrity. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the following comply with NPOV?

The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented. ^[1] The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008. ^[2] Pakistan denies all such claims. ^{[3] [4] [5]} The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen. ^[6] The ISI has a long history of supporting terrorist groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests. ^{[7] [8]} Pakistan claims to give them moral support only. ^[7]The ISI also helped with the founding of the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed. ^[9] The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s. ^[10]

As it was removed Here under the pretext it violates NPOV. An RFC was started but nobody appears interested. Darkness Shines ( talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't comply. You should never present something contentious as fact. Because "Pakistan denies all such claims", you therefore need to add in-text attribution to the claim(s)—i.e., "according to so-and-so, ...". Also, are there some relevant quotations/exerpts from the book references you can provide us with? Nightw 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

it is hardly contentious as all mainstream sources say this. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has an RFC specifically for this. Consider adding a comment there, This is what I told DS, why do we need to go over the same Taliban article exercise each time. Thanks NW, for clarifying here. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 18:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Has some fairly blatant POV issues to say the least. Any attempt to remove one clear section ("Goals") is reversed, and that is not even a big part of the problem. I am not in any way connected with the issue, and the POV was noted by me in a flash - so others who also seek NPOV are encouraged to have a look. Collect ( talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of editors seem to regard this edit as being absolutely NPOV: [23]

I suggest the text in Wikipedia's voice seems to represent one particular point of view without any semblance of trying to be neutral. I have been reverted on its removal, and reverted on it being even tagged as POV, so ask that denizens here venture into those woods. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "goals" section is pertinent to the article, which is devoted to some conflict (which implies the existence of some opposing parties with conflicting goals). However, as soon this section has been added, the goals of each party should be described. In the version reverted by you, only a Serbian position has been described. I think, the solution may be in expansion of this section, not in this removal. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My attempted edit stating which side held the "goals" was, indeed, reverted. Might you see about making the side which is being represented is properly identified there? And the very name "goals" is POV as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the subject is not a field of my interests, so I am not sure I can help. The only thing I can say that the "Goals" section is supposed to describe the goals of at least two parties. In that situation, I see two possible solutions: either to add a sourced description of the goals of the Kosovar Albanian administration (with subsequent re-wording in a more neutral manner), or (if no such sources can be found) to rename "Goals" to "Goals of North Kosovo Serbs".

Of course, I by no mean is an expert in this field, so I may overlook some important aspects of the issue, however, these two solutions may resolve the dispute, in my opinion. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the Goals section in the article. The language and tone of the section does not sound neutral. North Kosovo is portrayed as good. The others are bad. Even if this is the case, the tone of the Wiki article should be neutral. It might be possible to re-write the section so that the tone does not sound biased. I found these relevant provisions of the Wiki neutrality policy, [[WP:NPOV}: "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone...

Impartial tone: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." You might also review WP:Words to avoid to get an idea of words that are considered to create a biased tone. Coaster92 ( talk) 22:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to have that vicious POV-fork article deleted and its relevant material put into the Kosovo article. The article's editing has been dominated by Serb editors or pro-Serb editors and being very denigrating and offensive to the Albanian side in the infobox, should Albanian editors start to arrive in significant numbers there will be an all-out edit war.-- R-41 ( talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing based on your own beliefs is against Wikipedia policy, in my opinion. But I've just been informed by an experienced editor "If editors believe something to be outright false, for example, they should not include it, regardless of whether it is WP-verifiable." [24] Please comment. B^e——C_ritical 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds redundant to me. If someone sincerely believes a statement to be false, I suspect they won't include it, making the question of whether they should or shouldn't redundant. Either that, or they'll add the statement in the voice of a third party as opposed to Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "Smith asserts that the sun rises in the west, despite being proven wrong each morning"). Claret Ash 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Apply common sense. If a fact is obviously wrong then everyone will agree and the point will be omitted. If it is only one person's opinion that the point is wrong, then editors need to find consensus. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

An RFC is taking place for the article Indians in Afghanistan which has some main disputes regarding India-Pakistan relations. Please comment there. WP:NPOV issues with the dispute make this a relevant noticeboard to inform. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 09:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently has one editor repeatedly adding "fleeing Lindberghs" to the article - unfortuneately the sources do not use that eponym, and I suggested "left" is preferable to "fled" for Lindbergh's leaving the US whilke under huge pressure from the tabloids after the murder of his son. [25] is the talk page discussion thereon. [26] is his latest revert with the claim "Four reliable sources are cited that all use the term "fleeing", "flight" and/or "fled" (see talk) Please do not revert this again unless you can achieve a clear consensus to do so". Unfortunately I do not see that "flight" is the same as "fleeing" nor do I see that the other 200+ sources (including the Anne Morrow Lindbergh obit from the New York Times) I found remotely use such language <g>. Fresh eyes would be welcome on any position about this. Collect ( talk) 18:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No opinion on the specific content, but "flight" is a perfectly good (and theoretically neutral) word to describe fleeing. "From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary: flight (def. 2) "an act or instance of fleeing or running away; hasty departure". Similar entries at other major dictionaries. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Both flight and fleeing can have awkward multiple meanings: they sailed on a steamer rather than flew, and fleeing can mean drunk. However, in the context all terms seem clear enough, "leaving" itself doesn't convey the retreat from pressure unless adequate context is given. . dave souza, talk 08:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I am the editor referred to by the poster of this thread it would have been nice for him/her to have advised me of the discussion (as WP policy requires) as opposed to my having to find it serendipitously on my own days later. That being said, the sources I cited refer to and support that the Lindberghs were viewed both at the time and later by historians as "fleeing" (or having "fled") under pressure from the United States to Europe in December, 1935, because, as Lindbergh himself told NY Times aviation writer Deac Lyman, that he felt forced to take his family into voluntary self exile in England to "seek a safe, secluded residence away from the tremendous public hysteria" that surrounded him in America and because "Americans exhibit a morbid curiosity over crimes and murder trials, and lack respect for law and the rights of others." (Lyman, Lauren D. "Lindbergh Family Sails for England To Seek a Safe, Secluded Residence; Threats on Son's Life Force Decision." The New York Times, December 23, 1935, p. 1. ; Butterfield, Roger. “Lindbergh: A Stubborn Young Man of Strange Ideas Becomes the Leader of the Wartime Opposition", LIFE, August 11, 1941. ; Whitman, Alden. "Daring Lindbergh Attained the Unattainable With Historic Flight Across Atlantic" (Charles Lindbergh obituary). The New York Times, August 27, 1974, p. 18). For those reasons the family sailed in secret from New York for Liverpool, England on December 22, 1935 as the only three passengers on board the freighter S.S. American Importer. The Lindberghs remained living in exile in England (and later France) for more then three years before returning in April, 1939.

*Among the sources I have cited in the article that support the contemporary and later view that the family had indeed "fled" the United States under pressure and in secret are:

• The January 6, and January 13, 1936, TIME Magazine articles "The Press: Hero & Herod" and "The Press: Hero & Herod (Pt 2)" include the following statements on this issue:

"At 2:53 a. m. on Sunday, Dec. 22, Charles Augustus Lindbergh, with his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their 3-year-old son Jon, sailed furtively out of New York Harbor toward Europe aboard the S. S. American Importer." ...

"News of the Lindbergh flight broke in the final Monday edition of the New York Times, on the streets at 4 a.m.. The New York American, morning Hearst paper, cribbed the Times' copyright story, slapped it on the front page of an extra edition. The rest of Manhattan's morning newspapers were left sitting on their hands. Since Colonel Lindbergh had offered no public explanation of his departure, and radiograms sent to him on the American Importer were returned with the notation "Addressee not aboard," the Times' story remained the scripture on which the week's exegesis was built." ...

" International News Service was led to believe that the Lindberghs had fled simply to escape the approaching tumult over Murderer Hauptmann's execution scheduled for this month." ....

"Quitter? Coward? Editorial sentiment was overwhelmingly but not unanimously with the fleeing Lindberghs." ...

"Having been convulsed by the flight of Hero Charles Augustus Lindbergh's family from the Herods of U. S. lawlessness and yellow journalism, U. S. editors, who spent last fortnight proclaiming their country's inferiority to Great Britain in manners and morals (TIME. Jan. 6), maintained almost unanimous silence last week as they watched the Lindberghs run to ground like rabbits by the British Press."

(NOTE: While these TIME articles are not individually signed (no TIME articles are), the names of the editors and reporters responsible for them are included in the magazine's masthead and TIME has always been accepted by Wikipedia as a "reliable source" for articles.)

• The Universal Newsreel story reported by Graham McNamee showing the arrival of the Lindberghs in England is entitled:

"The Lindberghs Fleeing From U.S. Land in England".

• The 1993 book "Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax" by Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier reads at page 194:

"In fact, Charles Lindbergh fled the country. It is no coincidence that his escape from the United States occurred just before Hauptmann's scheduled execution, and at a time when Governor Hoffman's investigation into the evidence was bringing greater public scrutiny. Charles Lindbergh did not want to be around during that scrutiny."

Thus use of the terms "fleeing", "fled", and "flight" are all both well supported by multiple reliable sources, are not my POV, and are all appropriate for use under WP guidelines. Centpacrr ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But the NYT and most other sources do not use the term "fleeing", the biography is overladen with purple prose <g> and has even got a nice copyvio from "We" which has no business in the article in the first place. Biographies should be encyclopedia overviews - not a collection of every factoid flavoured with the editor's POV about the family. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have provided four reliable published sources that describe both the contemporary and historic views that the Lindberghs indeed "fled" from the United States to Europe in December, 1935, because (in Lindbergh's own words to NYT writer Deac Lyman) he felt that remaining in the US had become untenable. (See above) This characterization is thus not my personal POV, but is instead a well sourced statement of a fact verified by multiple reliable contemporary and historic literary reference sources. Although you keep claiming that "most other sources" do not use these terms (which, by the way, would also be irrelevant), you do not provide any examples of what these alleged "sources" are other than a single 4,300 word obituary of Lindbergh's wife, Anne, published 66 years after the family's self exile written by somebody who was not even born in 1935 and that includes exactly one 25-word sentence that relates in any way at all to the subject under discussion. You have offered no explanation or evidence at all to support your claim that there are "200+ other sources", and you have also failed to in any way refute the sources which I have provided which do use the terms. (See above)

As for the brief three sentence boxed quote from Lindbergh's 1927 book "WE", it is directly on the point (and in his own words) of Lindbergh's view as to why he considered his year of Army flight training to be the critically important one in his development as both a focused, goal oriented individual, as well as a skillful and resourceful aviator -- something without which he would have never been able to make the non-stop solo flight to Paris which changed his life and made him world famous. The quotation is fully identified as to its origin, and its brevity and manner of use falls fully within the meaning of 17 USC §107, the "fair use" provision of the U.S. Copyright law. That being the case, it is most assuredly not a copyright violation.

As for "POV", with respect, sir or madam, I really think you need to take a look in the mirror on this point. Your claims that this long standing and mature article is "overladen with purple prose" and constitutes "a collection of every factoid flavoured (sic) with [other] editors' POV about the family" is really just an expression of your own personal POV and is not supported by either objective facts or WP guidelines. A review of your edit history reveals that you seem to spend a great deal of your time on WP seeking to pablumize biographical articles and render their language as sterile and unexpressive as possible. While WP articles should not contain the personal POVs of their editors (and this one does not, at least not mine), that does not mean that the verified and reliably sourced points of view of WP articles' subjects, those with whom they interacted, and often the public at large, are not appropriate to be included. In fact these are often essential elements of WP biographies if they are to accurately reflect the lives of the persons who are their subjects.

People who have done enough in their lives to deserve biographical articles on Wikipedia are by definition accomplished individuals with complex backgrounds, personal histories and relationships, political and social views, and many other aspects to themselves that make them notable. To accurately describe them and their lives therefore actually requires the use of descriptive (or what you might call "purple") language and their articles thus properly include adjectives, anecdotes, quotations, etc. to flesh them out as notable persons. That is all that has been done over the years by the many contributors to the Lindbergh article to reflect both his personal accomplishments and interests as well as the many more controversial aspects of his life, times, and relationships. Any failure to include such well sourced and verified material about these aspects of Lindbergh's (or any other subject of a WP biographical article) life would be both misleading and a disservice to those who come to Wikipedia to learn about them.

With respect, it seems to me that you are really just beating a dead horse here now by your relentless campaign to pablumize this article and remove verified material about Lindbergh that for some unstated reason you find "too colorful" or descriptive. I have spent a great deal of time providing you with extensive verified and reliable sources for that material to which you have responded not with any evidence to the contrary but only you own POV that you just don't like it. I think it's really time for you accept the documented evidence provided that in December, 1935 the Lindbergh's "fled" from the United States to Europe to go into voluntary self exile for more than three years, and to move on to tilting at a different windmill. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Counting both edits and verbiage on the biography and here - all I need say is "Quod Erat Demonstrandum." Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to their own personal opinions (or POV), but without presenting anything to support them (or, for that matter, to refute the sources offered by others) that's all they are -- your own personal opinions or POV. As you have again failed to respond to any of the points I have made above, however, I will take that as your having nothing to say in defense of your position.

I invite your attention to a posting made by yourself in another thread on the general topic of verifiable "truth" just today that supports my position in this instance, to-wit: "Alas - too good an example of how some presumably reasonable editors can act when what they know is shown not to be so. This is not the only example thereof, but one where a specific author as an expert ran into the "brick wall" of Wikipedia guardians (several of whom are prominent, and communally self-protective) against being shown to be wrong on matters of fact. On matters of opinion - "chacun a son gout" is reasonable, on stuff like "no connections were shown at trial" then we do, indeed, need more than "a majority of our sources say the White House is purple." The reliable and verifiable sources cited in the article (see above) show that your contention that "you know" the Lindberghs were not generally viewed both contemporarily by the press and public, as well as by later historians in books on the topic, to be "fleeing" to Europe because life had become untenable for them in the United States (and not just "leaving" the country) is in fact untrue, and that you have provided no sources that refute the verifiable contemporary view that they were indeed seen as "fleeing."

So, as you say, QED and let's just leave it at that. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a dispute at 2011–2012 Syrian uprising over whether or not to include mention of CIA support for the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état. The text in question has been removed a number of times, most recently here. Two editors are claiming the material is COATRACK, while a third has objected on the grounds that its inclusion is designed to make a point.Two editors (myself being one) have argued that it is relevant and appropriate to include, per NPOV, as it is mentioned in connection with the current events by experts in the field such as Stephen Zunes (see here) and Joseph Massad ( here). Please also see the sources cited in the diff and read the relevant discussion attempting to resolve the issue at the talk page, where alt proposals have been made. Your input would be most welcome. Tiamut ^talk 19:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when can a discussion at an article talk page decide to overrule NPOV. See List of nicknames of United States presidents, which at the top says "This is a list of non-derisory nicknames of United States presidents which were in common usage at the time they were in office or shortly thereafter." Who is judging what is "derisory" and if a derisory nickname is verifiable and notable, why wouldn't we include it? When did we become Hagiograhiapedia? Jehochman ^Talk 19:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point, but why on Earth do we have a list of nicknames any way? Seems utterly trivial. Nev1 ( talk) 19:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a separate good question. Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Two problems with derisory nicknames:

1. They're more ephemeral, have reduced reliable sourcing
2. Many of them are so non-specific, or rather, shared by all US Presidents, or a great majority of them, that they're not really nicknames but more epithets.

This shouldn't trouble excellent encyclopaedists when compiling a list of nicknames though, merely make the list of abusive nicknames limited to what is reliably sourced. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems like an RS issue instead of an NPOV one. ElKevbo ( talk) 23:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem with the article title as much as anything. An article entitled "List of nicknames of United States presidents" should include all nicknames which are reliably sourced and not undue. An article entitled "List of non-derisory nicknames of United States presidents" can reasonably begin with the sentence "This is a list of non-derisory nicknames of United States presidents which were in common usage at the time they were in office or shortly thereafter.", but other editors might well want to balance it with one entitled "List of derisory nicknames of United States presidents". Cusop Dingle ( talk) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been a major issue regarding this article. We originally had to go to mediation but the "defendant" never placed her own defense and had to be closed. However the others have made it clear merging was strong enough for consensus. And now trying to revamp the discussion, but unfortunately over runned by fans who ignore the policies and give troll-like responces. It would be great if it had more eyes. Lucia Black ( talk) 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The article in question has had numerous disputes over the last few years, having been brought up on this AFD, this WikiProject page, this noticeboard, and on this mediation case. The most recent discussion in question is at Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)#Due to closure of mediation... just so everyone's aware of what is going on. I have already informed WP:ANIME of this discussion here, but so far there has been a few responses. Disputes continue despite WP:NPOV and the mediation's consensus that we should merge the article to the main article. This dispute has gone on for years. I am also asking for a solution. Outside input would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 00:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I advise others who wish to express support for a merge to keep WP:BAIT in mind and avoid being drawn into a protracted dispute. Read the history, express an opinion and move on. The sooner this saga is over (and I mean permanently over), the better. Claret Ash 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The National Marriage Project

This article needs some help. I tried to balance it a little, but I'm not sure I'm equipped to do this. The organization claims non-partisanship and non-sectarian-ship, but there exist opposing opinions that probably should be taken into account. I tried to outline one at least, but more experienced writers and people involved with these contentious issues would probably do a better job.

69.86.225.27 ( talk) 16:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the references. So far the article just states a small amount about the existence of the project. I see that the article needs more development but I do not see bias in the references or the article. Could you state more specifically what your concern is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I ran across the article El Rod at WP:COIN when the user Elrodmusic created it ( its original form). It was filled with puffery, unreferenced claims, and intricate/unneeded details such as, "He created a Facebook account under pressure from his friends complaining that he should be as active on the internet as he is in real life. He also created a Twitter account but deleted it the very next day." The user was indefinitely blocked per a WP:USERNAME violation and change their username to PaulBarner ( talk · contribs). I asked about a connection and they replied that they, "have no relation to the subject." Semantics aside, the issues haven't stopped there. The user has removed maintenance templates several times and has received warning templates regarding those edits. Ignorance of WP policy aside, the user has added references to articles that don't support the claims made, don't even mention the subject of the article, are to non-reliable blogs, don't exist, or some combination of those issues.

The user has accused me of "blatantly ignoring the Wiki rules" by issuing him warnings and claims that "No dialogue is also exchanged". Not only do I feel that I was within reason by issuing the warnings. I also have attempted to communicate with the user here, here, here, and here, as well as this section on my talk page where he and I discussed the issues. The attempts on the talk page of the article and on the user's talk page have been removed by the user (see here and here). He has also uploaded a copyrighted photo that has been deleted then re-uploaded to WP, claiming to know the photographer. Lastly, the user is still an WP:SPA.

The user has recently responded to my comments here, inside of my comments, which I reverted and have attempted to explain on the user's talk page how to better use talk pages to keep them from being too complicated to understand.

Given the evidence, I think that at best, this user is understandably ignorant to WP policies and guidelines, is a fan of El Rod (a musician), and has had issues inserting the correct references in the right place and in the correct format, as well as trouble understanding our policies and guidelines when they're presented. At worst, the issue has a close connection with the subject or is the subject of the article, is attempting to promote that artist, and is willing to lie to do it.

I have worked extensively at WP:COIN, patrolling new articles, and dealing with WP:COPYVIO articles. Mostly due to an influx in new articles and copyright issues related to education programs like WP:IEP, I've burned out and I'm attempting to take a Wikibreak so that editing WP doesn't feel like such a chore. I think this is better for me and more importantly, it's better for Wikipedia. That being the case, I can't keep up working with this user on this article and this seems like the best place to ask for help with this issue as I don't want to just let this article that slips through the cracks. If you wish to contact me, please do so on my talk page as that's essentially the only thing I'll be checking for a while. OlYeller21 ^Talktome 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• List of oldest universities in continuous operation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

After a previous discussion about this subject (see the extensible box below), a consensus was reached about the fact that excludinf non-European universities is a POV, and nobody opposed the proposed draft text.

However, some users think that this doesn't represent a consensus and that the previous version of the list is still appropriated. I wonder if the discussion should be re-started or continued, or if we can take a decision based on the previous discussion?

Link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 29#The University of Al-Karaouine and the List of oldest universities in continuous operation

Omar-Toons ( talk) 11:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah geez. Are they still saying it's not a university because the pope didn't something or other? I just had to check to see if it was even clear who the pope *was* that year, but apparently there was only one in that particular year. Before that and after that - not so clear ;) The idea that this even matters is making me lose my temper ;) The Church may have been the defining factor in such matters in the Dark Ages, but there's been a Renaissance and an Industrial Revolution and like a thousand years since then, thank God. We are allowed to use university to mean a place of higher learning, in general. Yes we are. I don't remember what the draft text was, but anything that doesn't make the Vatican the authority in the matter is fine with me. Elinruby ( talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the topic of this thread of course, but the term "Dark Ages" is generally frowned upon and has been old fashioned for at least half a century. If you used the term in a university you'd make lecturers cry. Nev1 ( talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

But appropriate in this instance :P I'll make sure to leave out of the next article I edit about barbarian invasions, ok? I'm fundamentally offended by the notion that nobody was learned in the tenth century but Christians. I mean -- I am sure the *Christians* thought so... but... And you're worried about what to *call* an age like that? How about nasty short and brutish? You've done it now. I'll have to go review a Song of Roland concordance, and make really sure to use the term <g> Yes I am kidding. And yes, you're off-topic :P I agree with you. Elinruby ( talk) 13:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a cocktail of arrogance and ignorance in the term the "Dark Ages", but why worry about that. Academic sources seem to be quite clear that universities and madrasahs are separate entities. The sources Omar Toons has been peddling have been often poor and usually tangentially related to the subject; the speciailist sources seem quite clear on the issue. Nev1 ( talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue as I recall was *very* ethnocentric criteria. Sources for the date are a separate problem and as noted above, this is not the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't think Wikipedia should resort to elaborate constructions like "List of institutions of higher education" over ancient definitions that denigrate learning in other cultures. In fact, Wikipedia should abolish lists altogether as they are magnets for this type of silly discussion about what is a "real" country and what is a "real" university. PS - As a small bit of advice, if you are going to throw around words like "arrogance" and "ignorance" it's best to be oneself humble enough to run spellcheck. I will be quiet now and let other people talk. Elinruby ( talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're making barbed remarks for a typo? Forgive me for being fallible. So far you have contributed little of worth to the conversation regarding universities, it is perhaps a good call on your part to be quiet. Nev1 ( talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask your opinion. Merely pointed out that calling anyone "ignorant" raises the bar when it comes to one's own posts. Spell-check is good in such cases. Keeps you from looking silly. As for not contributing anything of value, perhaps you mean little that supports your point of view. Look under the hat-note. I was very much involved when this came up before and posted a number of references that are absolutely RS. I thought perhaps you were not involved last time and thus had overlooked them...but I see you did post and therefore knew of the discussion. Why did you not participate then, is my question. In other words, is this same issue back again in hopes of another consensus this time? I don't get it. Elinruby ( talk) 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, academic sources don't agree on this, as you may see by the several sources cited recently at the University of Al-Karaouine talk page. Remember most of our thinking on this is influenced by a tradition of Western exceptionalism. Seen in the round, as what universities do, there were great overarching similarities between what medieval Western institutions, called universities at the time, did, and what took place in Sung China, and the Islamic world. If your definition of 'university' summarizes what these became in modern Western tradition, then it excludes all other institutional forms of higher learning, but risks being ethnocentric nominalism. 'Nationalism' and 'feudalism' have suffered from the same problem: are we referring to nationalism-qua-Western modernization, or feudalism-qua-medieval Western societies, or do the words have analytic value for non-European historical societies. The academic world has no consensus on these issues, and yes/no varies according to scholars.

Therefore, if several reputable sources describe non-western schools as 'universities', we should leave the conceptual border determination to scholarship, and simply refer what those sources say, case by case. Wiki can't decide these issues, since the academic world itself is conflicted in their regard. Nishidani ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. WP:NPOV requires us to present the scholarly viewpoints that Al-Karaouine was a university founded in the ninth century. NPOV also requires us to present the opposite viewpoint. Completely deleting one viewpoint is a violation of the policy. VR _talk 21:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And this is what was previously proposed and on which nobody was opposed. -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 00:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, the "inclusionsit" camp has only provided sources that are either not reliable (children's books), not academic (UNESCO, Guiness Book), or generalist in nature. The "exclusionist" camp has provided much higher caliber sources, sources that are scholarly investigations into the history and origin of the modern university. These are presented and discussed in detail at the article talkpage, yet for whatever reason Omar-Toons is avoiding that discussion, instead insisting on coming here. Athenean ( talk) 01:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall posting a list of sources the last time this was up on this board that were not only reliable but scholarly. They included a published doctoral thesis, a couple of academic articles in French and hmm maybe a conference paper... I excluded mentions in passing and anything that mentioned Guinness, and only listed texts that used the word "university." This is well beyond the bar for a reliable source on Wikipedia. I suspect that a search on Arabic texts would find many more. Insisting on English-language articles in journals devoted to the history of European educational institutions naturally will skew the results, can you not see that? Elinruby ( talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to recall? Well, where are they? Anyway, conference papers and doctoral theses are not on the same level as the sources presented at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation. It's a question of undue weight. The editors agitating for the inclusion of madrasahs in the list of oldest universities want to do so even though the weight of the sources is against that. There is only one table. Either we include the madrasahs or we exclude them. The weight of the evidence indicates that we shouldn't. I will also note that those editors are only interested in adding Karaouine and Al-Azhar, not any of the other many old madrasahs. Why? Because those two are the only two whose date of foundation predates that of the University of Bologna. In other words, they are not interested in the subject per se, or in truly improving the article, but rather only to push the POV that "Muslims invented the University!". Fairly transparent. Athenean ( talk) 01:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Click the link that says "show" on the green bar where it says "Extended content". Elinruby ( talk) 01:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Athenian has been provided with numerous scholarly and academic sources, but has chosen to ignore them because he insists that they do not specialize in the subject of "history of the university". [44] In Athenian's view sources that deal with "higher education" are irrelevant (even though some are authored by professors). Athenian has also been presented with a scholarly work entitled "The Oldest University in the World" (published in the British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no.1745, p.1269). Athenian's criteria of what a reliable source must be seems to have no basis in WP:RS. VR _talk 02:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is frankly worrying that it's not obvious to you that the British Medical Journal isn't relevant to the article. Nev1 ( talk) 02:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Nick Foskett, professor of education, writing a book on higher education and making the exact same claim? [45] VR _talk 02:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but considering the source is about marketing higher education rather than the origin of universities it should still take second place to sources actually focussed on the issue. The sooner you realise that the better. Nev1 ( talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming disruptive how you are repeating the same things over and over. It was explained to you in the article talkpage why a source on the "marketization" of the university is problematic. What do you tihnk you will accomplish by posting it again here? It is also disruptive the way you are pretending that source that refute your POV don't exist. These were provided in the article talkpage, yet you are ignoring them as if they didn't exist. And they are of much higher quality than any of the sources you have provided. Athenean ( talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation is the exact opposite. I realize that that there is disagreement amongst historians on the oldest university. I have even quoted those sources. I want this disagreement to be reflected in the article. I want the article to acknowledge that the oldest university could be at Fez, Cairo, or Bologna.

You on the other hand want only Bologna to be recognized as the oldest. You want to exclude reliable and scholarly sources. You want to pretend that reliable sources on the university at Fez don't exist. I want to include all the reliable sources and their viewpoints. That is both the spirit and letter of NPOV. VR _talk 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That can be done by means of a footnote in the article. But since the visual impact of the table is greater than that of a footnote, preference for the table should be given to side with the weightier evidence, and that side is clearly the University of Bologna. Would not excluding Karaouine and Al-Azhar from the table, but mentioning them in a footnote be acceptable to you? Athenean ( talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the evidence for Bologna looks weightier to you because you dismiss so much of the evidence against it? I'd like to see a list of the references pro and con, myself, without having to go hunt them through multiple arguments on two discussion pages. Look at the Taliban post above - whatever the merits of the OP's case, that's an organized presentation. BTW, there also seem to be transliteration issues -- I get about 500 more hits on Google Scholar using "al qarawiyyin". Not all of them will meet the criteria I mentioned above, but they don't have to. If the contention is that the sources need to be not only reliable but also scholarly and beyond that only come from journals devoted to the history of education, then I am sorry; you are simply wrong. Elinruby ( talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I think lists of sources for Bologna, Fez and Cairo should be collected and presented. If anyone feel that a source violates WP:RS, then that source will be ignored. This will give us an idea where the scholarly consensus stands. VR _talk 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a few configurations that we can have, but I'm glad that you've decided to at least include reliably sourced viewpoints.

1) put them in the table with the European table, with the notes mentioning that many scholars dispute their status as universities (and many don't). 2) Putting non-European institutions in a separate table and section entitled as such (below the European table, for lesser "visual impact"), with a paragraph detailing the views of historians on this matter.

Regarding footnote: I don't think, given the number and details of viewpoints, that it would be wise to discuss this there.

I would like to hear what sort of creative solutions other users can come up with. VR _talk 03:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note the header saying that (for example) definitions of "university" vary; see sidebar for further details. I don't know what the conventions are on lists but I think that the reader, who may be surprised to find or not find something on a list, deserves to know if appropriate that the terminology is, uh...not agreed upon. I also think that the term "madrassah" is to US ears at least associated with the Taliban at the moment. However unfortunate this may be, it's a fact. So care should be used in using it. I saw a comment saying that a madrassah is more like a lycée than a university; not sure if that's true but if those are its associations in Arabic, that's another reason to use the word cautiously if at all. Elinruby ( talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) The weight of the scholarly (a word used by VR above) evidence is clearly that the University of Bologna is the oldest continuously operating university in the world. None of the sources in favor of Karaouine are scholarly. Rather, numerous specialized, scholarly sources have been provided in the article talkpage that clearly state that Bologna is the oldest functioning university. As such, I propose that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be kept out of the table, but a footnote explaining that some non-scholarly sources consider Karaouine to be the oldest functioning university be added to the article. Athenean ( talk) 03:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose - Many peer-reviewed journal articles have in fact been provided to support Al-Karaouine. If you wish to prove that Bologna is older, then please meet the same standard in your arguments. Possibly "university" is a term of art in the history of education; but mere mortals consider it a synonym for "institution of higher learning", and easier to pronounce as well. There is more than enough RS to support the 9th-century founding in my opinion; the only question in my mind is what criteria should be used for weight? But I guarantee that the answer is not going to be "we ignore everything that hasn't been published in an English-language journal about the history of higher education," no matter who else chimes in. That position is simply bizarre. Elinruby ( talk) 04:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What "many peer-reviewed journal articles"? I only see one, a passing mention in a medical journal, not an education or history of science journal. As for evidence in favor of Bologna, it is presented at the article talkpage. And I've never said that only an "English-language journal about the history of higher education" is an acceptable source, so spare me the straw man argument. Athenean ( talk) 04:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

summary of the above discussion, which is not closed, but contains some very long posts:

• Athenean has not made his case that a preponderance of scholarly sources support the statement that the university is a European institution and therefore the University of Bologna is the oldest university. Of his three sources, two dealt with medieval Europe only and unsurprisingly do not mention the school at Fez. The third actually discusses the Islamic roots of European universities.
• VR provided a long list of sources ranging from good down to a bit weak. There is enough RS several times over to support the 9th-century founding, and several mentions of al-Karaouine's age and status as oldest university by people with very strong academic credentials.
• I added some references, which I think are RS, scholarly and specific, but someone else should review them.

I agree that "university" seems to have a specific meaning among medievalists, but universities are important topics in many other fields, such as the broader field of history, education, sociology, area studies (ie foreign service topics), communication theory, philosophy and religion, to name a few. Nor do all medieval scholars appear to subscribe to this paradigm. Based on the literature review above, if anything should be consigned to a footnote it is an exclusionist and demonstrably offensive (see discussion pages for Islamic reaction) view of some scholars in a single field. This is a question of history, but not only of the medieval history of the European university. Athenean said this is not his position, but declined to explain what his position might otherwise be. Caveat: since I went looking for sources, I conceivably am no longer uninvolved. I am not sure of the policy on this. Someone should at least read over the above discussion, as it is also not inconceivable that the name-calling on one side of this question has colored my thinking. But this is my best good-faith attempt to objectively assess the matter. Thanks. Elinruby ( talk)

I think there's enough sources to believe that multiple universities (Fez, Bologna, Cairo) have claims to being the oldest in the world. Good sources have been provided for all of these. We should include all these claims in the article. VR _talk 04:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we got the same conclusion than the previous discussion. Great! I hope that nobody will come in 2 weeks a pretends that this is not a NPOV issue. -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your attemps at pretending a consensus which supports your view when there is absolutely none have become a bit tiresome by now. This is no POV but a contents issue which is mainly about historical understanding and semantic differentiation. The issue is chiefly discussed at Talk:List of oldest universities in continuous operation and the participants arguing for a identity of (Muslim) mosque schools with (Christian) universities are invited to bring forward pertinent sources, which they have not done so yet. It is clear that the use of the word "university" as such counts for very little, even (or, rather, particularly) when it comes with the bold claim of priority, because , due to its sweeping historical success, the Western "university" has become today all over the world a generic term synonymous with "centre of higher education" (much like Cola is today a generic term due to the global success of one particular brand, Coca Cola). So what we need are scholarly, preferably specialist sources on the university and its history which make a comprehensive, argumentative case for madrasah = university, none of which, however, has been presented so far. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gun Powder Ma on his characterisation of the situation. I would also note that if we are going to extend the definition of university to include madrasahs then we would also have to consider the inclusion of cathedral schools. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The question here isn not if Medersas were universities or not, but if Al-Karaouine was a university or not, and there are many RS stating that it was a university, while many other RS, stating that it wasn't, exist.

The fact that these two viewpoints are both relied by RS makes it a NPOV issue, and since only a single viewpoint is shown on these WP articles, that the NPOVN discussion prevails over any other discussion (especially the one on the Talk Page).

Omar-Toons ( talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As been said, the real discussion takes place here, but just to outline the issue for non-involved and non-informed users: The issue is the very strong claim forwarded by user Omar that certain Muslim mosque schools which were founded in the Muslim world before the first Christian universities were founded in the West were 1. universities and 2. the oldest universities. This is a true logical fallacy (namely a category mistake): The fact that the Christian university and Muslim madrasah were both centres of higher education does not make the madrasah any more a university than the fact that both mosques and churches are places of worship makes a mosque a church: although belong to the same category 'centres of higher education', they are different members of this category just as mosques and churches are different members of the category 'places of worship'.

The historical reality is rather this: the university was the system of higher education peculiar to the Christin medieval West. Nowhere else did universities exist then. Other world regions also had centres of higher education but they were different from the university both in name and structure (just as the mosque is different from the church both in name and structure). The university later was exported from the West all over the world and has become the only system everywhere. But the fact that these early Muslim madrasahs have become today universities does not determine their status in the Middle Ages. Back then, they were a different form of higher education, one which is peculiar to the Islamic world, namely the madrasah. The claim that mosque schools were the same as universities is therefore truly grotesque and monstruous.

The fact that the university and the madrasah are the subject of separate articles demonstrates unassailably that WP consensus is that they are separate institutions. Consequently and logically, we also has two different lists, one referring to madrasahs and one referring to universities. Now what Omar actually argues for is that we should mix these list, namely that we should subsume madrasahs also under universities (although, mysteriously not the other way round). But why should we list mosque schools among universities? Who would think of listing mosques in a list of churches? All this makes absolutely no sense. The answer is clear: we should include madrasahs in a university when and only when they have been refounded and reorganized as universities and that is what we have been actually doing at the List of oldest universities in continuous operation for years now. So, Wikipedia treats them most clearly as two separate institutions and Omar edit-warring against this WP consensus is the real irritating POV here. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gun Powder Ma's understanding of this issue, but would develop one more point. Not only were madrasah's not universities, but neither were medieval cathedral or monastic schools universities. Some of them developed into universities; the cathedral school of Paris and the monastic school of St. Victor both contributed to the later University of Paris, but we would not think of listing them as universities. Neither would we list the cathedral school of Chartres and the monastic school of St. Gallen, which did not become universities. None of these schools had the corporate autonomy that emerged in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and became the defining characteristic of a university. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like you, if you would, to expand on this idea of corporate autonomy, which none of its proponents have yet properly explained. Am I correct in understanding that the contention is that European schools were independent of the Church but Islamic universities were not independent of Islamic religious figures? And if the reason to for not listing the cathedral schools is that they did not become universities, then how is this relevant to the current discussion? This is a serious question, not sarcasm. Elinruby ( talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic : The question here is not if Medersas were universities or not, but if Al-Karaouine was a university or not, and there are many RS stating that it was a university, while many other RS, stating that it wasn't, exist. Both viewpoints are relied by RS, both have to be expressed. This is WP's NPOV policy, and it is non-negotiable. -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 15:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not off topic at all, since the issue is that, just as the Cathedral School of Paris led to the University of Paris, when and under what circumstances did the School of Al-Karaouine become a university. I'm not familiar with the detailed history of that school, but I notice that its Wikipedia page says it was organized as a modern university in 1947. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you already know that a Wikipedia page isn't a RS ;) -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 16:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There is nothing more to say than what's already been said. The title should be changed if the list is going to be restricted to Western Institutions. This should go to RFC, vote count and get done with it. Even if that's not the best option but at least it would give some legitimacy to the Euro-centric team claims. -- Tachfin ( talk) 17:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I proposed that Karaouine and Al-Azhar be mentioned in a footnote or somewhere other than the table, but I guess this concession was interpreted as a sign of weakness by the Islamo-centric team. Athenean ( talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose, contrary to the WP:NPOV policy.

By the way, the Islamo-centric position would be that Al-Karaouine is undoubtedly the oldest one ; this is the stric opposite of the Euro-centric one which is that Bologna is undoubtedly the oldest one. Each claim is contested by Reliable sources. The WP:NPOV implies that, since both positions are sourced by RS, both have to be mentioned.

Omar-Toons ( talk) 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially what I think; the only question is how and with what wording. Elinruby ( talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Readers might wish to note that VR _talk has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 11:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Could we also check Aaljuma. Looks like the Islamo-centrist faction is running here several fight nicks to bolster up its position. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cough - if you want to accuse other editors of being somehow bad, there are other noticeboards for that. Aaljuma, whoever he or she may be, has not participated in this discussion and so your sniggering suggestions about him or her are off-topic here and would in any event be inappropriate if he or she had done so. Do you wish to address the current paucity of reliable sources in this group of articles? If not, then why are you here? Oh and by the way, the Vice Regent account was unblocked yesterday. Not that he is a "fight nick" -- are you? I do not think the reference to "faction" was polite or constructive. Thanks. Elinruby ( talk) 14:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• • noted: The sources/links that he provided should be reviewed then. I will take a few minutes and repost the ones that might be reliable. -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 14:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • They all fall within the definition of reliable source -- with the possible exception of the 1894 journal article, whose existence I could not verify. (Ya, it's in a category that says I did, which is my mistake). But they are references to mainstream and academic publications with no connection to the author, and there is reason to give varying degrees of credibility to his authors. Some of them I'd throw out; if there is no citation for the statement, it is, for all we know, based on the Guinness Book of Records, and we still don't know what their basis is for the statement. On the other hand, some of the authors are very notable and very respectable academically. So sockpuppet or not (whose, by the way?) VR had a point. On the other hand, no single source of his matched Athenean's three for serious academics, but Athenean was trying to prove a global statement with sources whose scope was limited to Europe. Some of the sources *I* found were limited to Africa, but they are, I submit, at least equal academically to Athenean's. So, lacking a source that deals with the overall regional history, except for Athenean's one RS source, which does not support his position, it seems to me that weight is *not* on the side of Europe exceptionalism, even if you limit the sourcing to medieval history, and I see no reason to do so. I suggest a prominent mention somewhere of something along the lines of: "Early higher education had strong ties to religion and was quite different from what takes place in today's universities. Different authors in different fields have used different criteria to arrive at diverging opinions about which university was "first." These include subjects taught, degree granted, charter and (anything else that fits here). This list uses "university" as a synonym for "institution of higher education" and notes the disputes concerning early universities' founding in its footnotes." Or any version of the above that can be agreed upon. That said, the fundamental problem here is that the article is a list, which by definition loses many of reality's shades of grey. There was recently a similar dispute on List of national emblems about whether some places were "real" countries. Elinruby ( talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Agree : I made a proposition on the previous discussion, maybe we could start from the previous draft text and edit it to fit the (few) newly introduced elements? -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I just went and looked at your previous proposal. I don't really have an issue with it, except that I don't know what "different historical trajectories" means and neither, I suspect, does anyone else. I am not particularly attached to the specific wording above, by the way; my primary point is that if there are RS for three different institutions then this needs to be said. But I do not think it is reasonable to expect Wikipedia to adopt a specialized definition which does not reflect a consensus in its own field. This can be avoided by using the definition in current use in modern English, and pointing out that some historians use another one, is what I am saying. Since I am philosophically opposed to lists (which create this sort of controversy) I do not want to engage on specific wordings. But the article should not say that *any* of these institutions is or is not a "real" university -- this is a matter of definition better left to footnotes imho. Elinruby ( talk) 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's so sad how quick some people are to judge you. VR _talk 03:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: List of oldest universities in continuous operation is in effect a subpage of University. If we are going to have such a list at all (and I can see the strength of the argument that such lists are intrinsically trouble generating) then we should follow the definition of university used there. That is what the current form does. If anybody wishes to change the definition of university used in the list article they should first establish that change at the top article. This procedure ensures that such a proposal receieves full and proper scrutiny from expert eyes. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, although the parties and arguments there seem to be essentially the same. (And to cite the article in question here....) Maybe Omar, who has already participated on that comment page, should point out that the question has been re-opened here. Gunpowder Ma has not actually said anything above as far as I know...On the other hand, other exceptionalists seem to be refusing to participate, which imho should bar them from complaining of a lack of consensus here. Elinruby ( talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly some common themes in recent edits, though the definition of university found particularly in University#Medieval_universities seems stable and well referenced. But my principal point here is that we should avoid List of oldest universities in continuous operation (or, for that matter, the recently renamed List of oldest universities in continuous operation in the Muslim world) becoming WP:POVFORKs from university. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see the concern for consistency but am not sure, without going into this more than I already have, that I see how to resolve this except by expanding the scope of the discussion. The article definition may be stable but it has the same POV problem as the list; one way to resolve this may be to say "earliest european universities" vs "earliest universities" in the medieval section. This would however still leave the article with many of the problems that have been highlighted on the list, particularly the definition. But the article does benefit from a format where we can perhaps better explain the shades of grey. I have not looked at its references, but as noted above, there seems to be plentiful evidence that this definition is not universally accepted, even by specialists in the history of education. But yes, it would seem that this article should not contradict the list. I suggest waiting for comment from some of the involved editors? 21:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the nature of universities on the university page is both adequately nuanced and sufficiently referenced; the majority view is clearly explained and justified, and the minority view is covered adequately in my opinion, though there is always room for debate on niceties. The discussion in the sub-articles, by contrast, is far less satisfactory, and improving the clarity of the introductory sections there is the obvious next step. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary; I think you should take another look. There is no source provided at all for the definition used on that page, nor for the assertion that the institution was created in Europe and bestowed by it upon a previously benighted world. Almost all of the works cited have titles like "History of the European University," so it is unsurprising that its editors have not found indications of learning elsewhere. I'll say it again. A scholarly source does not mean a reliable source necessarily. A source is reliable, or not, for specific statements. You cannot prove that something did not happen outside Europe with texts that only deal with Europe. In the meantime other scholarly sources exist which do indeed use the word university for early institutions outside Europe. Elinruby ( talk) 13:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The page University was written by the same people than the List. (Sorry to not participate to this discussion as I'm supposed to do (as the one who started it), unfortunately I don't have enough free time these days. I'll probably be back in some 2-3 days)

-- Omar-Toons ( talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Omar, I opened a mediation cabal case just before you stopped editing about this. Either start that up when you return, or walk away. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

With a biased description? The question isn't if Medersas should be added, but if Al-Karaouine should be described as a University or not. The difference is that Al-Karaouine was a multidisciplinary high-learning institution frequented even by non-Muslims, which isn't the case of "Mosque-schools" (the "central" one of Fez being the Madrasa Al-Bouanania) where only religious teaching was provided. Unfortunately, I see a lack of good faith in this action, especially coming from a user who didn't participate to this discussion. -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 19:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So, it seems that nobody's interested in the Mediation Cabal case, and most perople find that there is an NPOV issue. Anyone to oppose that (again)? -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a very odd summary of the above discussion. And in any event the discussion has now moved to Talk:University which is where it belongs. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 09:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, again: There seems to be a NPOV issue, and NPOV issues can only be solved on the NPOVN. You can not decide without reaching a consensus here to close the NPOV case and to move the discussion to an article talk page.

People opposed to mention non-European universities are free to boycott the NPOVN, but they can not impose by their act the closure of the NPOV case.

-- Omar-Toons ( talk) 06:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So, it seems that the Mediation Cabal wasn't appropriate. Is any one still opposed to the treatment of the article as a NPOV issue? -- Omar-Toons ( talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been away from Wikipedia as a whole for about a month, as I had things to take care of irl and felt the need to devote my limited free time to speaking out about internet censorship. Just wanted to say that it was not lack of interest that kept me from participating in the mediation attempt. I still feel that both University and List of oldest universities suffer from a glaring Eurocentric bias, which I have not yet managed to get anyone on the other side of the issue to consider let alone acknowledge. My experience with this issue is that they go oh haha you people are so ignorant to think that universities existed outside of Europe, and then they link to some tome entitled A History of the University in Europe or something of the kind. Elinruby ( talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some users [54] who boycotted this board seem no not be ready to accept the fact that their opinion is clearly POV [55] and we still have a Euro-centric(*) biased list on the main article [56]
Explanation: Euro-centric = European universities are undoubtedly the oldest ones / Islamo-centric = Islamic universities are undoubtedly the oldest ones / since both opinions are referenced by reliable sources, both have to be shown
Is it too hard to accept that other parts of the world than Europe were civilized?
-- Omar-Toons ( talk) 01:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Omar, would you be interested in mediation? We really need to resolve this issue and that will happen only through careful discussion. (If any other user is interested, please message me). VR _talk 05:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation cannot trump the need for scholarly sources that specialize in the topic. Editors cannot resolve the question of whether certain institutions were forerunners of universities. TLDR comments are not required: just provide some scholarly sources that specialize in the history of educational institutions and report what the sources say: Did the claimed forerunners influence modern universities in some way? How? Would modern universities be any different if the claimed forerunners had not existed? Johnuniq ( talk) 02:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@JohnuniqThe fact is that there are scholarly sources supporting both claims (for Al-Karaouine and Bologna as the oldest University in the world), and all the previous comments/discussion were about that, then the NPOV policy has to be applied. As written before, the only question is how and with what wording!
I proposed a draft text, nobody opposed it, but some users (who boycott the NPOVN) refused it to be applied on articles. I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.

@VR: Really, I'm not interested. The NPOV is a core content policy and I think that no discussion or arbitration can pass over it.

Omar-Toons ( talk) 00:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that these sources be considered; it does not require that they be given equal weight. Indeed WP:FRINGE specifically states that not all views should be given equal weight. The argument here is not whether such sources should be included, but rather how they should be handled. The current clear consensus at university is to include them as a minority view. The treatment on subpages of university simply reflects that consensus. As I have said before if you want to change this you should seek to change the treatment at university rather than trying to turn the list article into a WP:POVFORK. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 10:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but these sources are given no weight, and this is why we are discussing it on the NPOVN : There is no mention of the fact that some non-European universities are considered by some as the older ones.

As written before, NPOV can't be overpassed through an article's talk page, only the NPOVN can decide since it is a core content policy of WP : only the NPOVN can decide which weight to give to each source, and as you can see on the previous comments, some consider that they are of equal weight.

Omar-Toons ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

They are given little or no weight on the list page because the list page is a subpage of university and simply uses the definition established there. If you want to change the definition in use then you need to change it on university, otherwise you are going to end up breaching WP:POVFORK. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would ask you to read the previous comments on this thread -again- : The fact is that the article University -itself- is a POV sinci it is based on the same sources while not mentioning other sources stating different opinions, but that's not the question.

Btw, the title of the page is "List of oldest universities in continuous operation", which does mean that it is not a subpage of any other article, but is a Wiki article itself.

Omar-Toons ( talk) 20:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I went and looked at University and it cites the very same sources. I will also point out that as an uninvolved bystander I spent about three hours doing due diligence and found many many references to universities outside Europe, some of them by authors whose academic credentials at least equal those that the Eurocentrists keep waving around. They are listed above under a hatnote and I suggest that anyone who is trying to argue the weight of authoritative research re-read this thread, because ignoring it is not resolving those issues and while I agree that escalation from this noticeboard *should* not be necessary there really would be little choice if it continues to be ignored. As someone who has followed the thread from the beginning I will say it again:

You cannot take texts about the history of European universities and claim that 
because they do not mention any institution outside Europe, no non-European 
university therefore existed.

Elinruby ( talk) 04:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is disagreement over which source to use for the lead to Socialism:

1. Introduction to The Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-3, Rowman & Littlefield (2006): "...socialism eludes simple definition.... Then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism actually was." [The source then outlines different approaches that have been taken by various scholars.] [57]

2. Socialism: Today and Tomorrow,p. 33, South End Press (1981): All socialists, ourselves included, agree that the one precondition of socialism is the elimination of the distinction between capitalists and workers based upon private ownership of the means of production by capitalists. However, beyond “socialization of the means of production” which is simply the creation of public ownership, there is considerable disagreement about what constitutes a socialist economic system." [58]

My view is that (1) attempts to provide an objective summary of how the topic is defined, while (2) presents the views of its authors, who saw Marxism-Leninism as the only true socialism and provided the Soviet Union, China and Cuba as paradigms. TFD ( talk) 01:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You aren't presenting this properly. I recommended we use a minimum of 5 sources to establish the definition in the lead. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 08:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- last I looked one editor on other articles insisted on multiple RS sources within a field for any claims - meaning the tertiary source dictionary single non-definition fails ab initio. If the dictionary is used, then its range of definitions should be indicated in the lede. I agree that the definition is complex, and that therefore using multiple sources to show a range of meanings is logical. Is there any concrete reason not to reasonably show such a range in the lede? As opposed to begging the entire question until well into the article? Collect ( talk) 13:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, could you please read the sources provided before commenting. The intro to the dictionary is a secondary source, which explains the range of definitions that have been used. Why would we conduct our own original research to synthesize a definition? And I think we can safely ignore your unnamed "one editor". TFD ( talk) 05:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear me -- strange to see your two cents here. But I read the material pertinent to this discussion, and your attacks to the contrary make no cents at all. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) includes within it 3 scholarly studies of socialism as a whole by 3 important scholars - one of the scholars made a study of over 40 different definitions of socialism to come up with a general description of socialism, the other two of these scholars are highly reputable and have articles on themselves on Wikipedia. (1) accounts for many variations in socialism. (2) is a POV source, South End Press openly promotes a specific form of socialism based on Participatory economics, acceptance of the concept of class conflict, and advocacy of revolution to overthrow capitalism, and claims that certain forms of socialism that are claimed to be socialism by their adherants are stated by South End Press to be "in fact" "not socialist". These themes of South End Press of a radical participatory socialism, and support of the concept of class conflict and revolution to overthrow bourgeois capitalism are a far left conception of socialism, it ignores centre left conceptions of socialism that are not committed to class revolution such as social democracy, democratic socialism, forms of religious socialism, etc.-- R-41 ( talk) 02:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming at this from the angle "what statements are being made?", #2 essentially says that anything that does not meet the condition of advocating "the elimination of the distinction between capitalists and workers based upon private ownership of the means of production by capitalists." is not socialism. It sounds like this is an overreaching controversial claim that should be stated as one of many opinions, not as fact, and doubly so not as a definition in the lead. North8000 ( talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User: TFD stated, "There is disagreement over which source to use for the lead to Socialism". As I stated earlier, this isn't accurate. I recommended using a minimum of 5 sources. This is what the current article states:

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃ[invalid input: 'əɫ']ɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy; ^[1] or a political philosophy advocating such a system.

Please have a look at the source currently being used here [59]. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding South End Press, this is from their website:

South End Press is an independent, nonprofit, collectively-run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have met the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change. Our goal is to publish books that encourage critical thinking and constructive action on the key political, cultural, social, economic, and ecological issues shaping life in the United States and in the world. We hope to provide a forum for a wide variety of democratic social movements, and provide an alternative to the practices and products of corporate publishing.

From its inception, the Press has organized itself as an egalitarian collective with decision-making arranged to share as equally as possible the rewards and stresses of running the business. Each collective member is responsible for core editorial and administrative tasks, and all collective members earn the same base salary. The Press also has made a practice of inverting the pervasive racial and gender hierarchies in traditional publishing houses; our staff has been majority women since the mid-1980s, and has included at least 50 percent people of color since the mid-1990s. Our author list—which includes Arundhati Roy, Noam Chomsky, bell hooks, Winona LaDuke, Manning Marable, Ward Churchill, Cherríe Moraga, Andrea Smith, and Howard Zinn—reflects the Press’s commitment to publish on diverse issues from diverse perspectives.

To expand access to information and critical analysis, South End Press has been instrumental to the start of two on-going political media projects—Speak Out and Z Magazine. We have worked closely with a number of important media and research institutions including Alternative Radio, Political Research Associates, the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment, and INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

South End Press specifically advocates revolution - in particular its motto is "read, write, revolt", and it recognizes class conflict, and many of its contributors are anarchists - thus their interpretation is a far left conception of socialism - this does not represent socialists on the centre left that support reformism, or social democrats that support class collaboration. The first source in fact is a source containing 3 sources - 3 major studies by respected scholars (2 of which have their own Wikipedia articles) and one of the studies analyzed over 40 different definitions of socialism to determine socialism's common elements. The first source, that in fact is three sourced based upon major studies by respected scholars in political science is a superior source to the second source by South End Press - a political advocacy group with a clear POV and agenda - to promote a radical participatory economics socialism and support the overthrow of capitalism. Plus South End Press is associated with the controversial Z Media and particularly Z Magazine, Z Magazine produced material questioning the accounts of the Srebrenica massacre - claiming that the accounts were exaggerated by the West to make an excuse to attack Serb forces whom Z Magazine says the West unfairly villified the Serbs, claiming that the western perception of the Bosnian War is a "myth" - that the Bosniaks were the aggressors and the Serbs were the victims (a reverse of common interpretation) - this provoked outrage in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as by Bill Weinberg, a left-wing author who opposed US intervention the Balkans but denounced this Z Magazine story by one of its leading editors, Edward S. Herman, claiming Herman's article was genocide denial [60]. One of the authors Somedifferentstuff mentioned, Ward Churchill has claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a natural and unavoidable consequence of what he views as unlawful US policy, and he referred to the "technocratic corps" working in the World Trade Center as " little Eichmanns". ^[2]. Thus Ward Churchill was saying that the September 11th attacks were justified and legitimate and that he holds no sympathy for the people in the WTC who were killed. Z Media including South End Press and Z Magazine has made many callously biased, controversial, and hugely inaccurate articles and books that should not be considered RS.-- R-41 ( talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

South End Press's qualities do not have to be evaluated here. The "Introduction" to The Historical Dictionary of Socialism (2006) comprises a field review of the academic discourse over what socialism is, and we should rely upon that discourse. The South End Press source is at least 20 years out of date (1989), comes from one perspective within the scholarly discourse (rather than describing the entire scholarly discourse), and offers a novel interpretation that has limited general reception in the field. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism is suitable for working on the entire weight and structure of the article. Socialism: Today and Tomorrow may be useful for talking about Western bolshevist interpretations of socialism from the 1980s, deep within the article. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• South End Press won't be decided here. You need to take the text and the source over to RSN. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Historical Dictionary of Socialism is one of many sources that should be used in the article. It may be very useful for the historical section seen here [61]. Regarding the definition in the lede, we should use a minimum of 5 sources for this contentious issue. Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica source that is currently being used in the lede [62]. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From the Encyclopædia Britannica source:

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.”

This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.

The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• • EB is not reliable for sociology; or left wing theory: it is an unsigned tertiary aimed at the general public. Fifelfoo ( talk) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. And on all issues. Yet folks continually think of it as "reliable" per WP:RS when they are confusing the WP policy with the fact that the EB does not intentionally goof on articles. Strangely enough, the early editions did use signed articles! Collect ( talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In the mid-20th century the EB took great pride in having eminent individual write signed articles. So Henry Ford wrote about automation, Ferdinand Foch wrote about armies, Edward Weston wrote about photography, Cecil B. DeMille wrote about motion pictures, etc. Many of those are still excellent articles. However in at least one case I know about the eminent individual had his assistant write the articles. But the volumes were the product of the times. There were great on some topics and lousy on others.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Moving on from Britannica, here's another source, Socialism (Political Systems of the World). 2007. See page 13 here [63] - "In pure Socialist theory..."
• Here's another one, Political Science: An Introduction. 1995. See page 27 here [64] - "Socialism, often contrasted with Capitalism..."

We need to focus on weight when defining socialism. What is socialism generally understood to mean? I think we should use a minimum of 5 sources, while being welcoming to more than 5, in order to formulate this contentious definition. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 22:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Pedagogical, ie First Year textbooks, ie Political Science: An Introduction. do not carry weight. They are barely reliable for fact. They are aimed at a general public and do not truthfully record the academic practice, but record what is useful for teaching. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The other text you suggest, Socialism in the series Political Systems of the World is a secondary textbook aimed at students in the ninth year of study, and "Fulfills needs of high school U.S. and world history, government, politics curricula"!!!! This is not a scholarly field review or a signed tertiary source aimed at the scholarly or professional-in-practice public Neither source you suggest can carry WEIGHT. Neither is infact reliable. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

|} First, it appears to me that user: Fifelfoo is being somewhat disruptive and will need to back up his claims. Second, it clearly states at WP:RS that textbooks "may be used to give overviews or summaries" which is partly what is being done over at the lead of the socialism article. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• RS/N has repeatedly rejected the use of secondary textbooks and first year textbooks. I suggest you retract your accusations—particularly your accusation of intentionality—or demonstrate them. My claims are backed up by RS/N consensus and by quotation from the publisher's websites. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Somedifferentstuff: Never refactor my comments. Never do what you just did to another user, ever. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that user Fifelfoo hasn't provided direct links to the claims he made above after I posted the 2 sources. Hopefully he will. And it clearly states at WP:RS that textbooks "may be used to give overviews or summaries" which is partly what is being done over at the lead of the socialism article. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 08:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read 24 months of RS/N archives. Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. The burden of proof lies on you. I'm not going to spend my time trying to locate references for claims that YOU MADE. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. If you're unaware of the community's consensus you need to educate yourself; I'm not your mother. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know on my talk page if you post the links. Any further discussion is a waste of my time. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you ever use sources like this, because RS/N will reject them with an immediacy that will obviously puzzle someone so oblivious to consensus as you. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can claim anything you want and not back it up, but only RSN has authority. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 23:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is that what User:Somedifferentstuff quoted from Encyclopedia Britannica on 09:08, 23 January 2012 needs additional sources, then by all mean let's hit the books (or at least exercise our search engines). But after reading descriptions of socialism for over three decades, I feel the quoted text was pertinent and comprehensive, especially the first three paragraphs.

Could the problem be that some socialism advocates don't want the aims and/or justifications described too clearly? In the sciences, a researcher will generally expose all his methods, evidence and reasoning; scientists have the common aim of comparing their ideas with reality, and the typically appreciated any feedback from their colleagues. This is less often true in fields touching on politics. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take your own advice regarding insulting conduct. You might also want to read some Feyerabend on the actuality of scientific conduct. Many socialists expose their methods, Marxism is fairly famous for this with some of the most vehement critiques of "actually-existing socialism" coming from within Marxism or even from within Soviet Union aligned parties. Similarly the anarchist socialists tend to expose their own methodology quite publicly. Part of the domain specification problem is the multiple uses of socialism, varying between capitalism with state ownership of as little as the banking sector, through generalised state ownership, and towards societies of workers councils. Another major part of the domain problem is the very loose use of socialism, and the failure to expose methodology, appearing in the labourite and social-democratic movements. Generally this problem has become worse over time. Finally, a third domain problem is the number of non-socialist analyses that vehemently claim that socialism has certain characteristics; often (though not always, points to the Austrians here) without clear analytical tools or methodologies being exposed. Sadly there is no Leszek Kołakowski or Colin Ward of socialism as a whole. In part this is because each of the major streams within socialist advocacy (Marxism, Social-Democracy, Labourism and Anarchism) is sufficiently deep and broad in itself to require a magisterial work each. Comparative evaluation of these on the basis of agreed magisterial analyses of the world-wide and total variety of conduct and theory is a long way off; at least on the basis of proper historical analysis. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's all sink back into reality here people, and stop the insult throwing (Fifelfoo and Somedifferentstuff in particular). First of all Somedifferentstuff wants five sources - the first "source" technically includes 3 sources - 3 major studies on socialism as a whole by reputable scholars on the subject - one of the studies based its description of socialism on analysis of 40 different definitions of socialism - that is very indepth research. So we already have 3 sources. The other two should at least be of the same calibre as the 3 major studies described in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism - which means that they should be studies of socialism as a whole by reputable academic scholars.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If socialism is so vast a topic that it requires a Historical Dictionary, then we really need to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Portal:Socialism says: "Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."

I submit that if there is a "broad array" then we are going to be dealing with numerous viewpoints, likely to be overlapping and even contradictory. I agree with R-41 about the cessation of insult-throwing, by the way. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Collapse per SOAP - material deemed SOAP removed by user who posted it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Removed material by me that was considered to be a soapbox. I did not intend it to be.) "The legitimacy of socialism is in crisis". As opposed to the reality of capitalism? Please take your soapbox elsewhere... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Andy, I was addressing issues arisen here. Nowhere in what I said was a soapbox - I was not advertising or selling anything, it was an addition to what I said above - your claim of me soapboxing is completely groundless. As you have repeatedly engaged in hostile, uncivil behaviour towards me and other users, that was reported by an administrator before for your abusive behaviour towards me, I am not going to waste my time taking more abusive behaviour from you. You automatically violated the first principle of Wikipedia:Etiquette - "assume good faith" that you have repeatedly refused to do. Thus I am reporting you now, I will not accept your order for me to cease - you have no right to order anyone around, I will not tolerate this abusive behaviour. Address your case here: [65].-- R-41 ( talk) 07:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC) You were soapboxing. If you don't want people to disagree with your opinions, don't tell us what they are... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Then you should have politely addressed it, explained to me what material in particular was soapboxing, and asked me to remove it, rather than assuming bad faith, condemning me, and nastily barking an order at me, as you have just done again by saying "don't tell us what they are". Please read Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying_incivility - it states to assume good faith and to not belittle other users - you have repeatedly violated this.-- R-41 ( talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC) If I squint up my eyes and see a long spiel with bold text and italic text and capital letters and lots of blue links I do immediately think rant or soapboxing. Sorry but that's not the way to get through something to me. Also reading it I failed to find anything directed towards improving an article. Dmcq ( talk) 13:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I removed it. If I am verbose forgive me, I am a university student who is used to explaining points in detail in seminars. AndyTheGrump has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL behaving aggressively and vitriolically to multiple users, AndyTheGrump was reported by the User:Kudpung for such violations - including WP:DISRUPT, User:Collect backed up this by saying that AndyTheGrump has done this repeatedly to multiple users, and blocking AndyTheGrump was considered, the discussion was never closed - no conclusion was made to it before it was pushed into the archives - unprecedented, since these discussions are supposed to be resolved (see here for the report: [66]). Kudpung addressed concern that I was going to far, and that both Andy and I should be under topic ban - that was a fair determination at the time, I was getting frustrated, perhaps then I should have been put under topic ban alongside Andy - but I left the discussion at Talk:East Germany where the dispute was. Bear in mind that AndyTheGrump himself admits that "I lost my temper, again" - he has explosions of temper against users repeatedly - it is immature and unacceptable. Needless to say, I removed the material - I will reorganize what I had to say in a way that is a more coherent response to a specific issue brought up here and in previous discussions backed up by more sources. But mark my word that unless things change AndyTheGrump will come back again here and post uncivil remarks condemning me and others he disagrees with. Unless AndyTheGrump learns to be polite and assume good faith, I will not be party to discussions with the user, I will listen to what points he has that are accurate but I will not respond directly to him - to be perfectly honest the guy hates me and is nasty and sarcastic towards me in arguments - it is a waste of my time to discuss with him, I will let others respond and then I will respond to their views, I am taking zero-tolerance towards his incivility, I am going to bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard each time he starts getting aggressive and nasty towards me, and Andy's behaviour will likely happen again and more aggressively until he explodes into a fit of temper unless action is taken to demand that Andy cease this behaviour.-- R-41 ( talk) 16:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC) You have just been told on WP:ANI that your complaint against me was entirely unwarranted [67]. If you persist in miss- characterising my behaviour in this way, I will be forced to ask (not 'demand') that you be made to cease. Now cut out the diva act, and get back on topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I don't think the administrators understood the background of your edits. Kudpung's report on you was never put into place, User:Collect in that report stated that you have been repeatedly uncivil to multiple users. I am not a "diva" - I am not pretending to be superior to you. Just look at your behaviour, your aggression is increasing even now, you are calling me a diva. You have to learn WP:CIVIL, or you are going to go down this path again and again, until you will say again "I lost my temper, again". Your aggression is increasing with each edit, unless I am mistaken I imagine that your next edit will be more aggressive.-- R-41 ( talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC) You are mistaken. Now will you please get back on topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC) What is the topic even, I removed what you complained about. You should have assumed good faith with what I added, politely addressed that what I added was considered soapbox material, pointed out the specific material that was soapbox, and then I would have removed it with no trouble. Instead you automatically assumed bad faith in violation of WP:CIVIL and nastily barked an order at me to cease my contributions. Will you accept that - that you violated WP:CIVIL by automatically assuming bad faith and that you will henceforth be aware of its policy of assuming good faith and comply with WP:CIVIL?-- R-41 ( talk) 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC) I do not accept that I violated WP:CIVIL - and neither did anyone else at ANI. The topic of this discussion is how socialism should be defined in the lede of our article on the subject. If you have anything to say regarding this, then please comment here. Otherwise, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, please take your complaints, opinions, and other irrelevant material elsewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC) The administrators at that page stated that you should behave more politely. They did not take further action. Watch your temper Andy, you know that you have been reported by Kudpung for WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT and your repeated violations of WP:CIVIL were acknowledged by User:Collect.-- R-41 ( talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Could an uninvolved third party please collapse this repeated violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, so we can get back on topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC) There I have shut it down. The issue is done, the unintended soapbox by me is removed. And just as you have said Andy, users have to accept criticism - you have violated WP:CIVIL before, and you could have addressed the soapbox issue in a polite, conciliatory manner - as other users after you did - in which you could have stated what specific portion of the text was a soapbox and I would have removed it without trouble - but NOT vindictively condemning me and barking an order for me to cease my contributions. There this sub-topic is done, let's move on.-- R-41 ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the OED is a useful and reliable guide. I'll not post its definition (copyright reasons) but it takes roughly the same line as the current article: common or state ownership/control, with an addendum to suggest liberal/social democratic governance. It also notes "The range of application of the term is broad."-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Henri de Saint Simon - the first founder of the original socialism - utopian socialism supported private property, Charles Fourier - another prominent founder of utopian socialism also strongly supported private property. It was only after the influence of Robert Owen and Marx that socialism began to move towards anti-private property stances and pro-public property stances - in the last thirty years these anti-private property stances have been changing in the socialist political community. Saint-Simon and Fourier never supported the replacement of private property with public property even within the means of production - only the utopian socialist Robert Owen universally condemned private ownership of the means of production, of the three original socialist leading figures - Fourier was a staunch defender of the right to own private property. [68]. The following source on Saint-Simon states: "Saint-Simon had defended private property as the proper reward for achievement, but he by no means saw it as a sacred or natural right". [69]. In modern-day contemporary times, British anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe has advocated a socialist form of private property as part of a "New Socialism" (though he technically objects to the term "private property" to collectively describe property that is not publicly owned as being vague) and rejecting state socialism as a failure. [70] [71]. Please don't use Oxford English Dictionary (OED) - on complex political topics it is woefully inadequate and its definitions of ideologies are stereotypical - and not based on scholarly research of the ideologies.-- R-41 ( talk) 16:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• User R-41 has been trying to redefine socialism for over a month now. He often talks about Saint Simon, not understanding that utopian socialism has its own article for a reason. Socialism today is most often understood as common ownership of the means of production, which is why you see this so often in its definition [72] [73] [74] [75]. This is a reflection of the large amount of weight carried by this view which will always need to be reflected in the article's lead. He'll probably respond with his theorizing but it won't change anything in regards to this. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are being extremely uncivil Somedifferentstuff with the statement "He'll probably respond with his theorizing but it won't change anything in regards to this". Utopian socialism is a form of socialism and I demonstrated to you with sources that there are socialists today who advocate socialist private property. Plus why should we rely on a source like this: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp#axzz1mAiPGTpa? "Investopedia" is not a reliable source or a scholarly source. You have been the one insistent on using the controversial South End Press, on claiming that social democracy is a form of capitalism, and you have been trying to assert that socialism always requires public ownership of the means of production - this has been disproven by multiple examples shown by scholarly sources. You appear to have a POV dedicated to a very orthodox Marxian interpretation of socialism. You ignore Saint Simon and Fourier - they are founders of the original socialism - should we then ignore Edmund Burke as a founder of conservatism and his views? Or should we ignore Marx becuase far less people today accept Marxism? I and TFD supported the use of the three major studies of socialism by scholars in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism because they represent wide studies of socialism as a whole - analyzing multiple definitions. Why do you oppose the conclusions of these three scholars? After all that is what I added that you claim is evidence of me "redefining" socialism - assuming that socialism has been clearly defined - which it has not - it is not easily defined, scholars have done indepth studies to make definitions of socialism.-- R-41 ( talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• R-41 is correct regarding the use of scholarly field reviews, or surveys taken from scholarly signed tertiary sources aimed at a scholarly public, to correctly weight article coverage. While other field reviews will exist, and I suggest that users attempt to search for such high quality field reviews, the quality of the three field reviews listed exceed by far a single time specific secondary-practitioner work like the South End Press volume. Moreover, the scopes differ. Field reviews investigate and weight the scope and coverage of entire fields. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you look at the current article you'll see that the South End Press resource is NOT being used, and whether or not it can be would need to be determined at RSN, not here. At the beginning of this thread I recommendeded we use a minimum of 5 sources to establish the definition in the lead. Socialism today is most often understood as common ownership of the means of production, which is why you see this so often in its definition [76] [77] [78] [79]. This is a reflection of the large amount of weight carried by this view which will always need to be reflected in the article's lead. I am not suggesting we use these definitions provided here as resources in the article, they are being used for the purpose of illumination. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weight also should depend on informed views of the topic. For example: many people believe that a tomato is a vegetable, when in reality - by scientists' analysis, it is a fruit. In a more related area - there is incredibly strong and widely popular misconception of the the political concept of corporatism - many associate it with being business corporation dominated politics - when in reality corporatism is a form of politics involving viewing society as a body "corpus" - the root of "corporat" - and seek the inclusion of employers, employees, and others in government processes. Common misconceptions can be contested by scientific or scholarly evidence.-- R-41 ( talk) 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need for a minimum of x sources; the sources used to structure and weight an article need to represent the scholarly (and here practicioner) field's variety of views. Investopedia, thefreedictionary dictionary.reference.com and merriam-webster are not appropriate sources to use—they are generalist tertiary works without any standing in the field. They can carry no weight here. Fifelfoo ( talk) 20:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• We need to use multiple sources because there is not consensus to use only the historical dictionary, as is evidenced over at the article, and it's not just me who has objected. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Laying down the facts: history of the development of socialism, and variations of socialist stances

First of all we need to lay down the facts. In its history, socialism in the past and even present has not universally nor consistently advocated public ownership of the property of the means of production.

• 1) Of first socialists, Saint-Simon and Fourier never supported the replacement of private property with public property even within the means of production - only Robert Owen universally condemned private ownership of the means of production, of the three original socialist leading figures - Fourier was a staunch defender of the right to own private property. [80]. The following source on Saint-Simon states: "Saint-Simon had defended private property as the proper reward for achievement, but he by no means saw it as a sacred or natural right". [81]

• 2) That being said above, there has been a long period in the history of socialism where public ownership of the property of the means of production was a very common component of socialist economic policy - as communists, anarchists, radical socialists, and for a significant time by social democrats, mutually advocated public ownership from the mid 19th century to the early to mid 20th century.

• 3) However this changed, particularly in the social democratic socialist current, with the development of liberal socialism, a socialist ideology that includes liberal principles within it, that has been a particularly strong current of socialism since the 1920s in British and Italian politics. In particular, the liberal socialist ideology of ethical socialism developed by R. H. Tawney supported a mixed economy - Tawney supported a substantial role for public enterprise in the economy, but Tawney also stated that where private enterprise provided a service that was commensurate with its rewards, then a business could be usefully and legitimately be left in private hands.(Source: Noel W. Thompson. Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884-2005. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2006. Pp. 60-61.) Ethical socialist T. H. Green the right of equal opportunity for all individuals to be able freely appropriate property, but claimed that acquisition of wealth did not imply that an individual could do whatever they wanted to once that wealth was in their possession. (Source: Matt Carter. T.H. Green and the development of ethical socialism. Exeter, England, UK; Charlottesville, Virginia, USA: Imprint Academic, 2003. Pp. 35.) Green opposed " property rights of the few" that were preventing the ownership of property by the many.(Source: Matt Carter. T.H. Green and the development of ethical socialism. Exeter, England, UK; Charlottesville, Virginia, USA: Imprint Academic, 2003. Pp. 35.) Tony Blair has described himself as a supporter of ethical socialism. Italian liberal socialist Carlo Rosselli defined liberal socialism in his work of the same name: Liberal Socialism (1925) in which he supported the type of socialist economy defined by socialist economist Werner Sombart in Der modern Kapitalismus (1908), that envisaged a new modern mixed economy that included both public and private property, limited economic competition, and increased economic cooperation. (Source: Stanislao G. Pugliese. Carlo Rosselli: socialist heretic and antifascist exile. Harvard University Press, 1999. Pp. 99.)

• 4) There are socialists who advocate a socialist form of private property. Anti-Third Way social democrat Robert Corfe advocates a socialism that involves "a socialized form of private property as an individual right". Here is the source: Robert Corfe: The spirit of New Socialism and the end of class-based politics (2005): [82]. China justifies its officially socialist economic system that has adopted private property into the means of production, by claiming that they support a "socialist private property" that is different from "ordinary" (capitalist) private property in that individual shares "cannot be sold, transferred, mortgaged or circulated". [83].

I am highly skeptical about China's present claim to be supporting socialism its recent economic actions are widely seen as capitalist, but there it is - an officially Marxist-Leninist state officially supporting what it calls "socialist private property". I added the China example as an example from a major officially Marxist-Leninist state, but please focus on addressing the other examples. So historically socialism initially did not universally oppose private property - two of the three major founders of the original socialism supported private property rights, then under the influence of Marxism - both communism and social democracy supported complete public ownership of property of the means of production, then since the mid 20th century socialism has become divided between those who still support complete public ownership of the property of the means of production, and others who advocate alternative systems such as indirect control over the means of production, and a socialist form of private property.-- R-41 ( talk) 03:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)