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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Recently some documents were stolen from this right wing think tank. The article it are popping up in are The Heartland Institute Watts Up With That? DeSmogBlog and Anthony Watts (blogger) The major problem as I see it is that the MSM (notably The Guardian & the BBC) failed to any due diligence. Since they ran with the story the HI has said at least one document is a fake and others may have been altered. We have editors however using these sources in the article above. Given that one of these stolen documents is used to source stuff along the lines of (HI is trying to stop K12 from teaching science) seems to me to be problematic. Another issue which may be a BLP problem is on the Watts article. budgeted two payments of US$44,000 to Watts This appears to be incorrect, the 44k was from a pledge from an anonymous donor with HI saying they would help find funding for the rest. As the original article seemed to have gotte na great deal wrong should they be used as sources at all? We also have editors writing that these documents were "leaked" They were no leaked, they were stolen by a person unknown committing ID fraud. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
We really need help here. A few editors have decided to ignore WP:NPOV and say that only positive content may be included in a list. This clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. We have an RFC going, but thus far no uninvolved editors have commented. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a claim at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Quotations that (what I consider) the very lengthy quotations in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming are required to satisfy BLP, and that they may not be removed because of the policy. Is this true? (crossposted from WP:BLPN after two days without a response) 86.** IP ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian with a biographical article about me. User:WLU began negatively editing the biography about me [2] during a content dispute at Talk:Paraphilia. The dispute was about a problematic article by User:James Cantor, whose edits here are almost invariably promotion of his work and friends, or denigration of his off-wiki critics, which include me. The negative content WLU added has also been added to my biography by Cantor and his alternate accounts, [3] [4] [5], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and other policies. Cantor also removed my academic credentials using a different account [6] and removed my primary occupation and downplayed my accomplishments, among other negative POV changes, [7] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [8]). I requested that WLU address my concerns as follows:
WLU has refused to address my concerns [9]. I'd like uninvolved editors to weigh in and possibly revert these punitive changes made by WLU and James Cantor. Jokestress ( talk) 19:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Jokestress, if you'd be willing to provide URLs for the credentials you'd like restored on the article talk page, I and other editors not currently engaged in a conflict against you will be happy to consider the additions. You shouldn't be punished for voluntarily being open about who you are.
2a. Re Archives of Sexual Behavior, WLU wrote "Cantor being on the editorial board puts a different spin on the source...". An RS cited above goes further: "They turned the Archives of Sexual Behavior into the house organ and bully pulpit for knowledge produced by Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. [14]". Clearly Archives of Sexual Behavior is not independent in this mater and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.
2b. Re The Northwestren Chronicle, while it might be the best rag for info on "The Fighting Methodist [15]", is the campus paper of Northwestren University, where Baily works [16]. Again, clearly not independent and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.
Should the negative BLP additions have been made? Arguably, I would lean towards no, since only questionable sources are being cited. Should WLU have made the negative additions to the BLP while involved in a conflict elsewhere on Wikipedia with, among other editors, the subject of the BLP? Certainly not. BitterGrey ( talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If the issue is my behaviour, then this doesn't seem to be the appropriate venue. Again, my sole edit to Andrea James was this one, mostly citation improvements and a link to a paper that you currently include in the proposed rewrite of Andrea James. Your proposed version includes more detail actually, since my edit added only "...and in 2008 an article appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior discussing the controversy in detail" and right now your proposed page says "Critics of James' tone and tactics accused her of personal harassment that went beyond the limits of civil discourse, and they said her efforts had a chilling effect on academic freedom". If you look at my contribution history for that day, yours was the last page of three I added that extremely lengthy ( 55 pages) article to Ray Blanchard, Blanchard's transsexualism typology, search for PMID 18431641 or DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1 on James' page. There may be a user conduct issue here (I don't see it, but perhaps the community will) but there really doesn't seem to be any neutrality issues resulting from my edit. NPOV is generally seen as a content issue, not a conduct one. Not to mention my immediate attempts to address an issue I had thought I found with an oversighted edit requested on the talk page [23], [24]. Note that the time stamp places those edits less than a minute apart. Obviously I'm biased, but I simply don't see any evidence of malice on my part towards Jokestress. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything that Andrea James/Jokestress has said. I have reverted WLU and Bali ultimate. They should be ashamed. Luwat ( talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There be brief mentions of the dreger paper and NY times article, but not the detailed quotes. Nobody Ent 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
STOP... please separate the edit from the editor. Our editors are not required to be neutral... their edits are. This is not the place to discuss the actions or motivations of a given editor ... it is the place to discuss whether a given edit skews the neutrality of a given article. Could someone please explain why they think the in question makes the article non-neutral. Blueboar ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Getting back on track per Blueboar, here’s where we are on the neutrality of this content.
Thanks to Maunus and others, we have made some great progress so far. Concern 1 is currently resolved, and based on consensus, editors have decided to forgo reverting WLU’s edit to my bio in favor of adding my responses. For the record, a poster presentation is peer-reviewed and is a reliable source, despite WLU’s claims above. All of my initial concerns have been addressed.
However, since this started, User:Bali ultimate has exacerbated the initial content problem by making about 50% of the bio about this controversy. That is completely out of proportion in relationship to its significance. In addition, he shifted everything out of chronological order to make his big block of text more prominent.
I have prepared proposed text which includes all the sources and expands the description of the controversy, but keeps it in proportion within my career. I believe something along those lines is within NPOV.
The controversy was certainly significant: Great Moments in LGBT History by Lillian Faderman states, "The series of protests stemming from Bailey’s publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen represented one of the most organized and unified examples of transgender activism seen to date. Linking issues of scientific research on homosexuality and transsexualism, the efforts of Lynn Conway, Andrea James, Charlotte Anjelica Kieltyka, Joan Roughgarden, and other transsexual women marked a new moment in transgender history.“ It’s been called a defining moment and a tipping point in trans history.
However, it was not a particularly big deal within the scope of my life. It wasn’t even the most significant event in my life from that year, let alone within the scope of my career. I was primarily involved in producing the first all-transgender performance of The Vagina Monologues in association with Eve Ensler and Jane Fonda during that time. That event was seen as worthy of a documentary, unlike the Bailey nonsense. I don’t think we need quotes from Great Moments in LGBT History, or from the many published works which note that much of the publishing activity from Bailey’s allies emanate from a journal they control, where he sits on the editorial board.
The Bailey affair is a fixation of a conservative rearguard of academics. It’s significant to them because their jobs depend on maintaining various kinds of authority over transgender people, and this pushback was a huge threat to their livelihoods and ideologies. It’s also a fixation of a certain kind of hack journalist influenced by the rhetoric of blog culture, where people flit from outrage to outrage and use controversy as a marketing tool. Finally, it’s a fixation of academic freedom absolutists. Each type occasionally pops up at my bio to turn it into a coatrack of grievances about my tone and tactics. There’s also an occasional issue with editors who engage in on-wiki content disputes with me. Typically they end up getting blocked and their edits are oversighted, as you’ll note from the edit history of the article.
As an aside, I am by no means the only critic of Bailey. The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a series of articles on him, and the Chicago Tribune covered the full investigation Northwestern initiated against him and his subsequent actions. His live fucksaw demonstration last year led Northwestern to move their human sexuality class from the psychology department to gender studies, hopefully the start of a nationwide trend that can be traced to his actions.
Bottom line: none of this is really significant to this biography, which should summarize someone’s life and work in proportion.
More detail than that in a bio this short veers into NPOV issues. Jokestress ( talk) 18:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A paragraph in the Israel-Palestine conflict reads: In December 2011, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step". [33] [34] [35]
Having examined the cited sources and several others, it is only the
Al Jazeera article that states that the settlement activity was described by "all regional groups as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks". This is not quoting from any of the envoy criticisms but appears to be loosely based on the statement issued on behalf of the non-aligned bloc that states settlement activity is
"the main impediment to the two-state solution". As such, that "all the regional and political groupings... named continued settlement construction... as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" appears to represent only the opinion of Al Jazeera. Is it permissible to use the Wiki voice in asserting this, or is source attribution required. Is using the wiki voice lending this lone view
undue weight and providing disproportionate prominence to this viewpoint by characterising settlements according to this singular viewpoint?
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly it is a reliable source. The issue is
WP:UNDUE - "The page should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Currently, only the AlJazeera source supports this claim so am I correct in requesting either further sourcing or attribution to AlJazeera before the claim is presented using the Wiki voice? I quote "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject... for example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk) 20:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Two editors have attempted to add material to the article based completely on primary sources, including Mormon scripture. The excuse is that "in some instances vital information can only be had by sources like Smith and Whitmer."-- John Foxe ( talk) 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just started the section Talk:Norwegian Defence League#Possible COI major rewrite reverted about what may appear to be an underhanded attempt at slanting the article by removing mention of information that could be seen as damaging to the article's subject. I'm also notifying the COI noticeboard (I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to notify both boards, but I'm unsure which is the more correct one). I have ventured to revert the contentious edit. My own connection to the subject has been declared on the article's talk page. __ meco ( talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a variety of people are acting in concert to try to remove mention of honey bee toxicity from Clothianidin and Imidacloprid, two insecticides which have been linked to bee colony collapse disorder. Please see Talk:Imidacloprid#Systematic repeated deletion of sourced bee toxicity info and Talk:Clothianidin#References from 2012. 222.165.255.198 ( talk) 01:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised that no one had notified NPOVN till now, but there is a large discussion taking place on Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move regarding whether Genesis creation narrative should be moved to Genesis creation myth. Since NPOV is largely related to the discussion your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Noformation Talk 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The tone and conclusion of the article on Kudankulam nuclear power plant ('Controversy' section alone) goes against the neutral facts on the ground. I have tried editing it to give it a neutral view, but have been threatened with being banned. Anyway. if the article stands as it currently stands, it would mean that the Indian Prime Minister, Home Minister and many other senior people in the establishment are outright liars. Request experienced users help in resolving this matter as per the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Nashtam ( talk) 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The bio on Leo Wanta, which is related to an Internet conspiracy theory, has (in my view) systematically been edited away from WP:NPOV (and likely factual accuracy) over a period of several years.
Compare, for example, the current article with a 2008 version, the latter being, in my view, much closer to NPOV and factual accuracy. Also see the talk page for additional external citations (and references to citations) disputing the current article's factual basis (and supporting the 2008 version).
Comments are requested. Should the article be rewritten to revert or partially revert to the 2008 version? Asdfi922 ( talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This sentence has been the focus of extensive comment in Talk:Falkland Islands:
“ | After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. | ” |
The facts - Luis Vernet founded a settlement in the Falkland Islands, specifically East Falkland at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, which he renamed Puerto Luis, now known as Port Louis. Vernet sought permission to do so from the British Charge D'Affairs in Buenos Aires Woodbine Parish, equally he was promised tax exemption if he could establish a colony within 3 years by the Republic of Buenos Aires and received a Land Grant from the Republic. Vernet financed the whole operation from his own funds.
See Talk:Falkland Islands#Vernet established an Argentinian settlement
The current discussion suggests we need to either A) add the adjective "Argentinian" in front of settlement or B) remove the reference to the British authorities to a specialised article.
I would appreciate comment as to whether the current sentences satisfies WP:NPOV or whether the suggestions would improve it. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"I suggest the article [on Kosovo] be tagged for not adhering to the NPOV requirement. The reasons in a nutshell:
-- Getoar TX ( talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)" (from Talk:Kosovo#Article_is_biased; see source for more information)
For some time, our entry on Death march has included the Lydda death march that was part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. The text reads as follows:
After repeated attempts by IPs to remove it, a 'new' edtitor has repeatedly tried to delete the entry claiming that it does not qualify as a death march. Here are some more sources to consider:
As far as I understand, NPOV means representing all significant viewpoints on a given subject. Is there a reason why the POV that what happened in Lydda was a death march should not be included in our article? I have asked for sources that contest its bring called a death march, but the editor seeking to remove it has not provided any. I am willing to include refutations of this viewpoint, if there are any, but do not believe we should censor it out based on one editor's unsourced objection.
Tiamut
talk 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where I should raise this, but I'll try here. Some advice would be helpful at The Standells. There is an ongoing legal dispute between former members of the band as to who has the rights to use the name "The Standells". On one side is Larry Tamblyn, and on the other is Tony Valentino (aka Bellissimo), both of whom were original band members back in the 1960s. Tamblyn has used the name most recently, for example here, but Valentino / Bellissimo has taken out a legal case against him here, which actually references the WP page (in para 20). Both sides in the argument have attempted to edit the WP article in the past, but a couple of us have monitored it to ensure that, I think, we have a reasonably balanced article now. My initial question relates to the infobox. Should we include Tamblyn's line-up as "current members", or not? Do we have any precedent as to what to do in these circumstances? Any more general advice would also be welcome, before any well-meaning editors like me get sucked in to legal arguments several thousand miles away! Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Both the article and the talk page are being edited by members of this American right wing racist party. The numbers are frankly a problem (especially since one of the editors who was watching the article is now gone). The issue they are raising is one that really upsets such groups and that is the claim that they are White supremacist. I've seen this contested by members or supporters at both articles on groups and BLPs, e.g. Don Black who I think should at least have this somewhere in his article. A typical comment is one today by a member, who says "its a conflict of interest, but more than enough credible proof has been presented in this talk thread that shows A3P is not 'white supremacist' but that label has continued, as per biased wikipedia contributers. Zionists don't want White people collecting together and fighting our interests, and defending our race and culture, so they try to slander any pro-White group as 'white supremacist' in an attempt to discourage other Whites from joining or voicing their concerns on racial issues." and "having sources from the ADL, a Zionist entity, is the biggest conflict of interest I can think of." An editor with an account has said "the burden of proof remains on those insisting that it be called "White Supremacist" to source one example of the organization saying or doing anything "supremacist". If you've got a bunch of "reputable" organizations claiming something which they fail to or refuse to validate, then you may need to reconsider the reputation of the sources." There's a lot more on the talk page. IMHO we have plenty of reliable sources that call the group white supremacist, so there are basically two issues: 1. How do we say it. 2. How do we deal with IPs from the party in the light of comments such as "Clearly the IP editing wars will not stop until Wikipedia shows an unbiased position towards A3P, by ending its slander as 'white supremacist.' -A3P supporter". Dougweller ( talk) 17:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"American right wing racist party", see that's exactly what I'm talking about. The frank problem is editors like you, who cannot hold an objective viewpoint about anything and who must constantly parrot anything pro-White as "racist, racist, ROKKK!" If Wikipedia continues to let this blatant slander of A3P continue on, then delete the article completely from your servers and never create one about A3P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.16.51 ( talk) 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's an example of Wikipedia bias: /info/en/?search=Naacp --> "is an African-American civil rights organization in the United States, formed in 1909." /info/en/?search=National_Council_of_La_Raza --> "is a non-profit and non-partisan advocacy group in the United States, focused on improving opportunities for Hispanics."
Whereas A3P, an advocacy group for White Americans, "is a white supremacist group" and per contributor and editor Doggie-boy here, 'racist' as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.18.230 ( talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
On top of those comments above me, and in regards to so-called "credible sources", even one of them listed A3P as "white nationalist" and not supremacist: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-01/europe/31011989_1_bnp-emails-hacker-group
"Anonymous infiltrated the website and emails of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist political group"
So seriously, stop with the bias against American Third Position already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.10.205 ( talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That should have been "Douggie". So an organization can't want to have autonomy among its people, and promote such peoples' culture and interests at the same time? Both are mutually exclusive? The other racial organizations don't have to be separatist (in name, they clearly are by organizational standards) because they have their own voice and political representation in society. Whites, specifically, do not (being a current majority does not mean we have a voice and representation) therefore we are forced to separating ourselves from the mainstream. Again, a source is not simply one that exists on an internet address, it must be backed up with evidence of supremacy (such as a leader or council saying he wants to exterminate nonwhites, or dominate over them). None have said anything even remotely associated with this, but on the contrary speak about preserving White European culture and heritage. The only sources either are from, or linked directly to, the ADL/SPLC and similar organizations who make money by scaring donations out of little old ladies by claiming white supremacists are under every bed in America. Clearly the conflict of interest exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.12.184 ( talk) 22:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The American Third Position (A3P) political party told The Daily Caller Monday that allegations made by Anonymous are false.
“Many people like Ron Paul. Many A3P members like Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is not a member of our party [nor] does he represent our party,” said A3P. ”We have no regular meetings with Ron Paul. This is a complete fabrication and drama to smear Ron Paul.”
“Anonymous hacked SONY, the CIA, the DOJ, law enforcement agencies all over the country,” the group contended. “They stole a bank card number from our party and made a donation to the ADL.”
A screenshot was posted in a blog for a donation receipt to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which A3P called a “Jewish supremacist organization.”
“We have notified the FBI and the Secret Service,” the organization added.
Facebook comments on an A3P affiliate’s Facebook page finger Barrett Brown, a public member of Anonymous and founder of Project PM, as the culprit.
Brown told TheDC that someone working out of both Anonymous and Project PM did take down the A3P site, along with several other websites.
“I used contact info of subscribers to call some of them up, claim that I’m with a new secret white supremacist group called ‘The Order,’ and that I want to recruit them,” Brown said. “All five fell for it. Recorded it. Planning on using this as an experiment for blind cyber armies.”
A ‘blind cyber army,’ Brown told TheDC, is “a group of online activists who believe themselves to be working for one cause when they are actually being used for another.”
“This isn’t my idea; intelligence agencies have done this IRL [in real life] for years by their own acknowledgement,” said Brown.
A3P also told TheDC that it is not a “white supremacist” organization, as TheDC reported previously, but that A3P is an organization of “nationalists.”
The party’s mission statement states that it “believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.”
A3P also explains on its website that it stands to “protect White American interests, since no other political party has shown interest in doing so. This does not make us racist, but protective of our rights – which every other race or group is encouraged and praised for doing. Discriminatory ‘affirmative action’ programs and the invasion of illegal immigrants adversely affect the welfare of all Americans, but especially the White majority.”
Considering Anonymous, who hacked A3P's website, accounts, and emails, made a donation to the ADL using a key member's credit card, how can you honestly have the balls to use the ADL as a reliable, credible, and neutral source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 ( talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Page:
Fascism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
POV dispute: NPOV violation - no evidence that fascism completely rejected democracy, fascists rejected conventional democracy, claimed to support authoritarian democracy.
[40]
Disputed text (in bold): Fascists reject the conventional form of
democracy.
[41]
Question: If editors reject this edit, does it make the article POV?
Comment: There is a dispute over whether to include mention of a new theory that fascists supported "authoritarian democracy". A recent book, The Civic Foundations of Fascism (2011) by Dylan Ryley presents a theory of fascism as "authoritarian democracy". A review of the book by the fascism scholar Stanley G. Payne says that Riley makes a "dramatic challenge to the scholarship [by claiming that] fascist movements [are] not as antidemocratic as the existing literature says they were." My view is that since Riley's views have not entered academic discourse we cannot assign weight and are best to ignore them. In any case I do not think ignoring Riley's theory makes the article POV.
TFD ( talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: Part of the problem is that there is no single, simple definition of "Fascism" (other than that of Mussolini's self-described slightly amorphous party), hence no absolute claims about such a gelatinous grouping will be always true. FWIW, there is a large and increasing body of work suggesting that "authoritarianism" is not necessarily "anti-democratic" - even Athens (such as under Pericles) used authoritarianism while still officially a "democracy" and during war, many "democracies" adopt quite authoritarian positions. The term "authoritarian sdemocracy" is fairly widely used, and this should not be a place for denying its existence. Collect ( talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Two people repeatedly erase my passage completely about developments in Hungary in 2010-2011.
My contribution is below
The years 2010 and 2011 saw the rapid transition of the country from democracy to authoritarian rule. [65] The FiDeSz government cancelled the previous checks and balances: restricted the role of the Constitutional Court, then enlarged it with its own appointees. [66]
The constitution of 1989 granted absolute power to a party with more than 2/3 of the seats in Parliament, and FiDeSz used this deficiency to abolish the very Constitution and replace it with their own "Basic Law" after a mere three-week debate inside their party [67] In the new Basic Law they restricted numerous rights the previous constitution granted to the people; for instance they made it extremely difficult to demand referendum or actio popularis, or to appeal to the Constitutional Court. The Chief Prosecutor (appointed by FiDeSz for the longer of {9 years or 2/3 majority to replace him}) has the right to select the judges in cases of his choosing. Most appeals court judges will be forcibly retired in 2012, and FiDeSz will appoint their replacement. The body of judicial autonomy is abolished, Orban's personal friend was appointed for 9 years with great powers over the body of judges.[68] They also changed the composition of the Electoral Committee, and the whole election process. FiDeSz also appointed a new Media Council for 9 years with formidable powers over the press, radio stations and television channels. [69]
[65] The former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, László Sólyom, who was elected by Fidesz support in 2005 to become the President of Hungary (2005-2010), declared on October 8, 2011: "The maiming of the Constitutional Court is a wound that cannot be healed. I would dare to say that the [current] system is not constitutional" („Az Alkotmánybíróság megcsonkítása egy gyógyíthatatlan seb. Azt merem állítani, hogy nem alkotmányos a rendszer, mert van egy olyan része, ahol nincsen alkotmányos kontroll, bármi megtehető, mert ott nem érvényes az alkotmány”), see, for instance http://nol.hu/lap/allaspont/20111010-solyom [66] In May 2010, the Constitutional Court had 8 members. They had been elected by consensus. In October 2011, it has 15 members, 7 of them newly appointed by the votes of the ruling party. See the biographical page of the Court: http://www.mkab.hu/index.php?id=jelenlegi_tagok [67] The debate started on March 22, 2011 (e.g. http://www.mitortent.hu/sztori/hisf45j/kezdodik-az-uj-alaptorveny-vitaja---tudositas-percrol-percre.aspx) and the replacement of the Constitution was voted in on April 18, 2011 http://www.napi-hirek.hu/hirek/tartalom/elfogadtak-az-alaptorvenyt-figyelonet/529445, See the legal opinion of the Venice Committee at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29016-E.pdf [68] See Prof Scheppele's articles in Prof Krugman's NYT blog - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/the-unconstitutional-constitution/, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/somewhere-in-europe/, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/hungary-misunderstood/ [69] http://www.ortt.hu/uploads/9/11/12940687522010clxxxv.pdf , The only opposition radio channel,"Klubradio", http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klubr%C3%A1di%C3%B3 could broadcast in eleven towns only, but they were forced to stop broadcasting in five towns on October 14, 2011 http://radiosite.hu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1156:5-frekvencian-hallgat-el-a-klubradio&catid=1:hirek&Itemid=99
Thinhun ( talk) 20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Is [42] a full and proper source for the claim AFP was a major supporter of Republican candidates in the 2010 election cycle and is heavily involved in political activities aimed at reducing regulation of the oil and gas industry.
I can find in that article a reference to a three named candidates, rather than AFD being a "major supporter of Republican candidates" (the three being Griffin, Gardner and Kinzinger) and two others implicitly connected by "five benefited from the group's separate advertising and grass-roots activity during the 2010 campaign." In addition, however, I found no statement in the article on which to hang the specific claim "is heavily involved in political activities aimed at reducing regulation of the oil and gas industry" based on the source's words. Can anyone show me where the two claims are specified in the source given? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 22:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is re the main Hawaii article. I hope I'm in the right place to ask for help; I was once a high-edit-count editor and pulled back. Not sure that I know the ropes now.
A user named Laualoha has made the same edit to the main Hawaii article three times in a row. He/she appears to be a Hawaiian sovereignty activist and is intent on inserting a claim that the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was illegal. This has been a prominent theme of sovereignty rhetoric: activists hope to convince others that the act was illegal and that the islands should therefore no longer be part of the U.S. It's seriously unbalanced to insert this claim in the general article, where it is not appropriate to add the counterclaims, a history of the controversy, etc. The article would be hijacked by the argument. There are other articles in which the issue can be discussed, at greater length. And has been, probably. I haven't even looked at those.
It seems to me that Laualoha is edit warring and that the war must be stopped. I'm not going to revert for a third time. I'm going to ask for help outside. If this is not the right place to ask for help, please direct me to the correct forum. Zora ( talk) 20:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm unindenting. I'm concerned with the insertion of the claim that the overthrow was illegal -- as if this were something notable about the coup d'état. Well, yes, all coups and revolutions are illegal, from the POV of the previous regime. It's as if the article about the American Revolution stressed that the revolution was illegal according to British law. The response is, "Yes, that happened a long time ago. Are you arguing that we should undo it NOW?" However, if I add something like this to the main Hawai'i article, we're turning the article into a debating forum for sovereignty activists. I have been reluctant to engage in yet another round of argument on the same old same old, but I suppose I must. I'll try rewriting the section to point to the overthrow article and note that the event still rouses intense passions. Zora ( talk) 04:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Zora, I looked at several edits by Laualoha but can't tell for sure which section you are focusing on. Coaster92 ( talk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC regarding whether to include Jesus in the infobox at Talk:Palestinian people as an example member of the group. This debate seems to be going around in circles, encompassing much of the history of the world, and getting nowhere. Input from uninvolved editors would be valuable. GabrielF ( talk) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I think this article is not written in a Neutral point of view. We had a note in German WP, Austrian Artists where a new artist has been put in. I never heard from this man, so I looked nearer. The editors name was Rosapfeifer and this is a one porpose account. And so I looked if this artist is relevant or famous according to our kriteria. I found out, that he is not (I am especially working in the field of contemporary art in German Wikipedia). He had no exhibition in any important museum, only some group exhibitions or small culture-halls in the country. There are many books mentioned. The books are without ISBN, so these are folders or flyers from galleries. The only two books with ISBN are from the EMI-Verlag, and when you ask what kind of publisher this is wondering why there are oly books of Kayem.- you finally come to the artists studio adress and a woman named Rosa Pfeifer. In my mind there is a self-marketing campaign using Wikipeia for marketing. Sorry for my broken Englsh and thank you for your attention.-- Robertsan ( talk) 09:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to add a "critic" section in John Searle article made by Derrida (a paragraph and a quote). I'm supporting each sentence with a quote. Each sentence is just a paraphrase of Derrida's arguments. I was deleted several times without serious arguments. I asked for people to be reasonable and just edit the sentences but keep the critic. It's an important matter around important authors and Derrida's arguments should be added. Not just censored...
I ask your help and your good judgment. You will be able to confirm in "history" that I accepted to be extensively edited and the "critics" manipulated so they are becoming "vague". Once I'm basically quoting, others editors only find a solution: delete. In "talk" you will find my arguments.
I'm really curious to see how all this ends.
Thank you Best regards
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
How should I proceed? -- Hibrido Mutante ( talk) 21:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas & Wikipedia:BLPN#Jose Antonio Vargas. RightCowLeftCoast -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Multiple times content that was well sourced and attributed was deleted in violation of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, material was presented in a manor which did not create UNDUE WEIGHT. Please see the following difference: 1, 2, 3, & 4. Claims of pushing POV have been made against myself, however censoring critical content is itself creating a non-neutral POV in the article. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Another discussion is underway regarding the re-addition of the following:
about the effects of Alabama's severe anti-immigration legislation.
Please see the discussion here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the lead of Karl Marx. Several users have persistently removed the sentence
However, some specific predictions made by Marx have been shown to be unlikely, and he has lost some influence following the revolutions of 1989
from the lead. Several reasons have been given for removing it - including that it allegedly violates WP:WEASEL, WP:LEDE and WP:SYNTHESIS. However, no one has attempted to explain in detail how the sentence, which is sourced, violates any of those policies, and I do not believe that it does. The sentence that has been removed is the only mention of criticism of Marx anywhere in the lead - much of the remaining text of the lead talks about how important and influential Marx is, but none of it says anything about the fact that Marx's theories have been criticized, even though there is a vast amount of criticism of Marx in reliable sources. None of the users who have removed the sentence have proposed any alternative way in which criticism of Marx could be mentioned in the lead. In my opinion, the lead of the article is currently heavily biased in favor of Marx and violates WP:NPOV. Comments from users not involved in the dispute would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Marxism lost influence as a political principle after the European revolutions of 1989, which overthrew single-party "Marxist-Leninist" governments. --- Collect ( talk) 12:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the unencyclopedic item:
Pointing to Rushdoony's dislike of democracy and tolerance and the wide use he would make of the death penalty, the British Centre for Science Education called him "a man every bit as potentially murderous as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or anyone else you may want to name amongst the annals of evil" and "a thoroughly evil man."
I removed it per WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It is also WP:UNDUE. Unbelievably 2 guys at talk think it should stay [44]. – Lionel ( talk) 09:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone help sort out a debate as to how to refer to this movement? They consider themselves Muslims, other Muslims very strongly disagree. Should the lead call them an 'Islamic religious movement' or just a 'religious movement'? As an outsider this looks like a debate within a religion - there are similar debates among groups of Christians but these don't involve governments legislating who is Christian or not. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this edit [47] in strict conformity with WP:NPOV?
That is, to categorize those who left East Germany as illegal emigration and those who got shor as illegally seeking to leave East Germany? I rather think using Wikipedia's voice to describe those who got killed as criminals is quite unlikely to be viewed as a "neutral point of view" at all, and would welcome new and freshes voices thereon. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I made an edit [48] with the summary: assign rational weight to section - and the aside about Ford is not directly relevant in the biography)
It was reverted at [49] with the summary: no need for a whitewash
The amount removed was about 2K out of a section which goes into great detail about Lindbergh's views on "Thoughts on race and racism" - amounting to about 58 lines currently - or 11K. (Roughly 10% of the entire biography, not counting ancillary mentions of the same issues in other sections in the same article) Including three separated comments about "eugenics" etc. That is, the amount affected was under 20% of a very long section which included such important stuff as " Henry Ford, who was well known for his anti-Semitic newspaper The Dearborn Independent." which I regarded as a bit of an aside not directly related to Lindbergh, etc. In fact, even at 9K I consider the section to be UNDUE and POV to an extraordinary extent. FWIW, the article itself is a teensy bit bloated at 120K characters - with weird detail levels <g> (see the section on the secret clandestine flight to Europe using secret passports in a clandestine and secret manner <g>). Also the extensive section on the kidnapping goes well beyond a summary of the sub-article, and so on. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 07:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The article, as is, is basically a hagiography. An anonymous editor criticized this state at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies, and attempted to add note of criticism to the article, but it was dismissed by User:UrbanVillager just because it was posted in a blog entry first, and then in E-novine. OTOH, the same user has kept a description of Politika as "the oldest daily in the Balkans" in the Malagurski article, as if those peacock terms make their opinion the ultimate one :) I've attempted to reason with them, but they've persisted in claiming that E-novine isn't a reliable source of any kind. In the latest edit, they've posted a link to "The Croatian media portal Javno.hr", which, TTBOMK, has no more credibility compared to E-novine. Because the person the article is about is a well-known Serbian propagandist, I think the pattern here is pretty clear - all Serbs must necessarily like him, and it's only those pesky Croats who criticize him. The user who edits this is apparently a single-purpose account, and I'm guessing it could even be Malagurski himself. This is a travesty of WP:NPOV - please help. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the paragraph at Oligarchy reinserted here is neither neutral nor appropriately sourced. The reference for "political and finance industry leadership" appears to be about law professors, and the rest is original research by way of synthesis of primary sources. I'm not going to edit war over, especially as the user in question seems to have taken a dislike to me, so I am looking for other views. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question ( Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).
I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.
Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.
I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at this dispute [50]? A French speaker would be nice, but not essential. Waalkes ( talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a user who argued that including a picture of a Democratic Party Hmong American figure, Mee Moua, in the infobox would be a POV concern unless one can find images of Republican Hmong American figures to counterbalance Mee Moua. Is this a fair application of NPOV?
Please see: Talk:Hmong_American#Images_of_politicians WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been having a very hard time at the Bose Corporation article. There are a few editors that have a clear vocal bias and are editing the article with blatant WP:YESPOV. They have done everything from removing great swaths of information on the company. To inserting with an exorbitant amount of detail on common business legal practices including trademark infringement or suing to stop counterfeit products. They have done this to the point that the article about the company had more information on its legal history than it did on its own company history before after. There is no reason for edits like this. These are every day business practices. As another editor said, there is "Too much "Bose bashing" currently in the article regarding focus on the usual run of the mill legal issues." Please can you help? They started a conversation in the talk page Here. -- Phoenix ( talk) 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It'd be really helpful if someone who hasn't been involved so far would take a look at the edit history of The Zeitgeist Movement article and try to bring some sense into this. There's been a small influx of new pro-TZM editors, most of whom seem to prefer doing massive reverts and calling others "trolls" and "vandals" and not properly discussing things. I'm finding it overwhelming to deal with all of them. It seems their concern is that too much content has been removed or that the article is being "vandalized" (it's not), while some other editors who are involved seem to be anti-TZM in their own views and it shows in the way they edit. The article in the current state that it's being reverted to is wholly too pro-TZM and/or poorly sourced (most of it to primary sources). All of the issues the article has/had have already been dealt with but now it's being reverted to that state, without the issues being addressed. Basically: dumb edit warring is going on, help requested. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I tried this over at WP:NORN without generating much interest, so I thought I'd see if anyone here can help out. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I was servicing a SPER at
Flying Spaghetti Monster and I've run into a disagreement with another editor over whether the text currently in the article is a neutral summation of the source or a biased bit of original research. In fairness, the other editor is not the original author of the content and is just trying to uphold the status quo in favor of content which seems neutral to him.
The current text reads:
It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose.
and the request was to change the latter part to:
...anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution.
Three sources have been brought into the discussion: This source which was there when I serviced the SPER, this source which is a rant by some critic and this appendix which appears to be the original offer Hovind made. The latter two sources have some RS issues as well, but that's moot since they don't summarize the offer in that way. Hovind rambles a lot, but the part which seems the most meaninful is:
How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.
The original editor evidently took "the observed phenomena" to mean a lot more than most people.
As far as I can tell, the current text is a conclusion the original editor reached about Hovind's offer. Please read the sources and see if you feel the content is OR or not. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Eyes needed. New SPA user trying to POV push. He does not respond to suggestions, but edit wars and posts tirades against me on the talk page. Just need some eyes so I'm not the only person dealing with him and I don't edit war. Orangemike was there for a while but not today. Thanks! Be——Critical 03:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the place to report this, but it seems to me that the article on the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan is heavily biased. The language in the article is (in my opinion) inappropriately politically charged for an article on Wikipedia. Additionally, it goes into issues with the Iranian government's treatment of the Kurdish people that could best be dealt with in a separate article. I don't sanction the actions of the Iranian government with regards to ethnic or religious minorities but a Wikipedia article does not seem like the proper forum to raise these concerns. Rbmj ( talk) 16:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
First the article leaves out the incident in 1973 where Isrealie agents shoot and kill a Norwegian citizen. Also the article sounds like an advertisement for Israel. Could you please check this article to see if it is POV neutral Violation Thanks. Magnum Serpentine. Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If any editors have any spare time, it would be much appreciated if Graduated driver licensing could be edited significantly, or preferably rewritten. I have added the POV tag and initiated a dispute on the talk page if you would like to see my reasoning. Regards, -- Nztui12 ( talk) 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a debate at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action? on whether the advice at the top should include as well some statement like "If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory". Dmcq ( talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have a bit of "massive editing" by some who do not quite appear, IMO, to grasp NPOV. Eyes are hereby solicited to descry whether my opinion is apt or inapt. The issue involves pretty much the entire article. Collect ( talk) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
A couple of editors are insisting this edit is a neutral term, given the source. I tend to think this is a stretch, but to avoid reverting excessively, I am bringing it here. Input would be welcome. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I was clicking on the random article link and ran into the page on Straight pride. I have no particular interest or POV other than the usual "racist hate groups are bad" opinion that most folks have.
Looking at the article, I saw the statement "White Aryan Resistance and the Ku Klux Klan, in the name of equality, seek to counter counter gay pride by stressing straight pride. They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents."
I deleted the last sentence with the comment "Removed blatant violation of WP:NPOV." [51]
User:Dominus Vobisdu reverted me (1RR) with the comment "Directly from source and relevant here. Read the source." [52]
I then reverted him (1RR) with the comment "Then rewrite it to say that source X said Y. Wikipedia NPOV policy forbids putting the statement in Wikipedia's voice." [53]
I have three questions regarding NPOV.
[1] Was I correct in my edits above?
[2] The source cited ( http://www.sagepub.com/martin3study/articles/Blazak.pdf) is from a legitimate peer-reviewed source ( American Behavioral Scientist) but the paper itself appears to contain a fair amount of editorial opinion. Then again, I don't think I could write an article about racist hate groups without it sounding like an editorial, so maybe the paper isn't actually editorializing at all. Is the source unbiased?
[3] The "They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents" claim, while undoubtedly true, is phrased with a certainty not present in the source. The body of the source consistently prefaces the claim with phrases such as "It has been argued that...", "data suggests that", "I theorize that...", "I hypothesize that..." and "future research will test the hypotheses that..." By the time it hits the summary paragraph in italics at the top, this has morphed into certainty. Was that lead paragraph written by the researcher, or is it a summary written by the editors? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I need some help to fix an article Ceremonial counties of England it is a term that is used for parts of the country where there are counties but it doesn't really apply to London. Basically point 3 below is their sole basis for the contents of the page although this information is already present on: Lord_Lieutenant#Present_day . The usage suggests that it is the nomenclature people use but this has lead to significant POV pushing look at Kingston-upon-Thames it says its ceremonial county is Greater London in the infobox and there is no mention of Surrey which is how many describe the region even today. This fact cannot be explained by simple oversight.
I think the Lede needs better definition help is much appreciated.
Legal sources 1 - 5
London Government Act 1963 Section 3 no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish
This created a sheriff and lieutenant for Greater London excluding the city. It is difficult to tell when this took affect the supreme court website implies 1964 but all that really matters is that Greater London still was not regard as a county.
"The counties in England for the purposes of this Act are—" - the emboldened phrase is the section which is causing confusion this is followed by "(a) Greater London (excluding the City of London);" - There is no reference to ceremonial county anywhere in the act.
Greater London is still not constituted so still not made officially a county
Other usage is very scarce if we extract sources that are directly lifted from wiki
"A ceremonial county is an area that has an appointed Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff. Ceremonial counties are not explicitly represented in Boundary-Line."
"Moreover, in England there is a unit known variously as a ceremonial county or a geographic county. These counties also form geographic and statistical units. In most cases they comprise an administrative county and one or more unitary..." London would not fulfil EB's definition
Greater London Lieutenancy History city of London doesn't have a High sheriff although it does have 2 sheriffs. and the High Sheriff for Greater London leaves the history completely blank http://www.highsheriffs.com/Greater%20London/Greater%20LondonHistory.htm]
News Archives Use of London as a Ceremonial
one is the China post which most likely took there information from wiki [57] as it is not relevant to the story. The other is from the Letters page of the Telegraph.
Tetron76 ( talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to have serious notability problems, but I think the NPOV problems are even worse. I was hoping another editor could give it a look. Polyquest ( talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there,
I've been cleaning up after the Expewikiwriter paid group account. This is one of their articles.
While not as bad as some, there's been issues with abusing sources, advertising, and the like in other articles I felt a bit more capable of judging - can someone who knows food-y subjects check it over? Cheers, 86.** IP ( talk) 14:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Could someone not previously involved perhaps have a look at the article on the Global Warming Policy Foundation? It seems very biased against its subject. Almost every section has negative comments about the Foundation's activities. There is no useful information concerning the content of the studies that the Foundation has published, which is hardly represented fairly by the statement that "The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of environmental science, including demonstrably false statements made by Lawson about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.".
Also, attacks on the Foundation by a certain Bob Ward take up about a quarter of the text of the article, thus:
Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics to comment,“ These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by...the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders. ” —Bob Ward 2011[11]
Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century.
In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners." [20]
The Guardian quoted Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute, as saying "some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics...It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny". The article cast doubt on the idea that an upsurge in scepticism was underway, noting that "in (the US) Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science"'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonDScott ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see George Washington and religion for a POV dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar ( talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to be clear, the following is the sentence introduced by me: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11."
If Wikipedia wants to present what is the majority position among reliable secondary sources, then it needs to state that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". Given that an expert such as Ahmed Rashid (a Pakistani who is being consulted by major international government agencies) talks about a number of 80,000-100,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban from 1994-2001, stating anything else will make a joke of Wikipedia's factual reliability and will put it into opposition to all reliable sources. JCAla ( talk) 12:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
United Nations
Human Rights Watch
Academia
Encyclopedia
Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)
International Governments
JCAla ( talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: The first of above sources refers to the historic denial which has been nullified by Pakistani President Musharraf recently admitting to providing support until 9/11. The second of above source is only about military support in the sense mentioned in the source including "direct combat support". Pakistan denies "military support", not support! Huge difference here, as Pakistani President Musharraf (military ruler) admitted to providing support. And Interior Minister Barbar justified "crucial backing". Also, to make above quote complete:
|
From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban. Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11. - Sitush ( talk) 12:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sitush, can't believe someone is finally trying to take part in this discussion. ;) The thing is, all reliable sources state Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". So, that is what Wikipedia should reflect. Unfortunately, TG is wrong. I did not introduce the "dropped" into the sentence, that was another editor. This is the sentence I introduced: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." The sentence is a compromise version for TG. Normally, and factually correct, it should be:
Do you see the sources above? Can you understand what they say? Stop claiming consensus where there is none. JCAla ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is controversy about linking "soylent pink" and other definitions recently added to Wiktionary therein. Is there a POV problem in that article and in those edits? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up some of these articles; let's start with the two I've mentioned. Shinee is supposedly a GA; I've started a reassessment thereof (see Talk:Shinee/GA2). I've asked for semi-protection for both. But I'm running into serious fan problems on both articles and a half a dozen other related ones, specifically with the addition of huge chunks of trivia to the Members sections--big fat tables with names in twenty transliterations, dates of birth, hobbies and pets, etc. None of it should be in such a list in the first place, and much of it shouldn't be anywhere. Almost all the band members, by the way, have individual articles already; if the info isn't redundant to begin with its duplicated.
A number of accounts and a set of IPs are reverting me constantly without explanation, edit summaries, or any other kind of communication (let alone arguments), not just in the Members section, but in the article in general: reverts reinsert all kinds of fan stuff, from announcements about past and upcoming events to video teasers to unverified awards. I think this is something that K-pop articles suffer from all over Wikipedia, but a clean-up effort has to start somewhere. There are other things happening as well; someone started an SPI on one of the editors of Super Junior and other articles, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanjay1996. What I would like from this board is some confirmation that these articles in their current form cannot stand, bloated with trivia and announcement that make me wonder if these aren't just fans, but whether they may actually be associated with S.M. Entertainment (I don't have hard evidence for that, which is why I'm here). I need some help in editing/trimming these articles to where they resemble encyclopedic articles a bit more, and I need eyes on them--I'm probably at 3R already on Shinee, and Iluvshinee4ever ( talk · contribs), who doesn't seem to care much for our policies, has just inserted the unverified Members tripe again. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations
I'd appreciate it if somebody could take a look over this article for neutrality issues. I'm American, and the article (especially the bottom section) seems to be a whitewashing of the situation, saying (in a poorly worded sentence) that US troops staying past 2014 "would benefit both nations, as the U.S. would have a clear idea about what was happening in the region on a daily basis, and Afghan security forces would have an edge militarily to ensure that the country never went back into the hands of the Taliban" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dramamoose (
talk •
contribs) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If anyone has the time, could they look at this article? This source [81] looks useful. Right now it appears to have been written by supporters. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 17:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The article War of the Triple Alliance (a XIX century war in South America, nvolving Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) was moved to Paraguayan War the last September, according to Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2011, citing google book results: 6.080 vs. 16.100. There was a new discussion a pair of months ago, at Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 2012. It raised concerns about the neutrality of the title and the accuracy of the results: the title may have a pro-Brazil bias (it's the name used in Brazil, the other is used at the other countries, and both usages were mirrored into books in English), and the google book results may actually be 175.000 for "War of the Triple Alliance" and 57.500 for "Paraguayan War". The discussion and full explanations are at the talk page. However, the closing admin User:Mike Cline kept the "Paraguayan war" name, albeit accepting that both names were widely used. Still, the closing was criticized at Talk:Paraguayan War#Result of the move discussion: majority supporting the move, triple page views for "War of the triple alliance", closing vote; again, it's all in that discussion.
And the new thing is that User:Lecen is now going around all articles that use the "War of the Triple Alliance" link and replace it with "Paraguayan war" in a bot-style way. I pointed it then, and then he reasoned that he was not changing any Argentine or Paraguayan articles (meaning, he just used the Brazilian standard in Brazil-related articles). In recent days he is making the change in all articles, of any nature, of any topic, using any bibliography. To point an example: "Los mitos de la historia argentina", an Argentine book of history, changing "it talks about the [[War of the Triple Alliance]]" to "it talks about the [[Paraguayan War]], when it actually does not: the book talks about it from pages 237 to 265, and uses the first name. There are lots of other examples in his recent contributions, even beverages, hospitals, administrative divisions, tourism, ethnic groups, etc.; even portal pages. (meaning, there's absolutely no rationale in which pages to change, he's changing them all).
I consider that Lecen is trying to universally impose a single usage of a name that is not universal (even the admin that closed the deletion request said that). I consider this goes against Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing, Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken and the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality. I don't think talking with him more than I already did will solve anything, I have always seen him reacting harshly to any type of criticism. My question is: is this massive linking change an acceptable behavior, or should it be reverted? And, now that we are at this, was the closing of the move request an acceptable one in the first place, or should it be changed of discussed again in a wider RFC? Cambalachero ( talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: according to noticeboard rules, I informed Lecen (see his uncivil response) and Mike Cline directly, as I talked directly about them here. All the several other users that took part in the move request have been informed indirectly at the article talk page. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm failing to see what is the issue, and am surprised to see it dredged up here. The usage of the title has already been established by consensus on the article's talk. The title is neutral and reflects English-language sources and scholarship. This is not the place to re-argue already decided moves to new titles. Where there is more than one accepted title for an event, it is reasonable to add a parenthetical note listing other names by which it is known. However, the link to an article in this sort of case should reflect the article's title, both for consistency between articles and to avoid surprising readers. • Astynax talk 08:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
An editor is removing significant content from that article replacing it with statements to say that it is a false accusation against Islam. Valenciano ( talk) 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on Alisher Usmanov shows many deletes and reverts in its history, regarding Usmanov's criminal conviction, and subsequent pardon, and allegations raised by former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray. The article as it stands carries no mention of a fairly well-publicised and documented dispute between various bloggers and Usmanov's lawyers. It looks likely that someone is "sanitizing" the article. Since Usmanov is a living person, I've also added a note on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Clark42 ( talk) 01:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sample diffs (I hope I'm doing this right!): [84]
[85]: "Mr Usmanov was thus conclusively found to be innocent of the crimes which were alleged to have been committed" seems very non-NPOV considering the political situation in Uzbekistan.
[87] Loads of content, with many links to other Wikipedia articles, removed.
There are many more like this. Clark42 ( talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone could comment on any possible neutrality, or perhaps notability issues with this article? Not really with the content per se but more of it being the focus of its own separate article, as if making an overt anti-tobacco statement. Also considering there's no mention of "zephyr" in either the Tobacco industry, Tobacco politics, nor Lung cancer articles. -- œ ™ 01:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Does this unsourced claim in the lede of Radical right conform to NPOV?
I rather think that having everyone in that class being labeled as "radical" ought reasonably be sourced as a claim, but others think that "radical" applies to whole swaths of evil right wing nuts. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been doing a little bit of editing to this article: Guba mass grave. It concerns the discovery of a mass of dislocated human remains in the town of Guba, Azerbaijan, during redevelopment. The remains are claimed by Azerbaijan, on, it appears, no scientific or archaeological or documentary evidence, to be Azeris murdered by Armenians in 1918, and the site has been turned into an anti-Armenian shrine (this should be seen in the wider context of the Nagorno-Karabakh war). The article contains a number of images with troubling file names - they are all pov, and are extremist verging into racist. For example: "Armenian terror in Guba district of Azerbaijan in 1918.jpg", "Genocide of Azerbaijanis monument in Quba city of Azerbaijan.jpg". What is the policy towards filenames such as this. Can picture file names be changed to something neutral? (And if so, how?) Or should they be removed on account of their clearly pov title? Only two of the 15 images have neutral filenames. Meowy 02:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
File names are "behind the scenes" stuff, readers do not see them, just the images themselves. Renamings complicate a lot of things, such as links from other pages (as in "this photo was taken from Wikimedia Commons"), so they are done in limited cases, and not usually renamed if the name just "may be better". Cambalachero ( talk) 01:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this edit [88] proper? I note that it is from a collection of videos, and was concerned about it being RS, but am also concerned about any source implying in any way that a group is Nazi in basis. To wit, is
a direct connecting of the Tea Party movement to Nazism in any way? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a significantly harsh comparison. It is merely the opinion of one person, which is given undue weight by being included in the article. The statement tends to be harmful to the group and is an inflammatory and non-neutral statement that is, as presented here, the opinion of one person. Chomsky has a right to express his opinion but I see several Wiki policies that would warrant removing it from this article. In some cases, WP:BLP applies to groups and it might apply here. "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." WP:Quotations states: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." WP:NPOV Due and undue weight states: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Coaster92 ( talk) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am wondering why some religious sites are allowed to use citations from their sacred writings (such as in the Islam page, and their citations of the Koran) and others religious sites such as some of the Christian sites will not allow Bible citations. That seems really prejudical to me. Please assist. Thank you, Mark0880. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0880 ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I and others have been stuck for a year now fending off desperate attempts to puff up and bowlderise the articles Dera Sacha Sauda, as well as the article of its current head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The group is one of many basic "spiritual orders" in India, some kind of communal religious organisation that does public works, and is referred to by opponents as a "cult".
We've had a few anti-DSS folks do some vandalism (which I've also reverted), but mostly have trouble with partisans adding in honorifics like "Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan", in some cases at every instance of his name down the page.
At the immediate moment I'm concerned about User:Vikas.insan, since we're butting up on 3RR here, and he has a bad, bad case of Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. We've explained multiple times that the various cases against Singh (rape, murder, etc.) that are properly sourced to news/books can't be removed simply because he was cleared (the clearing itself is clearly covered/sourced).
A quick look at Vikas' edit summary shows that he's basically a DSS SPA, and almost everything he does is reverted by neutral editors, but he persists in making exactly the same edits, disappearing for a while, and coming back to try again. A sampling:
...
...
...
...
Note too he's been informed about WP:Honorifics since October 2011 ( Talk:Gurmeet_Ram_Rahim_Singh#Request_to_change_the_title_of_the_article_2), but again "I didn't hear that" kicks in and even today he's still putting "Saint ... Ji Insan" everywhere ( diff). This is getting really tiresome and disruptive. Can I get some support for a block? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent additions to BIO such as "A trio of acts of Menzel (as Director of Harvard Observatory) has caused long-lasting damage to astronomy" appear not to be neutrally stated, nor represent notable opinions. More eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the reference and did not see the above statement there. The revision deleting that statement and resulting in the current statement about the Menzel gap seems accurate, neutrally stated, and reliably sourced. Coaster92 ( talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi I am Robertsan from German WP. This is a private artist rating from a man who's name is Sergey Zagraevsky. Of course he himself is very prominent on this rating but in no other. He wants to be a famous artist but he is not. There is an account named Ozolina, who puts all that Zagraevsky spam in many Wikipedias. We had this in German WP, too. Ozolina account belongs to an assistant of Z. The Artist Ranking and many other institutions mentioned here shown as sources are private pages of Z. Please someone should have an eye on this. Thank you for your attention.-- Robertsan ( talk) 11:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We've had a discussion on Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War concerning this to this section of the article. The edit adds two viewpoints to the article body: 1) that the Six-Day War is often mentioned as an example of a pre-emptive strike, and 2) that senior Israelis have since acknowledged that Israel wasn't in fact expecting to be invaded when the war broke out.
The discussion has boiled down to whether the edit complies with WP:NPOV, in detail one editor feels that since the section of the article mentions only the "official" positions of Israel and the Arabs and (all) details are in a (somewhat disorganized) notes collection at the end, adding two viewpoints to the body would not be neutral. The editor says that in order to comply with NPOV, all viewpoints would have to be added in one go, not just one or two.
The edit has sourcing in it already, but there are additional sources in the discussion, e.g. " It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel". The author is Tom Ruys, who according to Google Scholar has published in e.g. Journal of conflict and security law and Stanford Journal on International Law. I think that it's accepted that both viewpoints have sufficient sources and represent important views.
I'm one of the parties in this discussion and my opinion is that WP:NPOV nowhere requires that an edit must add all significant viewpoints into an article in one go, and if it did editing the project would be almost impossible. I also feel that adding significant viewpoints to the article body is what most normal editing in Wikipedia is all about, and an argument that it can't be done because the article has a notes-list isn't supported in WP:NPOV. Therefore I don't agree that the edit infringes WP:NPOV. In fact the edit adds one viewpoint that rather "supports" Israel and another that rather "supports" the Arabs specifically to remain neutral.
Comments from others? Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it consistent with NPOV to remove all criticism, even when it is cited to a reliable secondary source? I ask because User:Kwamikagami is edit-warring to remove criticism of the Secular Islam Summit with a bevy of rapidly shifting excuses - that the source was unreliable (RSN confirmed that U.S. News and World Report was fine), that we shouldn't have a criticism ghetto (so I integrated the criticism into the article body), and so on, with every point being either easily refuted, patent nonsense, or both. At this point it's quite clear that Kwamikagami simply doesn't want Wikipedia to acknowledge that anyone was unhappy about this conference and prefers the article to contain only self-serving material that comes mostly from the conference attendees, which I believe you'll agree is an obvious violation of NPOV. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting for comments on this, as issues of whitewashing and misrepresentation are multiplying. I encourage editors to ignore Kwamikagami's comments here and take a look at the history of the article and the talk page - it'll take longer, but then you will know what actually happened instead of something completely fictitious. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The article has been rewritten in ways that are less neutral. But all attempts to restore the older version of the article, before members of the Universal Life Church rewrote it, are reverted by User:ULC4me, who doesn't see a major problem with the article as it currently exists. I am just not able to invest the amount of time it will take to completely rewrite either version of the article to be reasonably neutral; does anyone else want the job? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 12:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Recently some documents were stolen from this right wing think tank. The article it are popping up in are The Heartland Institute Watts Up With That? DeSmogBlog and Anthony Watts (blogger) The major problem as I see it is that the MSM (notably The Guardian & the BBC) failed to any due diligence. Since they ran with the story the HI has said at least one document is a fake and others may have been altered. We have editors however using these sources in the article above. Given that one of these stolen documents is used to source stuff along the lines of (HI is trying to stop K12 from teaching science) seems to me to be problematic. Another issue which may be a BLP problem is on the Watts article. budgeted two payments of US$44,000 to Watts This appears to be incorrect, the 44k was from a pledge from an anonymous donor with HI saying they would help find funding for the rest. As the original article seemed to have gotte na great deal wrong should they be used as sources at all? We also have editors writing that these documents were "leaked" They were no leaked, they were stolen by a person unknown committing ID fraud. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
We really need help here. A few editors have decided to ignore WP:NPOV and say that only positive content may be included in a list. This clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK. We have an RFC going, but thus far no uninvolved editors have commented. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a claim at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Quotations that (what I consider) the very lengthy quotations in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming are required to satisfy BLP, and that they may not be removed because of the policy. Is this true? (crossposted from WP:BLPN after two days without a response) 86.** IP ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian with a biographical article about me. User:WLU began negatively editing the biography about me [2] during a content dispute at Talk:Paraphilia. The dispute was about a problematic article by User:James Cantor, whose edits here are almost invariably promotion of his work and friends, or denigration of his off-wiki critics, which include me. The negative content WLU added has also been added to my biography by Cantor and his alternate accounts, [3] [4] [5], though it was later removed by others per WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and other policies. Cantor also removed my academic credentials using a different account [6] and removed my primary occupation and downplayed my accomplishments, among other negative POV changes, [7] despite that information being easily sourced (e.g. [8]). I requested that WLU address my concerns as follows:
WLU has refused to address my concerns [9]. I'd like uninvolved editors to weigh in and possibly revert these punitive changes made by WLU and James Cantor. Jokestress ( talk) 19:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Jokestress, if you'd be willing to provide URLs for the credentials you'd like restored on the article talk page, I and other editors not currently engaged in a conflict against you will be happy to consider the additions. You shouldn't be punished for voluntarily being open about who you are.
2a. Re Archives of Sexual Behavior, WLU wrote "Cantor being on the editorial board puts a different spin on the source...". An RS cited above goes further: "They turned the Archives of Sexual Behavior into the house organ and bully pulpit for knowledge produced by Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. [14]". Clearly Archives of Sexual Behavior is not independent in this mater and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.
2b. Re The Northwestren Chronicle, while it might be the best rag for info on "The Fighting Methodist [15]", is the campus paper of Northwestren University, where Baily works [16]. Again, clearly not independent and not the soundest basis for negative BLP additions.
Should the negative BLP additions have been made? Arguably, I would lean towards no, since only questionable sources are being cited. Should WLU have made the negative additions to the BLP while involved in a conflict elsewhere on Wikipedia with, among other editors, the subject of the BLP? Certainly not. BitterGrey ( talk) 20:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If the issue is my behaviour, then this doesn't seem to be the appropriate venue. Again, my sole edit to Andrea James was this one, mostly citation improvements and a link to a paper that you currently include in the proposed rewrite of Andrea James. Your proposed version includes more detail actually, since my edit added only "...and in 2008 an article appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior discussing the controversy in detail" and right now your proposed page says "Critics of James' tone and tactics accused her of personal harassment that went beyond the limits of civil discourse, and they said her efforts had a chilling effect on academic freedom". If you look at my contribution history for that day, yours was the last page of three I added that extremely lengthy ( 55 pages) article to Ray Blanchard, Blanchard's transsexualism typology, search for PMID 18431641 or DOI 10.1007/s10508-007-9301-1 on James' page. There may be a user conduct issue here (I don't see it, but perhaps the community will) but there really doesn't seem to be any neutrality issues resulting from my edit. NPOV is generally seen as a content issue, not a conduct one. Not to mention my immediate attempts to address an issue I had thought I found with an oversighted edit requested on the talk page [23], [24]. Note that the time stamp places those edits less than a minute apart. Obviously I'm biased, but I simply don't see any evidence of malice on my part towards Jokestress. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything that Andrea James/Jokestress has said. I have reverted WLU and Bali ultimate. They should be ashamed. Luwat ( talk) 06:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There be brief mentions of the dreger paper and NY times article, but not the detailed quotes. Nobody Ent 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
STOP... please separate the edit from the editor. Our editors are not required to be neutral... their edits are. This is not the place to discuss the actions or motivations of a given editor ... it is the place to discuss whether a given edit skews the neutrality of a given article. Could someone please explain why they think the in question makes the article non-neutral. Blueboar ( talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Getting back on track per Blueboar, here’s where we are on the neutrality of this content.
Thanks to Maunus and others, we have made some great progress so far. Concern 1 is currently resolved, and based on consensus, editors have decided to forgo reverting WLU’s edit to my bio in favor of adding my responses. For the record, a poster presentation is peer-reviewed and is a reliable source, despite WLU’s claims above. All of my initial concerns have been addressed.
However, since this started, User:Bali ultimate has exacerbated the initial content problem by making about 50% of the bio about this controversy. That is completely out of proportion in relationship to its significance. In addition, he shifted everything out of chronological order to make his big block of text more prominent.
I have prepared proposed text which includes all the sources and expands the description of the controversy, but keeps it in proportion within my career. I believe something along those lines is within NPOV.
The controversy was certainly significant: Great Moments in LGBT History by Lillian Faderman states, "The series of protests stemming from Bailey’s publication of The Man Who Would Be Queen represented one of the most organized and unified examples of transgender activism seen to date. Linking issues of scientific research on homosexuality and transsexualism, the efforts of Lynn Conway, Andrea James, Charlotte Anjelica Kieltyka, Joan Roughgarden, and other transsexual women marked a new moment in transgender history.“ It’s been called a defining moment and a tipping point in trans history.
However, it was not a particularly big deal within the scope of my life. It wasn’t even the most significant event in my life from that year, let alone within the scope of my career. I was primarily involved in producing the first all-transgender performance of The Vagina Monologues in association with Eve Ensler and Jane Fonda during that time. That event was seen as worthy of a documentary, unlike the Bailey nonsense. I don’t think we need quotes from Great Moments in LGBT History, or from the many published works which note that much of the publishing activity from Bailey’s allies emanate from a journal they control, where he sits on the editorial board.
The Bailey affair is a fixation of a conservative rearguard of academics. It’s significant to them because their jobs depend on maintaining various kinds of authority over transgender people, and this pushback was a huge threat to their livelihoods and ideologies. It’s also a fixation of a certain kind of hack journalist influenced by the rhetoric of blog culture, where people flit from outrage to outrage and use controversy as a marketing tool. Finally, it’s a fixation of academic freedom absolutists. Each type occasionally pops up at my bio to turn it into a coatrack of grievances about my tone and tactics. There’s also an occasional issue with editors who engage in on-wiki content disputes with me. Typically they end up getting blocked and their edits are oversighted, as you’ll note from the edit history of the article.
As an aside, I am by no means the only critic of Bailey. The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a series of articles on him, and the Chicago Tribune covered the full investigation Northwestern initiated against him and his subsequent actions. His live fucksaw demonstration last year led Northwestern to move their human sexuality class from the psychology department to gender studies, hopefully the start of a nationwide trend that can be traced to his actions.
Bottom line: none of this is really significant to this biography, which should summarize someone’s life and work in proportion.
More detail than that in a bio this short veers into NPOV issues. Jokestress ( talk) 18:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
A paragraph in the Israel-Palestine conflict reads: In December 2011, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council named continued settlement construction and settler violence as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks, a call viewed by Russia as a "historic step". [33] [34] [35]
Having examined the cited sources and several others, it is only the
Al Jazeera article that states that the settlement activity was described by "all regional groups as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks". This is not quoting from any of the envoy criticisms but appears to be loosely based on the statement issued on behalf of the non-aligned bloc that states settlement activity is
"the main impediment to the two-state solution". As such, that "all the regional and political groupings... named continued settlement construction... as a principal obstacle to the resumption of talks" appears to represent only the opinion of Al Jazeera. Is it permissible to use the Wiki voice in asserting this, or is source attribution required. Is using the wiki voice lending this lone view
undue weight and providing disproportionate prominence to this viewpoint by characterising settlements according to this singular viewpoint?
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk) 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly it is a reliable source. The issue is
WP:UNDUE - "The page should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view...To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Currently, only the AlJazeera source supports this claim so am I correct in requesting either further sourcing or attribution to AlJazeera before the claim is presented using the Wiki voice? I quote "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject... for example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
Best Wishes
AnkhMorpork (
talk) 20:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Two editors have attempted to add material to the article based completely on primary sources, including Mormon scripture. The excuse is that "in some instances vital information can only be had by sources like Smith and Whitmer."-- John Foxe ( talk) 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just started the section Talk:Norwegian Defence League#Possible COI major rewrite reverted about what may appear to be an underhanded attempt at slanting the article by removing mention of information that could be seen as damaging to the article's subject. I'm also notifying the COI noticeboard (I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to notify both boards, but I'm unsure which is the more correct one). I have ventured to revert the contentious edit. My own connection to the subject has been declared on the article's talk page. __ meco ( talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a variety of people are acting in concert to try to remove mention of honey bee toxicity from Clothianidin and Imidacloprid, two insecticides which have been linked to bee colony collapse disorder. Please see Talk:Imidacloprid#Systematic repeated deletion of sourced bee toxicity info and Talk:Clothianidin#References from 2012. 222.165.255.198 ( talk) 01:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised that no one had notified NPOVN till now, but there is a large discussion taking place on Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move regarding whether Genesis creation narrative should be moved to Genesis creation myth. Since NPOV is largely related to the discussion your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Noformation Talk 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The tone and conclusion of the article on Kudankulam nuclear power plant ('Controversy' section alone) goes against the neutral facts on the ground. I have tried editing it to give it a neutral view, but have been threatened with being banned. Anyway. if the article stands as it currently stands, it would mean that the Indian Prime Minister, Home Minister and many other senior people in the establishment are outright liars. Request experienced users help in resolving this matter as per the spirit of Wikipedia policy. Nashtam ( talk) 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The bio on Leo Wanta, which is related to an Internet conspiracy theory, has (in my view) systematically been edited away from WP:NPOV (and likely factual accuracy) over a period of several years.
Compare, for example, the current article with a 2008 version, the latter being, in my view, much closer to NPOV and factual accuracy. Also see the talk page for additional external citations (and references to citations) disputing the current article's factual basis (and supporting the 2008 version).
Comments are requested. Should the article be rewritten to revert or partially revert to the 2008 version? Asdfi922 ( talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This sentence has been the focus of extensive comment in Talk:Falkland Islands:
“ | After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities. | ” |
The facts - Luis Vernet founded a settlement in the Falkland Islands, specifically East Falkland at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, which he renamed Puerto Luis, now known as Port Louis. Vernet sought permission to do so from the British Charge D'Affairs in Buenos Aires Woodbine Parish, equally he was promised tax exemption if he could establish a colony within 3 years by the Republic of Buenos Aires and received a Land Grant from the Republic. Vernet financed the whole operation from his own funds.
See Talk:Falkland Islands#Vernet established an Argentinian settlement
The current discussion suggests we need to either A) add the adjective "Argentinian" in front of settlement or B) remove the reference to the British authorities to a specialised article.
I would appreciate comment as to whether the current sentences satisfies WP:NPOV or whether the suggestions would improve it. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"I suggest the article [on Kosovo] be tagged for not adhering to the NPOV requirement. The reasons in a nutshell:
-- Getoar TX ( talk) 18:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)" (from Talk:Kosovo#Article_is_biased; see source for more information)
For some time, our entry on Death march has included the Lydda death march that was part of the 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. The text reads as follows:
After repeated attempts by IPs to remove it, a 'new' edtitor has repeatedly tried to delete the entry claiming that it does not qualify as a death march. Here are some more sources to consider:
As far as I understand, NPOV means representing all significant viewpoints on a given subject. Is there a reason why the POV that what happened in Lydda was a death march should not be included in our article? I have asked for sources that contest its bring called a death march, but the editor seeking to remove it has not provided any. I am willing to include refutations of this viewpoint, if there are any, but do not believe we should censor it out based on one editor's unsourced objection.
Tiamut
talk 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where I should raise this, but I'll try here. Some advice would be helpful at The Standells. There is an ongoing legal dispute between former members of the band as to who has the rights to use the name "The Standells". On one side is Larry Tamblyn, and on the other is Tony Valentino (aka Bellissimo), both of whom were original band members back in the 1960s. Tamblyn has used the name most recently, for example here, but Valentino / Bellissimo has taken out a legal case against him here, which actually references the WP page (in para 20). Both sides in the argument have attempted to edit the WP article in the past, but a couple of us have monitored it to ensure that, I think, we have a reasonably balanced article now. My initial question relates to the infobox. Should we include Tamblyn's line-up as "current members", or not? Do we have any precedent as to what to do in these circumstances? Any more general advice would also be welcome, before any well-meaning editors like me get sucked in to legal arguments several thousand miles away! Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Both the article and the talk page are being edited by members of this American right wing racist party. The numbers are frankly a problem (especially since one of the editors who was watching the article is now gone). The issue they are raising is one that really upsets such groups and that is the claim that they are White supremacist. I've seen this contested by members or supporters at both articles on groups and BLPs, e.g. Don Black who I think should at least have this somewhere in his article. A typical comment is one today by a member, who says "its a conflict of interest, but more than enough credible proof has been presented in this talk thread that shows A3P is not 'white supremacist' but that label has continued, as per biased wikipedia contributers. Zionists don't want White people collecting together and fighting our interests, and defending our race and culture, so they try to slander any pro-White group as 'white supremacist' in an attempt to discourage other Whites from joining or voicing their concerns on racial issues." and "having sources from the ADL, a Zionist entity, is the biggest conflict of interest I can think of." An editor with an account has said "the burden of proof remains on those insisting that it be called "White Supremacist" to source one example of the organization saying or doing anything "supremacist". If you've got a bunch of "reputable" organizations claiming something which they fail to or refuse to validate, then you may need to reconsider the reputation of the sources." There's a lot more on the talk page. IMHO we have plenty of reliable sources that call the group white supremacist, so there are basically two issues: 1. How do we say it. 2. How do we deal with IPs from the party in the light of comments such as "Clearly the IP editing wars will not stop until Wikipedia shows an unbiased position towards A3P, by ending its slander as 'white supremacist.' -A3P supporter". Dougweller ( talk) 17:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
"American right wing racist party", see that's exactly what I'm talking about. The frank problem is editors like you, who cannot hold an objective viewpoint about anything and who must constantly parrot anything pro-White as "racist, racist, ROKKK!" If Wikipedia continues to let this blatant slander of A3P continue on, then delete the article completely from your servers and never create one about A3P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.16.51 ( talk) 20:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's an example of Wikipedia bias: /info/en/?search=Naacp --> "is an African-American civil rights organization in the United States, formed in 1909." /info/en/?search=National_Council_of_La_Raza --> "is a non-profit and non-partisan advocacy group in the United States, focused on improving opportunities for Hispanics."
Whereas A3P, an advocacy group for White Americans, "is a white supremacist group" and per contributor and editor Doggie-boy here, 'racist' as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.18.230 ( talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
On top of those comments above me, and in regards to so-called "credible sources", even one of them listed A3P as "white nationalist" and not supremacist: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-01/europe/31011989_1_bnp-emails-hacker-group
"Anonymous infiltrated the website and emails of American Third Position (A3P), a white nationalist political group"
So seriously, stop with the bias against American Third Position already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.10.205 ( talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That should have been "Douggie". So an organization can't want to have autonomy among its people, and promote such peoples' culture and interests at the same time? Both are mutually exclusive? The other racial organizations don't have to be separatist (in name, they clearly are by organizational standards) because they have their own voice and political representation in society. Whites, specifically, do not (being a current majority does not mean we have a voice and representation) therefore we are forced to separating ourselves from the mainstream. Again, a source is not simply one that exists on an internet address, it must be backed up with evidence of supremacy (such as a leader or council saying he wants to exterminate nonwhites, or dominate over them). None have said anything even remotely associated with this, but on the contrary speak about preserving White European culture and heritage. The only sources either are from, or linked directly to, the ADL/SPLC and similar organizations who make money by scaring donations out of little old ladies by claiming white supremacists are under every bed in America. Clearly the conflict of interest exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.12.184 ( talk) 22:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The American Third Position (A3P) political party told The Daily Caller Monday that allegations made by Anonymous are false.
“Many people like Ron Paul. Many A3P members like Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is not a member of our party [nor] does he represent our party,” said A3P. ”We have no regular meetings with Ron Paul. This is a complete fabrication and drama to smear Ron Paul.”
“Anonymous hacked SONY, the CIA, the DOJ, law enforcement agencies all over the country,” the group contended. “They stole a bank card number from our party and made a donation to the ADL.”
A screenshot was posted in a blog for a donation receipt to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which A3P called a “Jewish supremacist organization.”
“We have notified the FBI and the Secret Service,” the organization added.
Facebook comments on an A3P affiliate’s Facebook page finger Barrett Brown, a public member of Anonymous and founder of Project PM, as the culprit.
Brown told TheDC that someone working out of both Anonymous and Project PM did take down the A3P site, along with several other websites.
“I used contact info of subscribers to call some of them up, claim that I’m with a new secret white supremacist group called ‘The Order,’ and that I want to recruit them,” Brown said. “All five fell for it. Recorded it. Planning on using this as an experiment for blind cyber armies.”
A ‘blind cyber army,’ Brown told TheDC, is “a group of online activists who believe themselves to be working for one cause when they are actually being used for another.”
“This isn’t my idea; intelligence agencies have done this IRL [in real life] for years by their own acknowledgement,” said Brown.
A3P also told TheDC that it is not a “white supremacist” organization, as TheDC reported previously, but that A3P is an organization of “nationalists.”
The party’s mission statement states that it “believes that government policy in the United States discriminates against white Americans, the majority population, and that white Americans need their own political party to fight this discrimination.”
A3P also explains on its website that it stands to “protect White American interests, since no other political party has shown interest in doing so. This does not make us racist, but protective of our rights – which every other race or group is encouraged and praised for doing. Discriminatory ‘affirmative action’ programs and the invasion of illegal immigrants adversely affect the welfare of all Americans, but especially the White majority.”
Considering Anonymous, who hacked A3P's website, accounts, and emails, made a donation to the ADL using a key member's credit card, how can you honestly have the balls to use the ADL as a reliable, credible, and neutral source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.107 ( talk) 06:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Page:
Fascism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
POV dispute: NPOV violation - no evidence that fascism completely rejected democracy, fascists rejected conventional democracy, claimed to support authoritarian democracy.
[40]
Disputed text (in bold): Fascists reject the conventional form of
democracy.
[41]
Question: If editors reject this edit, does it make the article POV?
Comment: There is a dispute over whether to include mention of a new theory that fascists supported "authoritarian democracy". A recent book, The Civic Foundations of Fascism (2011) by Dylan Ryley presents a theory of fascism as "authoritarian democracy". A review of the book by the fascism scholar Stanley G. Payne says that Riley makes a "dramatic challenge to the scholarship [by claiming that] fascist movements [are] not as antidemocratic as the existing literature says they were." My view is that since Riley's views have not entered academic discourse we cannot assign weight and are best to ignore them. In any case I do not think ignoring Riley's theory makes the article POV.
TFD ( talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: Part of the problem is that there is no single, simple definition of "Fascism" (other than that of Mussolini's self-described slightly amorphous party), hence no absolute claims about such a gelatinous grouping will be always true. FWIW, there is a large and increasing body of work suggesting that "authoritarianism" is not necessarily "anti-democratic" - even Athens (such as under Pericles) used authoritarianism while still officially a "democracy" and during war, many "democracies" adopt quite authoritarian positions. The term "authoritarian sdemocracy" is fairly widely used, and this should not be a place for denying its existence. Collect ( talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Two people repeatedly erase my passage completely about developments in Hungary in 2010-2011.
My contribution is below
The years 2010 and 2011 saw the rapid transition of the country from democracy to authoritarian rule. [65] The FiDeSz government cancelled the previous checks and balances: restricted the role of the Constitutional Court, then enlarged it with its own appointees. [66]
The constitution of 1989 granted absolute power to a party with more than 2/3 of the seats in Parliament, and FiDeSz used this deficiency to abolish the very Constitution and replace it with their own "Basic Law" after a mere three-week debate inside their party [67] In the new Basic Law they restricted numerous rights the previous constitution granted to the people; for instance they made it extremely difficult to demand referendum or actio popularis, or to appeal to the Constitutional Court. The Chief Prosecutor (appointed by FiDeSz for the longer of {9 years or 2/3 majority to replace him}) has the right to select the judges in cases of his choosing. Most appeals court judges will be forcibly retired in 2012, and FiDeSz will appoint their replacement. The body of judicial autonomy is abolished, Orban's personal friend was appointed for 9 years with great powers over the body of judges.[68] They also changed the composition of the Electoral Committee, and the whole election process. FiDeSz also appointed a new Media Council for 9 years with formidable powers over the press, radio stations and television channels. [69]
[65] The former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, László Sólyom, who was elected by Fidesz support in 2005 to become the President of Hungary (2005-2010), declared on October 8, 2011: "The maiming of the Constitutional Court is a wound that cannot be healed. I would dare to say that the [current] system is not constitutional" („Az Alkotmánybíróság megcsonkítása egy gyógyíthatatlan seb. Azt merem állítani, hogy nem alkotmányos a rendszer, mert van egy olyan része, ahol nincsen alkotmányos kontroll, bármi megtehető, mert ott nem érvényes az alkotmány”), see, for instance http://nol.hu/lap/allaspont/20111010-solyom [66] In May 2010, the Constitutional Court had 8 members. They had been elected by consensus. In October 2011, it has 15 members, 7 of them newly appointed by the votes of the ruling party. See the biographical page of the Court: http://www.mkab.hu/index.php?id=jelenlegi_tagok [67] The debate started on March 22, 2011 (e.g. http://www.mitortent.hu/sztori/hisf45j/kezdodik-az-uj-alaptorveny-vitaja---tudositas-percrol-percre.aspx) and the replacement of the Constitution was voted in on April 18, 2011 http://www.napi-hirek.hu/hirek/tartalom/elfogadtak-az-alaptorvenyt-figyelonet/529445, See the legal opinion of the Venice Committee at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2011/CDL-AD%282011%29016-E.pdf [68] See Prof Scheppele's articles in Prof Krugman's NYT blog - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/the-unconstitutional-constitution/, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/somewhere-in-europe/, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/hungary-misunderstood/ [69] http://www.ortt.hu/uploads/9/11/12940687522010clxxxv.pdf , The only opposition radio channel,"Klubradio", http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klubr%C3%A1di%C3%B3 could broadcast in eleven towns only, but they were forced to stop broadcasting in five towns on October 14, 2011 http://radiosite.hu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1156:5-frekvencian-hallgat-el-a-klubradio&catid=1:hirek&Itemid=99
Thinhun ( talk) 20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Is [42] a full and proper source for the claim AFP was a major supporter of Republican candidates in the 2010 election cycle and is heavily involved in political activities aimed at reducing regulation of the oil and gas industry.
I can find in that article a reference to a three named candidates, rather than AFD being a "major supporter of Republican candidates" (the three being Griffin, Gardner and Kinzinger) and two others implicitly connected by "five benefited from the group's separate advertising and grass-roots activity during the 2010 campaign." In addition, however, I found no statement in the article on which to hang the specific claim "is heavily involved in political activities aimed at reducing regulation of the oil and gas industry" based on the source's words. Can anyone show me where the two claims are specified in the source given? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 22:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is re the main Hawaii article. I hope I'm in the right place to ask for help; I was once a high-edit-count editor and pulled back. Not sure that I know the ropes now.
A user named Laualoha has made the same edit to the main Hawaii article three times in a row. He/she appears to be a Hawaiian sovereignty activist and is intent on inserting a claim that the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was illegal. This has been a prominent theme of sovereignty rhetoric: activists hope to convince others that the act was illegal and that the islands should therefore no longer be part of the U.S. It's seriously unbalanced to insert this claim in the general article, where it is not appropriate to add the counterclaims, a history of the controversy, etc. The article would be hijacked by the argument. There are other articles in which the issue can be discussed, at greater length. And has been, probably. I haven't even looked at those.
It seems to me that Laualoha is edit warring and that the war must be stopped. I'm not going to revert for a third time. I'm going to ask for help outside. If this is not the right place to ask for help, please direct me to the correct forum. Zora ( talk) 20:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm unindenting. I'm concerned with the insertion of the claim that the overthrow was illegal -- as if this were something notable about the coup d'état. Well, yes, all coups and revolutions are illegal, from the POV of the previous regime. It's as if the article about the American Revolution stressed that the revolution was illegal according to British law. The response is, "Yes, that happened a long time ago. Are you arguing that we should undo it NOW?" However, if I add something like this to the main Hawai'i article, we're turning the article into a debating forum for sovereignty activists. I have been reluctant to engage in yet another round of argument on the same old same old, but I suppose I must. I'll try rewriting the section to point to the overthrow article and note that the event still rouses intense passions. Zora ( talk) 04:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Zora, I looked at several edits by Laualoha but can't tell for sure which section you are focusing on. Coaster92 ( talk) 22:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC regarding whether to include Jesus in the infobox at Talk:Palestinian people as an example member of the group. This debate seems to be going around in circles, encompassing much of the history of the world, and getting nowhere. Input from uninvolved editors would be valuable. GabrielF ( talk) 18:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I think this article is not written in a Neutral point of view. We had a note in German WP, Austrian Artists where a new artist has been put in. I never heard from this man, so I looked nearer. The editors name was Rosapfeifer and this is a one porpose account. And so I looked if this artist is relevant or famous according to our kriteria. I found out, that he is not (I am especially working in the field of contemporary art in German Wikipedia). He had no exhibition in any important museum, only some group exhibitions or small culture-halls in the country. There are many books mentioned. The books are without ISBN, so these are folders or flyers from galleries. The only two books with ISBN are from the EMI-Verlag, and when you ask what kind of publisher this is wondering why there are oly books of Kayem.- you finally come to the artists studio adress and a woman named Rosa Pfeifer. In my mind there is a self-marketing campaign using Wikipeia for marketing. Sorry for my broken Englsh and thank you for your attention.-- Robertsan ( talk) 09:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to add a "critic" section in John Searle article made by Derrida (a paragraph and a quote). I'm supporting each sentence with a quote. Each sentence is just a paraphrase of Derrida's arguments. I was deleted several times without serious arguments. I asked for people to be reasonable and just edit the sentences but keep the critic. It's an important matter around important authors and Derrida's arguments should be added. Not just censored...
I ask your help and your good judgment. You will be able to confirm in "history" that I accepted to be extensively edited and the "critics" manipulated so they are becoming "vague". Once I'm basically quoting, others editors only find a solution: delete. In "talk" you will find my arguments.
I'm really curious to see how all this ends.
Thank you Best regards
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
How should I proceed? -- Hibrido Mutante ( talk) 21:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas & Wikipedia:BLPN#Jose Antonio Vargas. RightCowLeftCoast -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Multiple times content that was well sourced and attributed was deleted in violation of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, material was presented in a manor which did not create UNDUE WEIGHT. Please see the following difference: 1, 2, 3, & 4. Claims of pushing POV have been made against myself, however censoring critical content is itself creating a non-neutral POV in the article. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Another discussion is underway regarding the re-addition of the following:
about the effects of Alabama's severe anti-immigration legislation.
Please see the discussion here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute over the lead of Karl Marx. Several users have persistently removed the sentence
However, some specific predictions made by Marx have been shown to be unlikely, and he has lost some influence following the revolutions of 1989
from the lead. Several reasons have been given for removing it - including that it allegedly violates WP:WEASEL, WP:LEDE and WP:SYNTHESIS. However, no one has attempted to explain in detail how the sentence, which is sourced, violates any of those policies, and I do not believe that it does. The sentence that has been removed is the only mention of criticism of Marx anywhere in the lead - much of the remaining text of the lead talks about how important and influential Marx is, but none of it says anything about the fact that Marx's theories have been criticized, even though there is a vast amount of criticism of Marx in reliable sources. None of the users who have removed the sentence have proposed any alternative way in which criticism of Marx could be mentioned in the lead. In my opinion, the lead of the article is currently heavily biased in favor of Marx and violates WP:NPOV. Comments from users not involved in the dispute would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 23:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Marxism lost influence as a political principle after the European revolutions of 1989, which overthrew single-party "Marxist-Leninist" governments. --- Collect ( talk) 12:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the unencyclopedic item:
Pointing to Rushdoony's dislike of democracy and tolerance and the wide use he would make of the death penalty, the British Centre for Science Education called him "a man every bit as potentially murderous as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot or anyone else you may want to name amongst the annals of evil" and "a thoroughly evil man."
I removed it per WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." It is also WP:UNDUE. Unbelievably 2 guys at talk think it should stay [44]. – Lionel ( talk) 09:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone help sort out a debate as to how to refer to this movement? They consider themselves Muslims, other Muslims very strongly disagree. Should the lead call them an 'Islamic religious movement' or just a 'religious movement'? As an outsider this looks like a debate within a religion - there are similar debates among groups of Christians but these don't involve governments legislating who is Christian or not. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this edit [47] in strict conformity with WP:NPOV?
That is, to categorize those who left East Germany as illegal emigration and those who got shor as illegally seeking to leave East Germany? I rather think using Wikipedia's voice to describe those who got killed as criminals is quite unlikely to be viewed as a "neutral point of view" at all, and would welcome new and freshes voices thereon. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I made an edit [48] with the summary: assign rational weight to section - and the aside about Ford is not directly relevant in the biography)
It was reverted at [49] with the summary: no need for a whitewash
The amount removed was about 2K out of a section which goes into great detail about Lindbergh's views on "Thoughts on race and racism" - amounting to about 58 lines currently - or 11K. (Roughly 10% of the entire biography, not counting ancillary mentions of the same issues in other sections in the same article) Including three separated comments about "eugenics" etc. That is, the amount affected was under 20% of a very long section which included such important stuff as " Henry Ford, who was well known for his anti-Semitic newspaper The Dearborn Independent." which I regarded as a bit of an aside not directly related to Lindbergh, etc. In fact, even at 9K I consider the section to be UNDUE and POV to an extraordinary extent. FWIW, the article itself is a teensy bit bloated at 120K characters - with weird detail levels <g> (see the section on the secret clandestine flight to Europe using secret passports in a clandestine and secret manner <g>). Also the extensive section on the kidnapping goes well beyond a summary of the sub-article, and so on. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 07:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The article, as is, is basically a hagiography. An anonymous editor criticized this state at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies, and attempted to add note of criticism to the article, but it was dismissed by User:UrbanVillager just because it was posted in a blog entry first, and then in E-novine. OTOH, the same user has kept a description of Politika as "the oldest daily in the Balkans" in the Malagurski article, as if those peacock terms make their opinion the ultimate one :) I've attempted to reason with them, but they've persisted in claiming that E-novine isn't a reliable source of any kind. In the latest edit, they've posted a link to "The Croatian media portal Javno.hr", which, TTBOMK, has no more credibility compared to E-novine. Because the person the article is about is a well-known Serbian propagandist, I think the pattern here is pretty clear - all Serbs must necessarily like him, and it's only those pesky Croats who criticize him. The user who edits this is apparently a single-purpose account, and I'm guessing it could even be Malagurski himself. This is a travesty of WP:NPOV - please help. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the paragraph at Oligarchy reinserted here is neither neutral nor appropriately sourced. The reference for "political and finance industry leadership" appears to be about law professors, and the rest is original research by way of synthesis of primary sources. I'm not going to edit war over, especially as the user in question seems to have taken a dislike to me, so I am looking for other views. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question ( Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).
I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.
Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.
I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at this dispute [50]? A French speaker would be nice, but not essential. Waalkes ( talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a user who argued that including a picture of a Democratic Party Hmong American figure, Mee Moua, in the infobox would be a POV concern unless one can find images of Republican Hmong American figures to counterbalance Mee Moua. Is this a fair application of NPOV?
Please see: Talk:Hmong_American#Images_of_politicians WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been having a very hard time at the Bose Corporation article. There are a few editors that have a clear vocal bias and are editing the article with blatant WP:YESPOV. They have done everything from removing great swaths of information on the company. To inserting with an exorbitant amount of detail on common business legal practices including trademark infringement or suing to stop counterfeit products. They have done this to the point that the article about the company had more information on its legal history than it did on its own company history before after. There is no reason for edits like this. These are every day business practices. As another editor said, there is "Too much "Bose bashing" currently in the article regarding focus on the usual run of the mill legal issues." Please can you help? They started a conversation in the talk page Here. -- Phoenix ( talk) 06:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It'd be really helpful if someone who hasn't been involved so far would take a look at the edit history of The Zeitgeist Movement article and try to bring some sense into this. There's been a small influx of new pro-TZM editors, most of whom seem to prefer doing massive reverts and calling others "trolls" and "vandals" and not properly discussing things. I'm finding it overwhelming to deal with all of them. It seems their concern is that too much content has been removed or that the article is being "vandalized" (it's not), while some other editors who are involved seem to be anti-TZM in their own views and it shows in the way they edit. The article in the current state that it's being reverted to is wholly too pro-TZM and/or poorly sourced (most of it to primary sources). All of the issues the article has/had have already been dealt with but now it's being reverted to that state, without the issues being addressed. Basically: dumb edit warring is going on, help requested. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I tried this over at WP:NORN without generating much interest, so I thought I'd see if anyone here can help out. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I was servicing a SPER at
Flying Spaghetti Monster and I've run into a disagreement with another editor over whether the text currently in the article is a neutral summation of the source or a biased bit of original research. In fairness, the other editor is not the original author of the content and is just trying to uphold the status quo in favor of content which seems neutral to him.
The current text reads:
It was modeled after a similar challenge issued by young-Earth creationist Kent Hovind, who promised $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose.
and the request was to change the latter part to:
...anyone who can give any empirical evidence for evolution.
Three sources have been brought into the discussion: This source which was there when I serviced the SPER, this source which is a rant by some critic and this appendix which appears to be the original offer Hovind made. The latter two sources have some RS issues as well, but that's moot since they don't summarize the offer in that way. Hovind rambles a lot, but the part which seems the most meaninful is:
How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable.
The original editor evidently took "the observed phenomena" to mean a lot more than most people.
As far as I can tell, the current text is a conclusion the original editor reached about Hovind's offer. Please read the sources and see if you feel the content is OR or not. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Eyes needed. New SPA user trying to POV push. He does not respond to suggestions, but edit wars and posts tirades against me on the talk page. Just need some eyes so I'm not the only person dealing with him and I don't edit war. Orangemike was there for a while but not today. Thanks! Be——Critical 03:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I hope this is the place to report this, but it seems to me that the article on the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan is heavily biased. The language in the article is (in my opinion) inappropriately politically charged for an article on Wikipedia. Additionally, it goes into issues with the Iranian government's treatment of the Kurdish people that could best be dealt with in a separate article. I don't sanction the actions of the Iranian government with regards to ethnic or religious minorities but a Wikipedia article does not seem like the proper forum to raise these concerns. Rbmj ( talk) 16:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
First the article leaves out the incident in 1973 where Isrealie agents shoot and kill a Norwegian citizen. Also the article sounds like an advertisement for Israel. Could you please check this article to see if it is POV neutral Violation Thanks. Magnum Serpentine. Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If any editors have any spare time, it would be much appreciated if Graduated driver licensing could be edited significantly, or preferably rewritten. I have added the POV tag and initiated a dispute on the talk page if you would like to see my reasoning. Regards, -- Nztui12 ( talk) 09:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a debate at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action? on whether the advice at the top should include as well some statement like "If a discussion on an article is extends over a day or invites action, please place a notice on the article's talk page, or an associated project page for multiple articles. This is not mandatory". Dmcq ( talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have a bit of "massive editing" by some who do not quite appear, IMO, to grasp NPOV. Eyes are hereby solicited to descry whether my opinion is apt or inapt. The issue involves pretty much the entire article. Collect ( talk) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
A couple of editors are insisting this edit is a neutral term, given the source. I tend to think this is a stretch, but to avoid reverting excessively, I am bringing it here. Input would be welcome. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 13:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I was clicking on the random article link and ran into the page on Straight pride. I have no particular interest or POV other than the usual "racist hate groups are bad" opinion that most folks have.
Looking at the article, I saw the statement "White Aryan Resistance and the Ku Klux Klan, in the name of equality, seek to counter counter gay pride by stressing straight pride. They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents."
I deleted the last sentence with the comment "Removed blatant violation of WP:NPOV." [51]
User:Dominus Vobisdu reverted me (1RR) with the comment "Directly from source and relevant here. Read the source." [52]
I then reverted him (1RR) with the comment "Then rewrite it to say that source X said Y. Wikipedia NPOV policy forbids putting the statement in Wikipedia's voice." [53]
I have three questions regarding NPOV.
[1] Was I correct in my edits above?
[2] The source cited ( http://www.sagepub.com/martin3study/articles/Blazak.pdf) is from a legitimate peer-reviewed source ( American Behavioral Scientist) but the paper itself appears to contain a fair amount of editorial opinion. Then again, I don't think I could write an article about racist hate groups without it sounding like an editorial, so maybe the paper isn't actually editorializing at all. Is the source unbiased?
[3] The "They do this to appeal to anomic adolescents" claim, while undoubtedly true, is phrased with a certainty not present in the source. The body of the source consistently prefaces the claim with phrases such as "It has been argued that...", "data suggests that", "I theorize that...", "I hypothesize that..." and "future research will test the hypotheses that..." By the time it hits the summary paragraph in italics at the top, this has morphed into certainty. Was that lead paragraph written by the researcher, or is it a summary written by the editors? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I need some help to fix an article Ceremonial counties of England it is a term that is used for parts of the country where there are counties but it doesn't really apply to London. Basically point 3 below is their sole basis for the contents of the page although this information is already present on: Lord_Lieutenant#Present_day . The usage suggests that it is the nomenclature people use but this has lead to significant POV pushing look at Kingston-upon-Thames it says its ceremonial county is Greater London in the infobox and there is no mention of Surrey which is how many describe the region even today. This fact cannot be explained by simple oversight.
I think the Lede needs better definition help is much appreciated.
Legal sources 1 - 5
London Government Act 1963 Section 3 no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish
This created a sheriff and lieutenant for Greater London excluding the city. It is difficult to tell when this took affect the supreme court website implies 1964 but all that really matters is that Greater London still was not regard as a county.
"The counties in England for the purposes of this Act are—" - the emboldened phrase is the section which is causing confusion this is followed by "(a) Greater London (excluding the City of London);" - There is no reference to ceremonial county anywhere in the act.
Greater London is still not constituted so still not made officially a county
Other usage is very scarce if we extract sources that are directly lifted from wiki
"A ceremonial county is an area that has an appointed Lord Lieutenant and High Sheriff. Ceremonial counties are not explicitly represented in Boundary-Line."
"Moreover, in England there is a unit known variously as a ceremonial county or a geographic county. These counties also form geographic and statistical units. In most cases they comprise an administrative county and one or more unitary..." London would not fulfil EB's definition
Greater London Lieutenancy History city of London doesn't have a High sheriff although it does have 2 sheriffs. and the High Sheriff for Greater London leaves the history completely blank http://www.highsheriffs.com/Greater%20London/Greater%20LondonHistory.htm]
News Archives Use of London as a Ceremonial
one is the China post which most likely took there information from wiki [57] as it is not relevant to the story. The other is from the Letters page of the Telegraph.
Tetron76 ( talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to have serious notability problems, but I think the NPOV problems are even worse. I was hoping another editor could give it a look. Polyquest ( talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there,
I've been cleaning up after the Expewikiwriter paid group account. This is one of their articles.
While not as bad as some, there's been issues with abusing sources, advertising, and the like in other articles I felt a bit more capable of judging - can someone who knows food-y subjects check it over? Cheers, 86.** IP ( talk) 14:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Could someone not previously involved perhaps have a look at the article on the Global Warming Policy Foundation? It seems very biased against its subject. Almost every section has negative comments about the Foundation's activities. There is no useful information concerning the content of the studies that the Foundation has published, which is hardly represented fairly by the statement that "The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of environmental science, including demonstrably false statements made by Lawson about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.".
Also, attacks on the Foundation by a certain Bob Ward take up about a quarter of the text of the article, thus:
Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics to comment,“ These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by...the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders. ” —Bob Ward 2011[11]
Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century.
In response to the accounts the policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Bob Ward commented ""We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners." [20]
The Guardian quoted Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute, as saying "some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics...It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny". The article cast doubt on the idea that an upsurge in scepticism was underway, noting that "in (the US) Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science"'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonDScott ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see George Washington and religion for a POV dispute over whether George Washington was a deist. The debate centers on both WP:NPOV issues and WP:NOR issues. Third party opinions are needed. Blueboar ( talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just to be clear, the following is the sentence introduced by me: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11."
If Wikipedia wants to present what is the majority position among reliable secondary sources, then it needs to state that Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". Given that an expert such as Ahmed Rashid (a Pakistani who is being consulted by major international government agencies) talks about a number of 80,000-100,000 Pakistani nationals fighting alongside the Taliban from 1994-2001, stating anything else will make a joke of Wikipedia's factual reliability and will put it into opposition to all reliable sources. JCAla ( talk) 12:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
United Nations
Human Rights Watch
Academia
Encyclopedia
Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)
International Governments
JCAla ( talk) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: The first of above sources refers to the historic denial which has been nullified by Pakistani President Musharraf recently admitting to providing support until 9/11. The second of above source is only about military support in the sense mentioned in the source including "direct combat support". Pakistan denies "military support", not support! Huge difference here, as Pakistani President Musharraf (military ruler) admitted to providing support. And Interior Minister Barbar justified "crucial backing". Also, to make above quote complete:
|
From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban. Pakistan has been accused by many international officials of continuing to support the Taliban today, but Pakistan claims to have dropped all support for the group since 9/11. - Sitush ( talk) 12:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sitush, can't believe someone is finally trying to take part in this discussion. ;) The thing is, all reliable sources state Pakistan supported the Taliban before 9/11, while it maintained a policy of official denial, although senior Pakistani officials admitted to the support even calling the Taliban "our boys". So, that is what Wikipedia should reflect. Unfortunately, TG is wrong. I did not introduce the "dropped" into the sentence, that was another editor. This is the sentence I introduced: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." The sentence is a compromise version for TG. Normally, and factually correct, it should be:
Do you see the sources above? Can you understand what they say? Stop claiming consensus where there is none. JCAla ( talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There is controversy about linking "soylent pink" and other definitions recently added to Wiktionary therein. Is there a POV problem in that article and in those edits? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up some of these articles; let's start with the two I've mentioned. Shinee is supposedly a GA; I've started a reassessment thereof (see Talk:Shinee/GA2). I've asked for semi-protection for both. But I'm running into serious fan problems on both articles and a half a dozen other related ones, specifically with the addition of huge chunks of trivia to the Members sections--big fat tables with names in twenty transliterations, dates of birth, hobbies and pets, etc. None of it should be in such a list in the first place, and much of it shouldn't be anywhere. Almost all the band members, by the way, have individual articles already; if the info isn't redundant to begin with its duplicated.
A number of accounts and a set of IPs are reverting me constantly without explanation, edit summaries, or any other kind of communication (let alone arguments), not just in the Members section, but in the article in general: reverts reinsert all kinds of fan stuff, from announcements about past and upcoming events to video teasers to unverified awards. I think this is something that K-pop articles suffer from all over Wikipedia, but a clean-up effort has to start somewhere. There are other things happening as well; someone started an SPI on one of the editors of Super Junior and other articles, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanjay1996. What I would like from this board is some confirmation that these articles in their current form cannot stand, bloated with trivia and announcement that make me wonder if these aren't just fans, but whether they may actually be associated with S.M. Entertainment (I don't have hard evidence for that, which is why I'm here). I need some help in editing/trimming these articles to where they resemble encyclopedic articles a bit more, and I need eyes on them--I'm probably at 3R already on Shinee, and Iluvshinee4ever ( talk · contribs), who doesn't seem to care much for our policies, has just inserted the unverified Members tripe again. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations
I'd appreciate it if somebody could take a look over this article for neutrality issues. I'm American, and the article (especially the bottom section) seems to be a whitewashing of the situation, saying (in a poorly worded sentence) that US troops staying past 2014 "would benefit both nations, as the U.S. would have a clear idea about what was happening in the region on a daily basis, and Afghan security forces would have an edge militarily to ensure that the country never went back into the hands of the Taliban" — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dramamoose (
talk •
contribs) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If anyone has the time, could they look at this article? This source [81] looks useful. Right now it appears to have been written by supporters. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 17:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The article War of the Triple Alliance (a XIX century war in South America, nvolving Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) was moved to Paraguayan War the last September, according to Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2011, citing google book results: 6.080 vs. 16.100. There was a new discussion a pair of months ago, at Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 2012. It raised concerns about the neutrality of the title and the accuracy of the results: the title may have a pro-Brazil bias (it's the name used in Brazil, the other is used at the other countries, and both usages were mirrored into books in English), and the google book results may actually be 175.000 for "War of the Triple Alliance" and 57.500 for "Paraguayan War". The discussion and full explanations are at the talk page. However, the closing admin User:Mike Cline kept the "Paraguayan war" name, albeit accepting that both names were widely used. Still, the closing was criticized at Talk:Paraguayan War#Result of the move discussion: majority supporting the move, triple page views for "War of the triple alliance", closing vote; again, it's all in that discussion.
And the new thing is that User:Lecen is now going around all articles that use the "War of the Triple Alliance" link and replace it with "Paraguayan war" in a bot-style way. I pointed it then, and then he reasoned that he was not changing any Argentine or Paraguayan articles (meaning, he just used the Brazilian standard in Brazil-related articles). In recent days he is making the change in all articles, of any nature, of any topic, using any bibliography. To point an example: "Los mitos de la historia argentina", an Argentine book of history, changing "it talks about the [[War of the Triple Alliance]]" to "it talks about the [[Paraguayan War]], when it actually does not: the book talks about it from pages 237 to 265, and uses the first name. There are lots of other examples in his recent contributions, even beverages, hospitals, administrative divisions, tourism, ethnic groups, etc.; even portal pages. (meaning, there's absolutely no rationale in which pages to change, he's changing them all).
I consider that Lecen is trying to universally impose a single usage of a name that is not universal (even the admin that closed the deletion request said that). I consider this goes against Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot-like editing, Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken and the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality. I don't think talking with him more than I already did will solve anything, I have always seen him reacting harshly to any type of criticism. My question is: is this massive linking change an acceptable behavior, or should it be reverted? And, now that we are at this, was the closing of the move request an acceptable one in the first place, or should it be changed of discussed again in a wider RFC? Cambalachero ( talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: according to noticeboard rules, I informed Lecen (see his uncivil response) and Mike Cline directly, as I talked directly about them here. All the several other users that took part in the move request have been informed indirectly at the article talk page. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm failing to see what is the issue, and am surprised to see it dredged up here. The usage of the title has already been established by consensus on the article's talk. The title is neutral and reflects English-language sources and scholarship. This is not the place to re-argue already decided moves to new titles. Where there is more than one accepted title for an event, it is reasonable to add a parenthetical note listing other names by which it is known. However, the link to an article in this sort of case should reflect the article's title, both for consistency between articles and to avoid surprising readers. • Astynax talk 08:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
An editor is removing significant content from that article replacing it with statements to say that it is a false accusation against Islam. Valenciano ( talk) 14:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The article on Alisher Usmanov shows many deletes and reverts in its history, regarding Usmanov's criminal conviction, and subsequent pardon, and allegations raised by former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray. The article as it stands carries no mention of a fairly well-publicised and documented dispute between various bloggers and Usmanov's lawyers. It looks likely that someone is "sanitizing" the article. Since Usmanov is a living person, I've also added a note on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Clark42 ( talk) 01:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sample diffs (I hope I'm doing this right!): [84]
[85]: "Mr Usmanov was thus conclusively found to be innocent of the crimes which were alleged to have been committed" seems very non-NPOV considering the political situation in Uzbekistan.
[87] Loads of content, with many links to other Wikipedia articles, removed.
There are many more like this. Clark42 ( talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone could comment on any possible neutrality, or perhaps notability issues with this article? Not really with the content per se but more of it being the focus of its own separate article, as if making an overt anti-tobacco statement. Also considering there's no mention of "zephyr" in either the Tobacco industry, Tobacco politics, nor Lung cancer articles. -- œ ™ 01:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Does this unsourced claim in the lede of Radical right conform to NPOV?
I rather think that having everyone in that class being labeled as "radical" ought reasonably be sourced as a claim, but others think that "radical" applies to whole swaths of evil right wing nuts. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been doing a little bit of editing to this article: Guba mass grave. It concerns the discovery of a mass of dislocated human remains in the town of Guba, Azerbaijan, during redevelopment. The remains are claimed by Azerbaijan, on, it appears, no scientific or archaeological or documentary evidence, to be Azeris murdered by Armenians in 1918, and the site has been turned into an anti-Armenian shrine (this should be seen in the wider context of the Nagorno-Karabakh war). The article contains a number of images with troubling file names - they are all pov, and are extremist verging into racist. For example: "Armenian terror in Guba district of Azerbaijan in 1918.jpg", "Genocide of Azerbaijanis monument in Quba city of Azerbaijan.jpg". What is the policy towards filenames such as this. Can picture file names be changed to something neutral? (And if so, how?) Or should they be removed on account of their clearly pov title? Only two of the 15 images have neutral filenames. Meowy 02:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
File names are "behind the scenes" stuff, readers do not see them, just the images themselves. Renamings complicate a lot of things, such as links from other pages (as in "this photo was taken from Wikimedia Commons"), so they are done in limited cases, and not usually renamed if the name just "may be better". Cambalachero ( talk) 01:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this edit [88] proper? I note that it is from a collection of videos, and was concerned about it being RS, but am also concerned about any source implying in any way that a group is Nazi in basis. To wit, is
a direct connecting of the Tea Party movement to Nazism in any way? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This is a significantly harsh comparison. It is merely the opinion of one person, which is given undue weight by being included in the article. The statement tends to be harmful to the group and is an inflammatory and non-neutral statement that is, as presented here, the opinion of one person. Chomsky has a right to express his opinion but I see several Wiki policies that would warrant removing it from this article. In some cases, WP:BLP applies to groups and it might apply here. "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with the other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." WP:Quotations states: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." WP:NPOV Due and undue weight states: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Coaster92 ( talk) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am wondering why some religious sites are allowed to use citations from their sacred writings (such as in the Islam page, and their citations of the Koran) and others religious sites such as some of the Christian sites will not allow Bible citations. That seems really prejudical to me. Please assist. Thank you, Mark0880. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0880 ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I and others have been stuck for a year now fending off desperate attempts to puff up and bowlderise the articles Dera Sacha Sauda, as well as the article of its current head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The group is one of many basic "spiritual orders" in India, some kind of communal religious organisation that does public works, and is referred to by opponents as a "cult".
We've had a few anti-DSS folks do some vandalism (which I've also reverted), but mostly have trouble with partisans adding in honorifics like "Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan", in some cases at every instance of his name down the page.
At the immediate moment I'm concerned about User:Vikas.insan, since we're butting up on 3RR here, and he has a bad, bad case of Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. We've explained multiple times that the various cases against Singh (rape, murder, etc.) that are properly sourced to news/books can't be removed simply because he was cleared (the clearing itself is clearly covered/sourced).
A quick look at Vikas' edit summary shows that he's basically a DSS SPA, and almost everything he does is reverted by neutral editors, but he persists in making exactly the same edits, disappearing for a while, and coming back to try again. A sampling:
...
...
...
...
Note too he's been informed about WP:Honorifics since October 2011 ( Talk:Gurmeet_Ram_Rahim_Singh#Request_to_change_the_title_of_the_article_2), but again "I didn't hear that" kicks in and even today he's still putting "Saint ... Ji Insan" everywhere ( diff). This is getting really tiresome and disruptive. Can I get some support for a block? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 14:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent additions to BIO such as "A trio of acts of Menzel (as Director of Harvard Observatory) has caused long-lasting damage to astronomy" appear not to be neutrally stated, nor represent notable opinions. More eyes appreciated. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the reference and did not see the above statement there. The revision deleting that statement and resulting in the current statement about the Menzel gap seems accurate, neutrally stated, and reliably sourced. Coaster92 ( talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi I am Robertsan from German WP. This is a private artist rating from a man who's name is Sergey Zagraevsky. Of course he himself is very prominent on this rating but in no other. He wants to be a famous artist but he is not. There is an account named Ozolina, who puts all that Zagraevsky spam in many Wikipedias. We had this in German WP, too. Ozolina account belongs to an assistant of Z. The Artist Ranking and many other institutions mentioned here shown as sources are private pages of Z. Please someone should have an eye on this. Thank you for your attention.-- Robertsan ( talk) 11:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We've had a discussion on Talk:Controversies relating to the Six-Day War concerning this to this section of the article. The edit adds two viewpoints to the article body: 1) that the Six-Day War is often mentioned as an example of a pre-emptive strike, and 2) that senior Israelis have since acknowledged that Israel wasn't in fact expecting to be invaded when the war broke out.
The discussion has boiled down to whether the edit complies with WP:NPOV, in detail one editor feels that since the section of the article mentions only the "official" positions of Israel and the Arabs and (all) details are in a (somewhat disorganized) notes collection at the end, adding two viewpoints to the body would not be neutral. The editor says that in order to comply with NPOV, all viewpoints would have to be added in one go, not just one or two.
The edit has sourcing in it already, but there are additional sources in the discussion, e.g. " It has been observed that several official Israeli sources admitted after the war that Egypt did not have the intention of attacking Israel". The author is Tom Ruys, who according to Google Scholar has published in e.g. Journal of conflict and security law and Stanford Journal on International Law. I think that it's accepted that both viewpoints have sufficient sources and represent important views.
I'm one of the parties in this discussion and my opinion is that WP:NPOV nowhere requires that an edit must add all significant viewpoints into an article in one go, and if it did editing the project would be almost impossible. I also feel that adding significant viewpoints to the article body is what most normal editing in Wikipedia is all about, and an argument that it can't be done because the article has a notes-list isn't supported in WP:NPOV. Therefore I don't agree that the edit infringes WP:NPOV. In fact the edit adds one viewpoint that rather "supports" Israel and another that rather "supports" the Arabs specifically to remain neutral.
Comments from others? Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it consistent with NPOV to remove all criticism, even when it is cited to a reliable secondary source? I ask because User:Kwamikagami is edit-warring to remove criticism of the Secular Islam Summit with a bevy of rapidly shifting excuses - that the source was unreliable (RSN confirmed that U.S. News and World Report was fine), that we shouldn't have a criticism ghetto (so I integrated the criticism into the article body), and so on, with every point being either easily refuted, patent nonsense, or both. At this point it's quite clear that Kwamikagami simply doesn't want Wikipedia to acknowledge that anyone was unhappy about this conference and prefers the article to contain only self-serving material that comes mostly from the conference attendees, which I believe you'll agree is an obvious violation of NPOV. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting for comments on this, as issues of whitewashing and misrepresentation are multiplying. I encourage editors to ignore Kwamikagami's comments here and take a look at the history of the article and the talk page - it'll take longer, but then you will know what actually happened instead of something completely fictitious. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The article has been rewritten in ways that are less neutral. But all attempts to restore the older version of the article, before members of the Universal Life Church rewrote it, are reverted by User:ULC4me, who doesn't see a major problem with the article as it currently exists. I am just not able to invest the amount of time it will take to completely rewrite either version of the article to be reasonably neutral; does anyone else want the job? - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 12:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)