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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
A clear violation of rule of neutrality on Wikipedia has been detected in serbian version of Adriatic Sea article( http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Јадранско_море) and in Croatian version of wikipedia ( http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadransko_more), about an ongoing border dispute regarding the Bay of Piran and Slovenia's junction to the high Sea. In both, a list of countries with access to the High Sea (croatian: "Zemlje s izlazom na otvoreno more") and countries Without Access to the High Sea("Zemlje bez izlaza na otvoreno more") were made. As I edited the croatian version and put Slovenia under the countries with access to the High Sea, and added note saying "disputed"(croatian: osporeno), it got reverse edited by administrator MaGa ( http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:MaGa) and ultimately locked. My call to find a solution to the wiki-warring that occured was so far ignored by other users( http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor:Jadransko_more). As the dispute is to be settled by tribunal, and since the agreement is bound to determine where and how will Slovenia's junction to the High Sea be, not question it, I find the article being prejudgemental and biased, therefore, "unWikipediish" . In an Arbitration Agreement, signed by both Parties in Stockholm in 2011, Article 3 (Task of the Arbitral Tribunal) it clearly states that; "(1) The Arbitral Tribunal Shall determine (b) Slovenia's junction to the High Sea". The term "Junction" has been used by the internacional court of law in Hague regarding the Burkina Faso/Mali border dispute(1986), Salvador/Honduras(1992), Botswana/Namibia(1999), Cameroon/Nigeria(2002), and was used as a word to define a direct contact between two bodies of water according to previously stated agreements. Secondly, according to the Maritime Law, every nation has the right of access to the international sea/high sea, either directly, or indirectly through territorial waters, what is called an "innocent passage".
I also add the reference link to official and signed arbitration agreement, as a proof; http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_Arbitražni_sporazum_-_podpisan_EN.pdf
Mrwho00tm (
talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Please compare the article as it were in July 16, 2009, and how it is now after literally hundreds of small editions -- specially more recently, after Red Rose started vadalising it.. The history of this book is full of contoversy and law suites due to changes made in the book after the death of the author by Self-realization Fellowship. One of the most polemical was the forgery of the author's signature. The vadalism has been made to eliminate the controversy and has turned the page a propaganda of Self-Realization Fellowsip's edition -- ignoring the other publushers and using the cover of the Self-realuzation Fellowship publication to illustrate the article. It is as if the Self-Realization Fellowship publication is the one and only. The reason of so many editions is the fact the book is in publuc domain, Red Rose did the same thing in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but had his sectarian editions reverted. Since the tactic used is to make hundreds of small editions, reverting the article will eliminate all the changes -- but it is impossible to check one by one. Anyway I will revert the article and I ask for mediation. Thank you. Tat Sat ( talk) 09:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, for a long time now there has been a lot of discontent with the Ancient Aliens article. A group of editors have constantly removed edits that explain things brought up in the show and have cited a number of negative sources that are invalid. For example: The Fritze article was published before the TV show was even aired, and a few other negative statements are left uncited. If you look at the talk page a lot of people have asked for this article to be fixed, but the group of editors that have been editing the page refuse to let anything positive by.
We all understand that fringe science does not receive priority on Wikipedia, but we would like to have a section discussing the proposed evidence in the show. We're not trying to present this in a way that seems factual, but simply to give a reference point to people who read this article and see "pseudoscience" all over it and would like to know what exactly is being criticized. -- Xm638 ( talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is a tentative warning for people watching the white nationalism page. According to this thread, there are plans by white nationalists to "infiltrate" and push their POV on the article. I think that administrators and relevant parties should be aware of this situation. - Multirecs ( talk) 14:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I am very new at editing, so forgive me if the wording of this notice strays from protocol.
In Chris Collins (county executive), an article on a congressional candidate, an editor has removed a section titled "Controversies" numerous times now (see [1]) after my own addition of the section, another editor's additions, and reversions of his edits from myself and from much more experienced editors. The editor has been contacted twice on his Talk page (see [2], and I attempted starting a discussion on the article's Talk page as well (see [3])...before I knew the correct definition of "edit warring."
This is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, but it nonetheless appears to constitute censorship and an issue of a less-than-neutral point of view, so I'd appreciate any guidance on how to proceed. For further context, this person has edited only this one article, and has a history of removing negative information from the page since 2010. As of this writing, another editor has since restored the section, but it seems likely "Abe5678" will revert this again if history is any indication. Sssppp888222 ( talk) 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I originally posted this on the fringe theories noticeboard, but I'm not sure whether the issue is most relevant to that board or this one. Please look at my report here on WP:FTN for the details.
Briefly, we seem to have reached an impasse at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories regarding the proper treatment of Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff who has been going to great lengths to "investigate" the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. The NPOV question here is complicated by the fact that the underlying aim of this particular article is to document various fringe theories as fringe theories, without giving them undue prominence or credibility.
This article has been fully protected because of edit warring, but that protection is due to expire in about four hours' time, and I unfortunately predict the problem will resume as soon as the protection expires. Any comments or suggestions for a more effective, long-term intervention would be welcome. Thanks. — Rich wales 04:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've developed an article I'm proposing to call badger culling in the United Kingdom, which is presently in my sandbox. In writing it I've needed to suppress strongly-held personal opinions, so please could someone supply an independent pair of eyes to take a look at it and check for NPOV issues? All the best— S Marshall T/ C 19:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Can a citation be found for "The government had been struggling to keep a lid on compensation payments", (keep a lid on) reads like a POV, if its someones POV that you can cite then you can put it in using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV otherwise that stands out as an editors POV Webwidget ( talk) 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In 2011, about 26,000 cattle were slaughtered because of bTB, at a cost of £100 million.[16] to who? its begging to say "to the tax payer" if that is who foots the bill. Webwidget ( talk) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me and just my opinion that the government are trying to keep things quite like there is some kind of cover up to prevent this coming out in to the public domain which sounds like a POV without a citation to back it up, if they are trying to keep a lid on it then there should be an RS talking about this being the case Webwidget ( talk) 21:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing argument at the article on A Thousand Plateaus about whether to include the following sentence: "Physicsts Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont suggest that, like several of Deleuze and Guattari's other works, A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages that use scientific terms in arbitrary or misleading ways." The sentence is properly sourced, to a widely praised academic book, but two editors - IP address 108.213.200.251 and 271828182 (note that that's not an IP address, despite the numerical name) have objected to it, claiming that it does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. Specifically, they argue that Sokal and Bricmont's view is not "significant" in the sense understood by NPOV ("Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.") I've tried to explain, during the long and tedious discussion that has resulted from this disagreement (see here), that "significant" in the sense that NPOV uses the term basically means non-fringe. The IP has simply rejected this outright, stating "Your reading of the policy has no basis in fact" without offering any further argument.
The IP has also asserted that there is consensus for removing the Sokal and Bricmont material altogether, which is not the case, as Maclean25 supported inclusion in some form. It removed the material most recently here. I apologize for bringing this dispute here, but I see little alternative, due to the persistence of the IP. Comments from editors not previously involved in the discussion would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 08:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Should the reader entertain any further doubts about the ubiquity of pseudo-scientific language in Deleuze and Guattari's work, he or she is invited to consult, in addition to the references given in the footnotes, pages 20-24, 32, 36-42, 50, 117-133, 135-142, 151-162, 197, 202-207, and 214-217 of What Is Philosophy?, and pages 32-33, 142-143, 211-212, 251-252, 293-295, 361-365, 369-374, 389-390, 461, 469-473, and 482-490 of A Thousand Plateaus."
I've got a problem with some of these articles in that they list, with various dates, early United Monarchy kings whose existence and dates are debates ( List of state leaders in 1040s BC and other lists), mythical Irish kings at pages such as List of state leaders in the 13th century BC who are now considered to be pseudohistory ( List of High Kings of Ireland, and other mythical kings such as Latinus Silvius without stating their status as disputed or mythical. Obviously we are not going to call Saul or David, etc mythical, but as it is a fact they are disputed, then how should we phrase this? And should we actually have any clearly mythical kings (although I'd guess there are people who dispute that also). A number of these (as with the United Monarchy rules and Ancient Egyptian ones) have very uncertain dates also, but I guess that's another issue. Dougweller ( talk) 13:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
State the article being discussed.
Article on " Marco Rubio", Major Section on "Personal Life"
Include diff[erence]s to the specific change being proposed, paste text here.
Text as it appeared earlier:
Personal life
Rubio married Jeanette Dousdebes, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, in 1997. She is of Colombian descent, and together they have four children named Amanda, Daniella, Anthony, and Dominic.[37] Rubio and his family live in West Miami, Florida.[1][38] Rubio attends Catholic Mass as well as a Southern Baptist church in West Kendall, Florida.[39][12][40]
"Son of exiles" controversy
In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect as they had in fact left Cuba in 1956 during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. According to The Washington Post, Rubio's "embellishments" resonate with many voters in Florida, who would not be as impressed by his family being economic migrants seeking a better life in the U.S. instead of political refugees from a communist regime.[7]
Rubio responded, "The real essence of my family’s story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here."[41][42][43]
Text as it currently appears:
Questioned immigration story
In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect; they had in fact left Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.
In response to the controversy, Senator Rubio’s office elaborated on the events in question in the following way. The office noted that after arrival in the U.S. in 1956, his parents returned to Cuba after Castro’s takeover (i.e., as legal immigrants returning to their home country for a visit with extended family), with possible intent to return to Cuba. In particular, the office stated that Senator Rubio's father, Mario, remained in the U.S., in Florida, in 1961, “wrapping up the family’s matters" while his mother, Oriales, returned to Cuban with their two children “with the intention of remaining permanently”, but that it soon became clear to the visiting Rubios that “Cuba was headed ... toward Communism", leading to a return to the U.S. within weeks.[7] While headlining the conclusion that Rubio embellished his imigration story in political presentations, the same Washington Post article included examination of the passports of Mario and Oriales Rubio, and confirmed the underlying travel contentions made by the Senator's office: that following admission to the U.S. in 1956 and Castro ascendance to power in January 1959, Oriales Rubio made 4 documented trips to Cuba, including a month-long visit in February-March 1961, for a total time in Castro's Cuba of just over 2 months (with visits by the father, Mario, being a shorter five days).[7] Senator Rubio has clarified information on his senatorial web pages, where it now states that "My faith in America’s promise was shaped early on by my parents who left Cuba in 1956 and, after Fidel Castro solidified his communist grip, were never able to return."[37] He has otherwise not altered the essence of his family's immigration story in response to the Post's and related stories, noting that it is "not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here",[38][39][40] but about the aspirations that the family sought and achieved through its immigration. Even so, The Washington Post story suggests that Rubio's purported "embellishments" might resonate with voters in Florida, who could be less impressed by economic migrants seeking a better life in the U.S., rather than political refugees from a communist regime.[7] Notably, as of July 2012, the Background subsection (tab) of the WP Politics Section of the Washington Post states that "Rubio was born in Miami to parents who fled Cuba after Communist leader Fidel Castro's takeover."[41]
Marriage, family, and religion
Senator Rubio married his teenage sweetheart; Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio, from a family of Colombian descent, also attended South Miami High School, though their meeting came at a later neighborhood function (he at age 19, she at age 17).[42][43] Dousdebes-Rubio worked as a bank teller, joined the Miami Dolphins cheerleaders with her younger sister in 1997 (where on game days, the young Rubio cheered from the stands); she had interests in fashion design before expecting their first child, and now stays at home with their four children, Amanda, Daniella, Anthony, and Dominic, as well as leading a weekly woman's bible study group from their home.[44][1][45] Rubio attends Catholic Mass, and Christ Fellowship, a nondenominational church in West Kendall, Florida.[46][47][12][48][49] Rubio and his family live in West Miami, Florida. [edit]
Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
The substance of the issue is that an editor seems to want to maintain control over this section, allowing no edits, and so repeatedly reverts the longer form with greater information and citations, to the shorter -- without explanation or evaluation of the added content.
The edits made here were repeatedly explained in the talk section. The response was nevertheless to repeatedly revert them without discussion. In the science areas where I write extensively, this never happens. Revisions are constantly added, further revised, etc. It therefore leads me to believe there may be an underlying subject bias that leads this editor to want the shorter to remain.
This is stated in particular, because the longer article (i) adds clarifying information from the same sources as the original article, (ii) adds additional sources and information from reputable sources (Fla newspapers, Washington Post site), and (iii) that the added information expands the available information on two subjects (facts regarding immigration, and spouse).
The expanded content should -- in this academic's opinion -- be accepted until critical review indicates other, better content. (It is not my claim this longer version is the best writing, or that it is complete.)
It is, however, much more complete and balanced insofar as it is clearly citation-based, to whit it:
+ clarifies Sen Rubio's wife's correct legal name, as reported in a Fla newspaper expose (earlier, on senatorial candidate spouses) + provides other details regarding the Senator's spouse's history and occupational pursuits (same source), + indicates a change in the Senator's representation of the immigration matter (Rubio website), + provides the response of record of the Senator's office to the Washington Post article (WP, **as it is given in that article**), and so adds no bias, + indicates factual concurrence between the WP report of passport evidence and the Senator's statements (correlating above sources), and, it + indicates that the current information at original reporting site suggests no ongoing controversy (WP site).
I believe it cannot be defended, that the article remain with redacted information on the spouse (which seems to reflect a bias, via her presentation in a particularly limited, and so unflattering way), and with only a description of part of the original WP article on the immigration matter, without the WP report of the Rubio office response, the correspondence between the two accounts, and the WP's follow-up representations (the lack of which, taken together, seems to reflect a bias to present the immigration matter in an incomplete, and so a possibly unflattering way).
Notably, while the response and timelines offered by the Rubio office are not factual merely by virtue of their being offered by that office, their being offered by the office in response (and reported as such by the WP) is a fact of the case, as are other pieces of information reported by the WP. Moreover, **the Rubio office response is given in the same WP article drawn upon for the short article version above, but mention of the response per se is omitted in the short article version** (an oversight corrected in the long); this partial reporting of the content of the WP article suggests bias in the original, shorter wiki article version.
Finally, I would note that I am not a political partisan in this, but as a wiki editor, try to address matters outside my subject area when there are facts that I would like to have to understand this situation. Here, based on what I read initially, I felt I was being left hanging, and with a somewhat negative view of spouse and Senator. I therefore looked to expand the story as full as reputable reporting would allow, with an aim toward balance. News report, and response to news report. Not only one side or the other.
Bottom line, I believe continued reversion to the shorter version, without critical review/editing does not accomplish anything, except to unnecessarily propagate a sense of bias in this article. Prof D. Meduban ( talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) [Note, though omitted above, the longer revision also corrects the church affiliations of the Senator and family, based on a Florida newspaper account, and provides the correct name and location by visit to that church's web-site. Once again, the object is accuracy and neutrality.]
I would ask the reviewers at the NPOVN location to see the long critique from Rrius, and my italicized responses, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marco_Rubio (Section, "Problems with Meduban's version")
given the tone and content of that review, and of an earlier one (Section, "WP:OR, etc."), I remain convinced that there are biases at play that lead to the desire that this Section of the Rubio article not change. I would also ask further advice/decision, because Nomo... has subsequently suggested this matter be adjudicated at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP/Noticeboard#Marco_Rubio (Section, "Marco Rubio")
I don't know the best way forward on this, but am committed to seeing it through to proper adjudication, with more senior Wikipedia guidance. Meduban ( talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
A section of the page 2012 Burgas bus bombing contains the following passage.
The Washington Post's editorial page on July 20 contained an editorial headline "Holding Iran accountable for terrorist attacks," in which The Washington Post said that Iran must suffer for its acts of global terrorism, and "The Security Council should review the abundant evidence of involvement by the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah in this year’s attacks and punish both those groups as well as the Iranian government with sanctions." The newspaper wrote "Using the territory of countries across the world, working sometimes through proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and sometimes with its own forces, Tehran has been intentionally targeting not just diplomats of enemies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia but also civilians."
An appropriate reference to The Washington Post is included.
A certain user decided to add a POV tag to the top of the article. You can see the tag by going to the top of the article. His reasoning in the summary box was - "Added POV tag. User:Activism1234 added a Washington Post opinion piece to the aftermath section."
I don't think that the tag should be there. I have mentioned this to the user who created the tag, but he has ignored my reasoning. I will list my reasoning below. Let me know what you guys think about this - whether the tag should be kept, removed, or whether the passage should be removed.
It may very well be that the editor is unfamiliar with the rules. He has been on Wikipedia since 2010, but apparently didn't know he violated 1RR and 3RR, and still was confused after an administrator told him that he did in fact violate these policies. Still, the only way I can see a breakthrough is if people here agree that the tag should be removed and there is nothing wrong here.
Feel free to ask any questions.
Thanks. -- Activism 1234 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Al-Ahbash ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) An editor is insisting that this article does not conform to NPOV and is insisting on POV tags remaining on the article, though discussion stopped sometime in may. He posts walls of text on the talk page making discussion nigh on impossible. Would a few editors please look over the article to see if it is in fact not neutral. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across this article Yasin al-Qadi which I need a pair of eyes to look at this . Major changes were made to this page in the last month and I'm noticing references to blogs, personal websites, non-credible websites, and "news" organizations. Especially the HUGE HUGE red flag is the "Mitt Romney Connection" ViriiK ( talk) 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello ViriiK, please see the talk page for the Yasin al-Qadi biography. Thanks to your pointed criticism, some of which is reasonable, I intend to re-write the article from scratch, and I hope you will be willing to share your full and frank opinion of the results as the article progresses slowly, section by section. My goal is to produce a solid, peer-reviewed, objective article that is well sourced and does not sound like "blatant conjecture." Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you that the Mitt Romney section was conjecture. It was actually very well sourced, based on a Wall Street Journal article that clearly indicates Yasin al-Qadi's friend, Zuhair Fayez, was helping him to skirt UN Sanction by moving money through off shore accounts. Zuhair Fayez really is on the Board of Directors at University of Colorado (their website says so), and Bruce Benson, the president of CU, really is a major fund-raiser for Mitt Romney. He was national co-chair of the Romney campaign in 2008. With regard to "conjecture" about what all of this means, you may be right. Wikipedia is no place for speculation. However, I will stand by those sources as solid, and the information really is very relevant to Yasin al-Qadi, who remains in the news. Bringing the profile up to date requires going into some very emotional and political issues (he is extremely controversial). If you have suggestions for maintaining balance and objectivity, they will be greatly appreciated. Sniping, however, is not helpful. Please keep it to a minimum. Thank you, Markshern7 ( talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7 Markshern7
Well, first of all I think it means you have not read the Wikipedia article on Arbusto Energy. Bush really was in business with the Bin Laden family. But more importantly, your point is well taken. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to "connect the dots." That's called synthesis or Original Research (a no-no). My point is that it may be equally wrong for biography writers to ignore or suppress current information. That's called censorship. Modern day propaganda is largely built on the suppression of "inconvenient truths." Half truths and sins of omission damage fairness and distort objectivity every bit as much as the inclusion of false information. To erase data, to erase points on the map, to fail to record ALL relevant information to the best of one's ability, is to distort the truth and to live in a distorted world of half-truths. Ignoring information and erasing uncomfortable facts does not return one to a state of fairness or objectivity. The story of Yasin al-Qadi is a story full of distortions time 10, because he is so political. Striking a rational balance is going to be very difficult. I would appreciate your help in achieving that balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markshern7 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
In article Circumcision and law, editor Sugarcube73 ( talk · contribs) introduced a new section for Canada. It included:
and we both agree this is relevant for this new section.
Sugarcube would also like to add the following two items, which I do not believe adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE in particular:
Regarding #1, I do not believe the opinion of Bouclin is warranted in a high-level section discussing circumcision and law in Canada. From Suzanne Bouclin's resume, this seems to be the only paper she's ever published on this topic, and according to Google Scholar it's rarely cited, and when it is, it's often in an opinion piece in opposition to it. This paper doesn't seem nearly notable enough to line up against statement of the CPSBC. The CPSBC is established by the BC provincial legislature as the licensing and regulatory body for all physicians and surgeons in the province. The notability and weight of Bouclin isn't even in the same ballpark, and in my evaluation, it is undue weight to include Bouclin, and not any of the many dozens of other equally notable commentators on this subject.
Regarding #2, the DJW case, Sugarcube said in our discussion on Sugarcube73's talk page, "The BC Court of Appeal decision is important because it is being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would end up setting a policy for the whole nation of Canada" and I agree with Sugarcube73 that if this were true, it would be warranted to mention here. But (as I wrote on Sugarcube73's talk page),
The nature of the actions of DJW (read the stories above to see what I mean) have nothing to do with what reliable sources mean when they discuss "circumcision". What is happening in the DJW case has nothing to do with "circumcision" as discussed in reliable sources and it's absolutely irrelevant to the Circumcision and law article.
Input please.
Zad
68
18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It may be relevant to mention that I believe Sugarcube has been having a history of POV-pushing or tendentious editing. I outlined this
here on Sugarcube's Talk page in the section "Please stop POV edits regarding circumcision"--please use this link to access it as Sugarcube has since deleted the content of that section.
Zad
68
18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian DJW case and the controversial Cologne Germany case both involve the conflict between a parent's right to practice religion and the child's right to physical integrity and protection of human rights. For this reason, the DJW case is very important. I don't know why the Canadian media has not picked up on this.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Canada, unlike the United States, has one criminal law code that covers the whole nation. A decision about the criminality or lack thereof of the DJW circumcision case would impact the whole nation.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been involved in the Cologne court ruling Wikipedia article edits. As for this Canada one (#2), I will honestly say I never heard it either. It doesn't mean much though, I'm sure there's a lot of news I haven't heard. And yes, it does seem noteworthy at first glance. However, it appears that the court ruling is a case where the father performed a non-theraputic circumcision himself, and was charged with a crime. It doesn't appear that circumcision was charged as a crime, and is unlikely to create a precedent. My recommendation is to wait and see what happens with this court case. If it does actually somehow end up criminalizing circumcision, or even ends up saying that circumcision should be encouraged, then it'd be notable to include. As for #1, I haven't checked out the source, but if what Zad68 is true about the author, then it would also appear as WP:UNDUE. As a side note, it's possible that Sugarcube is engaging in good-faith edits and what he honestly fells. In my personal opinion, I certainly wouldn't include the second one, and wouldn't mention the first if what Zad68 is true. Thanks. -- Activism 1234 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For whatever reasons, some editors are refusing to allow any mention of relevant gun control issues to be discussed in the article 2012 Aurora shooting. Over the last few days, every attempt to add it has been removed with discussion on talk amounting to "Viriditas is a gun control advocate so he can't add it" (I've never once discussed my views about gun control on Wikipedia) and "Gun control has nothing to do with this article" (actually, there are dozens of RS devoted to the topic of the Colorado shooting and gun control). I have now added a POV tag to the article 2012 Aurora shooting and I've made a very small list of sources here and here which I'm working on expanding and improving. I'm filing this report in the hopes that someone not involved in the article (or active on gun issues) can point the way forward. Viriditas ( talk) 00:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I am very neutral on gun control. I live in Canada and have never used it as a reason to change who I vote for. I believe it should be decided by democracy in each jurisdiction. That said I agree the article should not be a forum for it. I agree with the one sentence that says permit applications increased and only one other sentence with wikilinks to the state's gun law article and to the gun politics in the US article. 'This incident has led to more debate on gun control and the state laws.' type thing-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. But it should go in a gun debate section in the gun debate article as most others have said. This article is not about gun debates. This article is about the incident. Feel free to create a section in that article and link it. I don't see theater securty debate, police actions debate, evacuation debate, etc, etc all wanting to add to this article. Please stop WP:STICK.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
From: Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 02:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
While certainly a case can be made for adding a paragraph or two about gun control, a case can also be made for just a sentence or two. Ultimately, there are no right or wrong answers, but I can understand the desire to keep the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK for gun control. If it were me, I'd probably err on the side of caution and focus on the shooting itself with just a brief mention of gun control. Readers who want to know about gun control can just go to the Gun control article.
I noticed that one of the editors on the talk page called gun control the "elephant in the room". It seems to me that the elephant in the room is actually mental health.
I suppose one way to handle the situation is to create a separate article on 2012 Aurora shooting and gun control. This way, you can keep the main article focused on the shooting, while still being able to provide in-depth coverage of how the shooting affected the gun control debate. Everyone wins and it gives you guys a second article to fight over. Happy editing. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Viriditas, I would ask that you read my question and answer it, not make stuff up. In my last comment I asked: 'What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of this article talk more about gun control? That is the key question you should be answering.' Instead of talking about that you said "You're not uninvolved, Avanu", which simply puzzled me, and then in your reply just above, you claim I that I don't want a "mention that Colorado has loose gun laws compared to other states", which ALSO puzzles me, because I don't care what you include as long as you do it in a way that makes sense. So please... focus on my question. I didn't ask it just to waste effort typing. I'll repeat it if you missed it: "What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of this article talk more about gun control?" And don't simply say how many sources you have... that only relates to verifiability. So, great... we have sources that show something is covered in the press. But answer my question and MAYBE you'll see why I am asking it. -- Avanu ( talk) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I added more. "The assault rifle had been banned for 10 years starting in 1994 and expired in 2004. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the floor for a vote."-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this article, which appears to engage in subtle WP:PEACOCKing and WP:COATRACKing (e.g, the idea that everything which the subject stands for is necessarily oppression, which we just can't say as a neutral encyclopedia). I am not good at rewriting articles so I ask for your assistance. Magog the Ogre ( talk) ( contribs) 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Imam Daayiee Abdullah,(no comma needed) is a gay Muslim who
aids in the fighthas been fighting against discrimination and hatred (an editor would be able to easily prove that hatred does exist, but another editor may be able to prove that the use of the term shouldn't be here, true or not, so I'll just leave this note here) towards homosexuals and Muslims alike.[1]Adbullah is one of the front-runners against the injustice against LGBT Muslims,Through a group called the Al-Fatiha Foundation, Abdullah has been active in this campaign, and has even been perceived by many as being at the front of this campaign (citation).[2] Although there is much controversy, Abdullah hasbecomeraisinged' awareness of the oppression of homosexuals in Islam (same as before, Muslim communities may be better wording), butalsois also viewed by manystandsas a symbol of hope and proof[peacock term] that one can be gay and Muslim.[2]
David Jewett was a Privateer in the employ of the Buenos Aires businessman Patrick Lynch in 1820. In that year he set sail on a privateering voyage with Letters of Marque that authorised him to seize Spanish ships. However, he failed to find any Spanish ships instead he seized a Portuguese and an American ship. As a result he is considered by many reliable secondary sources to have crossed the line into piracy.
He is considered an important figure in Argentina's sovereignty claim as in October/November 1820 he entered Port Louis, Falkland Islands to repair storm damage and whilst there performed a ceremony claiming the islands for the Republic of Buenos Aires.
Editors are objecting to the use of the word "Pirate" in the article, as in their perception it is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim and thus fails WP:LABEL. Some authors do question the value of a ceremony performed by a pirate, equally other authors point out that as a privateer authorised to seize Spanish property, a former Spanish settlement was fair game.
Other than being one of the lamest edit wars ever, I rather suspect it is a language confusion as the Spanish equivalent Piratas is considered somewhat of an insult. We have politely pointed out this is not the case in English but the same editors point blank refuse to believe us.
I would request a 3rd opinion, as to whether Pirate in this context fails WP:LABEL. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
One clarification: WCM says that those who oppose the use of "...is a pirate" in the lead are introducing the sovereignty dispute into the discussion. But if you check the article, it's another thing: the source that calls Jewett a pirate is a source involved in the dispute and taking a side in it, not a generic source such as a biography or a "history of X place" report. And it is explicit in that it calls Jewett a pirate to justify the British claim of that dispute. Page 9, 4º paragraph.
Besides, the problem of the lead is not just the use of the word "pirate", but the use to construct an ad-hominem description of Jewett, using misleading half-truths to confuse the casual reader. When you read "Colonel David Jewett was an American pirate who played a notable role in the history of the sovereignty dispute between Great Britain and Argentina", you may interpret that when Jewett raised the flag of Argentina at the Malvinas it was an act of piracy. Not quite: the issue that takes piracy into the equation is a completely unrelated issue with a Portuguese ship, and neither Portugal nor the whole action is related to the one of the flag or the sovereignty dispute. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC
Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. p. 77. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Quote: "In 1820 he was appointed Commander of the pirate frigate " Heroína", with which he made an ill-fated campaign where he faced mutiny and scurvy". And a Google search [12]. There is ample evidence in secondary sources he was referred to as a pirate. Destéfani is significant, as the book was printed in 1982 and 127,050 free copies distributed to libraries around the world, with the sole purpose of presenting Argentina's sovereignty claim in favourable terms. Clearly even Argentine academics do not consider the denonym "Pirate" as a problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
WCM, Slatersteven, Cambalachero, I believe we've all made our points clear. I'd suggest we wait for input now. -- Langus ( t) 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
NPOV requires that we mention all significant viewpoints and opinions about a subject... the opinion that Jewett was a pirate is a significant viewpoint... so it the opinion that he was not a pirate. Thus both opinions need to be mentioned. What is at issue is how we should do so. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral on the question of whether he was or was not a pirate... we achieve this neutrality by noting that there is a difference of opinion among sources... and attributing each opinion to those who hold it. Blueboar ( talk) 14:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
My proposal for the intro:
“ | Colonel David Jewett (1772-1842)was an American-born privateer, who served for many different countries. He fought under the American flag in the Quasi-war and the War of 1812. He moved to South America and served the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata during the Argentine War of Independence. Commanding the ship Heroína, he took possesion of the Falkland Islands in 1820. He captured Portuguese and American ships, and was accused of piracy for those actions. He moved then to Brazil, a Portuguese colony which had declared independence, and joined its navy. | ” |
Is this better? It is a summary of the rest of the article, and address the issue of piracy without labeling. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is concerning the article War on Women, specifically the misuse of sources in an attempt to make an unqualified statement in Wikipedia's voice that Republican politicians are seeking, or have sought, to "redefine rape". When I found this article yesterday, the offending language was present in both the lead and the body.
Here is a diff of how the article looked before my attempt modify the wording for neutrality: [18]
Here is a diff following 3 incremental changes in an attempt to reconcile the article to factual statements actually found in the sources provided: [19]
These adjustments were quickly reverted. I let the article simmer for a day, and found it this afternoon in this state: [20]
As you can see, the changes I made to the body survived, but the lead does not conform to statements made further down. I made a final attempt at compromise by adding a qualification: [21] The qualification, while a less than optimal solution, should have had the effect of satisfying other editors who think the phrase itself is somehow important. (Evidently, not so: [22])
For background and edification purposes, here is the Talk discussion wherein the problem was initially pointed out and discussed: [23] Note that the reverting editor is having trouble with the concept of an editorial comment appearing in a straight news story, particularly in special interest publications (i.e, Ms. Magazine) or boldly partisan new outlets (i.e., Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo), and also seems to be having trouble grasping that sourcing is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee. Also note that I am not asserting bad faith here, merely outlining a need for education.
The crux of my case is that the allegation is based on a specific Congressional proposal, unpopular with liberals, that would have limited Medicaid coverage for a narrowly-defined subset of rape victims (see sources in article). No source says there was an attempt to redefine the word rape, or the crime of rape. Therefore "redefine rape" is an extremist, partisan construct that may or may not be necessary for a Wikipedia reader to understand the article subject matter, but in no case should be stated in Wikipedia's voice as an empirical fact. (There is also some controversy surrounding trans-vaginal ultrasounds, but that involves a Democrat effort to redefine rape, which does not appear to be something that previous editors thought to mention, and does not seem to be a part of this NPOV problem.)
I'm looking for ideas to get this article back on track, short of taking it through DRN. I am not wedded to any edits that I myself have made, only to the proposition that the initial wording should not be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire ( talk • contribs)
Medicaid (which provides health insurance coverage for the very poorest Americans) is legally barred from covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. As part of an effort to restrict funding options for abortion, the House Republicans proposed to narrow the definition of "rape" to include only "forcible rape". Thus, if a woman became pregnant as a result of statutory rape, or was drugged and raped while unconscious, etc., Medicaid would not cover an abortion. (Since women on Medicaid are unlikely to be able to afford to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket, this restriction would essentially make it impossible for these women to obtain an abortion if they were "non-forcibly" raped). In response to a public outcry from progressive groups, the Republicans removed the "forcible" language.
The issue was framed by the Democrats as part of a Republican "War on Women" (together with Republican efforts to block equal-pay legislation, restrict insurance coverage of contraception, etc.) That political framing may be notable, but it should be clearly characterized as a partisan political narrative, not as uncontested fact. The facts are that the Republicans proposed to narrow the definition of rape for purposes of Medicaid funding, and then withdrew the language in the face of a public outcry. The Democractic narrative is that this was part of a "War on Women"; the Republican narrative was... I dunno, but presumably they had a stated rationale which we could source and convey.
It's not too hard, if we make a distinction between independent vs. partisan sources and facts vs. political narrative. But it's important, because even in this thread there's evidently substantial confusion about the facts of the matter. MastCell Talk 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think the Republican narrative amounted to "Oh, good grief! You people are nuts. Whatever."
MastCell, you prove your own point very well though, by way of demonstration. The bill was in no way, shape or form an effort to "restrict access to abortion"; as was clearly spelled out in all but the most slanted of sources, the bill was an effort to restrict federal funding for abortion, which is pretty much all Congress has the ability to do. (If lack of federal funding equals "restricting access", then I will write my Congressman forthwith, demanding a federally-funded Ferrari Enzo, as I very clearly have a fundamental, God-given right to own one, but the federal government refuses to pay for it. Oh, the injustice!)
Similarly, CartoonDiablo's misconceptions regarding "decriminalization" are, well, mind-blowing. But in the interest of AGF, it's best to assume he read that somewhere and thinks it's true.
Nevertheless, we are not here to discuss H.R. 3, only how to describe the putative War on Women using the sources we have to work with. "Attribution" is the obvious solution, as it allows the phrase "redefine rape" to remain in the article, which is probably neutral since it was place before the public by the media. I have three editors here who seem to endorse attribution, and if I add myself that makes four. I'll let this ride for a bit longer to collect additional thoughts before heading back to the article. Belchfire- TALK 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Funding an abortion for a financially destitute woman who is drugged and raped isn't quite the same as asking for a government-funded Ferrari. That analogy is, hopefully, beneath you.
And yes, I made clear that the bill was focused on federal funding for abortion through Medicaid. The bill would have redefined rape for the purposes of Medicaid funding of abortion services - that's a fact, and does not require in-text attribution, only proper footnoted sourcing. What does require attribution is the idea that the redefinition was part of a Republican "War On Women". MastCell Talk 18:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no fringe issue here, and an honest reading of even the Mother Jones piece is sufficient to defeat your claim. And by the way, H.R. 3 did not affect access. Just funding. Belchfire- TALK 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Frontline (U.S. TV series)#Accusations of bias includes examples of perceived examples of leftist biases in individual reports? But is this properly weighted? WhisperToMe ( talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead. " - "David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition", by Richard J. Evans. [24]
TFD ( talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Evans and others have opinions which are citable as opinions. One RS source, however, routinely uses the term "historian" [25] The British historian David Irving, who spent 13 months in an Austrian jail .... A court ruled that the British historian David Irving could serve the rest of his sentence at home on probation, An Austrian judge denied a request for bail for the British historian David Irving, A three-judge panel has rejected an appeal by the historian David Irving of a High Court ruling , and so on. Irving is horridly wrong, but that is not the same as making the case that he is not an historian -- many historians over the years have been horridly wrong. We have sources which call Irving an historian, and a person whose opinion is that he is not an historian. Include both. Collect ( talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The same sort of question came up regarding David Barton (author), a writer and self-styled historian who has written controversial books about history, with disputed facts pointed out along with serious errors of context. The RfC consensus was "no", that Barton should not be labeled "historian" in the infobox. I don't think Irving should get this honor, either. A historian is a respected scholar, not self-taught and disputed. Binksternet ( talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
These two discussions seem very separate and the one on the article talk page needs attention. Dougweller ( talk) 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Can Wiki voice be used to describe rally as antisemitic?
Sources:
Two sources say rally was antisemitic. Other sources highlight antisemitic content - that speakers referred to "treacherous jews" and the crowd vowed to "kill all Jews". I was told by user Nableezy that i mustnt use the narrative voice as rally wasnt antisemitic but this surprises me so i want third party advice. thank you Crystalfile ( talk) 18:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like general answer whether the rally was antisemitic, and after we can discuss inclusion in article, as you have been confusing these things and mixing together BLP, wiki voice, label etc. You said the rally was not antisemitic - this aspect i want third party on. then we can progress to others! Crystalfile ( talk) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Spiritual leader Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb charged in his speech that to this day Jews everywhere in the world are seeking to prevent Islamic and Egyptian unit
Firstly, these are unfair allegations. Malik Shabazz suggested discussing rally by this article to me - i never "found this page". Secondly i thought that when many sources discuss "kill all jews rally" , this means rally was antisemitic. But i wait for third party to hear what they say. Crystalfile ( talk) 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I am sad that when people chant about killing all jews, wikipedia does not let me say this is antisemitic. but thank you for ur third party advice. Crystalfile ( talk) 19:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The real problem is that I took a look at the article and el-Tayeb's attendance at this rally is pretty much the only thing in the biography, and that's a problem. I easily found
this article that would give el-Tayeb's bio more depth and breadth, and the worries over how to characterize this one rally he attended one day will be less important.
Zad
68
19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Just curious about the opinion of other editors on the tone of the article The Zeitgeist Movement. Thanks for your feedback. -- Avanu ( talk) 02:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Wikipietime has been making recent edits that I feel violate NPOV. Some examples:
I'm not quite sure if he is anti-Mormon or just anti-Romney, but it seems from his history of edits that he has failed to adhere to a neutral point of view.
For the record, I'm neither a Mormon nor a Republican, just a long-time editor concerned about this pattern of editing and his unwillingness to change, judging from the following comment on his talk page: [27]. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
On the Thurston, Thurston Howell, III issues, That seems perfectly valid to me. I do not get your logic. Suppose, I could care zilch about Mitt Romney and was a Thurston fan; would finding citations of his presence in the media, currently, not be relevant? It seems you are being pro- Romney biased and not letting the chips lie where they fall. This is not personal, at all; only an exercise in logic. I appreciated your mentoring, even if I am an unruly student - maybe. Thurston should stand, as is. This is symbolic issue in my understanding of Wikipedia; a game changer. Why do you not go looking for other citations of Thurston and include that in order to "bury" the Romney reference and fulfill the Thurston's fans needs. Taking no action where one could; also, shows a bias. I think I am stumbling on the notable source issue. Would this be considered notable http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-steinhorn/mitt-romney-business-success_b_1556140.html ? Is there a list or resource for this? It would seem that with the constant criticism of the "main stream media" by many, that a show such as TRMS would be notable. How are our future Historians and kids going to understand these days without you, and maybe me doing our job? I see Mr. Vernon removed the contributions on August 10, 2012. Should this not be cleared up here, prior to this editor taking action? Wikipietime ( talk) 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Another respectful rebuttal, there has been no attack on editors; but, rather a suppression of an aspiring editor who espouses notable and NPOV contributions that you and other like minded editors find pugnacious to your ideology. As a finacial contributor and user of wikipedia, I reject the notion that a few possible "right" leaning editors can squash the momentous growth of those who would further the wikipedia agenda and mission. Frankly, I feel that my case is made or at least well documented and stated. You obviously are not going to permit any form of an entry into Thurston Howell, III based on a bias and protective position you harbor to those whom you might defend. Thurston Howell, IIIembodies the capitalist, Ayn Rand viewpoint held by a segment of our population. The ability to add to the Howell record should not be the prerogative of a sole editor or two. I am getting an understanding of what may be the underlying agenda; having detected my political tilt, discourage, frustrate and eliminate. Wikipietime ( talk) 04:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing my history; Freckles your statement pertaining to Son of BOSS; As it stands now, it's not a candidate for deletion. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC), Are you kidding me? Are you speaking of the entire article? Seems you should be ecstatic that it has been added rather than an attitude like that. How about showing a little appreciation and objectivity.
I have previously asked the question concerning the determination of whether a sources is reliable and unbiased. It was stated my source was unreliable or biased. I have reviewed [ [29]] and I do not consider mine disqualified. Is this a determination made by a sole editor? The Thurston reference used was The Rachael Maddow Show which was deemed unfit. Is there a wikipedia page of acceptable or unacceptable sources? From a dodge around this question, I have sinking feeling that there is a degree of subjectivity going on here.
On Thurston Howell, III , the entry, under the heading Other Refernces ; There is also a rap artist called Thirstin Howl III whose stage persona emulates the cash-flush Gilligan's millionaire. In addition, a character in the film Magnolia is named Thurston Howell Does not even have a referenced source and how would this justifiably be considered notable? Would you, talk, be so kind as to elaborate so as I might learn. Wikipietime ( talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not much of an editor, I only do little things, and the page I am talking about I am definitively NOT an expert on, so do not want to edit. However it is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. I hope some more experienced wikipedia contributors could have a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilful ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Dont try to fool yourself, the edits are according to the books all of whom are by renowned author and one by Alexander Gardner own account. Similarly the deletion of Godhra Train Burning rumor that muslim girl was abducted was a sourced content which will be restored again as India Today is a reliable infact among the top most reliable sites.
Nitesh kumar nishu (
talk) 10:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Great Hymn to the Aten ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been on my todo list for some time, and when I saw it being edited earlier this week I began work on it. Unfortunately the editor, Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk · contribs), doesn't seem to understand or accept our NPOV policy. Background - Akhenaten has often been said to have changed the religion of Egypt at that time to monotheism. However, this is clearly disputed by a number of Egyptologists and others. This 'hymn' is not a hymn despite its traditional name - there is no evidence that it was ever sung, and at least some more modern writers make this clear. To link it to our article on hymn or to simply claim it to be a hymn in the lead is pov (my wording may need improvement but I was working on that when I was reverted).
This text is quite a long text and not originally broken into stanzas (probably an attempt by earlier Egyptologists to make it look modern) and I'm dubious about the possibility that the excerpt used (which wasn't called an excerpt) originally was cherry picked. Salim's changes [32] remove the word excerpt. They add the word hymn unnecessarily as which looks like an attempt to make a point and certainly has the article stating it is really a hymn. There was a short analysis (sourced to something that didn't back it up) in the section with the excerpt. I removed it as we already have an analysis section and Salim had added text such as "emphatically asserts" in his first edits before I began to edit. His latest edit adds 3 paragraphs of analysis, two of which are not source and all of which I think belong in the analysis section. And no longer calls it an excerpt but just says 'hymn' which is both pov and confusing to the reader who might think it is the whole thing. The analysis section was originally called just 'Analysis' - he changed it to 'Analysis of the hymn' which is again pov.
My version of the lead read:
The Great Hymn to the Aten is the longest form of one of a number of poems written to the sun god Aten and attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten when he revolutionised Egyptian religion and replaced it with Atenism.
His current version reads
The Great Hymn to Aten is the longest form of one of a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe.
His edit summary for these changes states "Corrected some oversights i.e. gave the reference to the monotheistic aspect of Atenism. It is not my POV and I have re-inserted the reference which had been removed! - and the hymn itself clearly speaks of it!" What I removed is here [33] and was a reference to something that the hymn "emphatically asserts" that was not actually in the reference. The replacement makes it clear that some scholars do not agree this was monotheism, yet his changes asserted that it was in the lead.
Minor point - he's twice reverted my using of the name of the article in the lead, removing 'the'. Major points - he's twice made the assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Akehenaten changed Egypt's religion to monotheism, despite the fact that the article now makes it clear this is disputed. And calls it unequivocally a hymn (yes, my version says poem and it's clearly not a hymn, but as I said, this bit needs work).
Another minor point is that I removed Akhenaten and Atenism from 'see also' as they are already linked, and he replaced them [34] saying in the edit summary "added the very, very important links to Atenism and Akhanaten - you cannot remove these and then accuse me of a POV of my own - I do not have any POV except what I have read right here on this Wiki - seriously.".
I will point him to this discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 06:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug and Mike and everyone: This effort pooped me as a newcomer but now that I am rested a bit I see the exciting challenge that it all is! With a little bit more ability to retrieve past edits like Doug is able to I should be able to save a lot of my time - and not get all flustered as if the world has fallen on top of me! I shall post as much as I can and then stop because there is a power b/out due in 15 minutes. I shall then restart when power returns. Please excuse my typos because I am typing in a hurry to get done - I am based in Karachi, Pakistan at present.
Here is what I wrote to Mike who removed a reference [in brackets]: [Hi Mike: I read your comment, "Undid revision 506805666 by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) removed WP:OR disguised with 'reference'". It seems you have detected something incorrect in what I did because the reference you deleted was meant only to show that the hymn was translated by the referenced persons and that therefore it was not something created by me out of my imagination in order to assert an opinion [WP:OR (Original Research)] as you felt I had done.
[I have no axes to grind since I am not an Egyptian or a Pharaoh-phile. What I stated is right there in the hymn itself staring us in the face! Clearly, I had nothing to do with the hymn itself since I have no expertise in reading hieroglyphs - and that is why the need of that reference to show that it is a bona fide translation - and you removed it! How does that help bring about a better article? After reading the hymn in translation please let me know whether I have stated something that is not there in the hymn itself. People have even compared it to Psalm 104. Clearly therefore it is to be regarded as a hymn and not even a poem.
[The only thing that really shook me up was that this Pharaoh was living before the coming of Moses and was asserting that there was a "unique/sole God" or "spiritual Presence" on earth.]
Doug also feels that my ref was not proper because the reference to Brewer does not have the exact statement that I have made. But my contention is that I am stating very clearly that it is the hymn that is stating what it is stating and the reference simply identifies the source of the translation. However, since the translation is showing the reference also, I accept that I do not need to give the ref again - and make it seem as if Brewer is stating when it is I who is stating the POV based on the hymn itself.
Next: hymns can lose their music if the tradition does not have the ability to note the musical notations. I have seen that happen to other oral traditions and therefore I do not accept Doug saying there is no proof it was sung. Everywhere in the Wiki the references refer to it as hymn but Doug prefers the couple of authors who say it is only a poem.
I'll stop here now for the time being. Salim e-a ebrahim 11:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk • contribs)
I'm back finally! Sorry got busy.
1. I made an error earlier when I referred to Brewer. It should be Pritchard where the poem/hymn is found. I agree and accept that I should not use the reference for my POV because the reference is already there after the poem/hymn.
2. Re poem/hymn. I contend that we cannot ask for exacting proof that it was sung or not in its time because we are looking at a very distant past. So we have to look at the authors who say that it was a prayer because it was found where prayers are said rather than poetry - in a tomb. Next, I should want to look at its comparative value in terms of literary and/or religious quality. the literary quality is acceptable to all - no dispute. Could it qualify as a hymn? When there are writers who say it is comparable to the Psalm 104 then that immediately gives me the right to call it a hymn and refer to that writer as my reference. After that I pose this question. Can a Psalm be sung? The answer is yes indeed because we are so used to thinking that a Psalm is always sung. Take the Muslim Quran. On reading it one would be staggered to say how in heavens can this be sung? Yet, the Muslims found a way. I know of certain Sufi groups that has a 5 minute prayer recited daily. I was so astounded that each member was able to sing it in the most beautiful personalized music invented by each of those who sang - all of them different from each other - and for 5 whole minutes for each one of them! So, having experienced that i cannot accept the argument that there is no "proof" that it was sung or not. The Tibetans sing/chant their Book of the Dead and the Hindus also sing/chant their Gita. So why not the egyptians too.
3. Re Cherry-picking: The hymn excerpt has in it the most expressive items/verses that give the picture very easily and quickly as to what the hymn is all about - the same could be done to Psalm 104 in order to show that it is a creation' Psalm. Therefore, I do not agree the cherry-picking argument. The Great Hymn to Aten is a creation hymn. [again here: Since it has even been titled as the "Great Hymn" I contend that Doug is really expressing his own POV too forcefully that it is a poem because as I have said I too have a very strong argument that it is truly a hymn - and since it even has the title of a hymn then Doug should not use his POV over mine because we both have references in terms of authors who call it what they like according to their taste. It certainly is no misunderstanding to call it a hymn - in fact i believe it in the reverse that it is a misunderstanding to call it a poem and thus mislead people into degrading the power and value of such a beautiful creation hymn akin to the Psalm 104.]
4. The title and the lead words could be either way as to include or exclude the "the" in it. Both ways are written in different places in the Wiki. The lead par is as follows: "The Great Hymn to Aten is the longest form of one of a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe. The ancient Egyptian view of the universe, a view that was common to all the ancient civilizations, was that of the earth as the center of the universe and a material reality separate from the religious reality of an afterlife." Of this the key sentence that Doug probably objects to is: " . . . a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe." If you substitute the "hymn" for "poem" the idea of Atenism as a religion immediately goes down the drain - another argument to call it a hymn. The hymn itself talks about the "Sole God of the universe" and so i am simply re-stating what is already there - in the same way Doug takes sentences and paragraphs to write in support of a POV by quoting from his source. I can easily re-write the lead para with a verse in it to show the same POV and then put a reference where i quote the verse for Pritchard! If you prefer I can do that because as the Wiki says make your POV a fact by some means i.e. try to show that the POV is really derived from a source. Since my initial attempt was rejected as a ploy by Mike to misrepresent the reference then I am willing if you want it like that to insert O sole god, like whom there is no other! // Thou didst create the world according to thy desire // Whilst thou wert alone in the lead para and then give reference to it (the verse) with Pritchard's book as the source so that what i do say becomes very clear to all that this man really and truly tried to convert Egypt into a monotheistic culture so much so that he had to move his capital city from Thebes to a new location because of the hatred and lethal animosity of the priesthood. All this is there in history and there is no POV of mine at all involved in all this! You think I am having a POV because you Doug are very much invested in the idea that Akhenaten was only worshipping the sun-god Ra but calling him Aten - a simple name change. If you remove this idea from your mind and replace it with the idea that this man was a monotheist to whom Aten was a "Supreme Spirit" as you will read about Aten in the Wiki itself then you would have no objection at all. you are objecting because you really and truly believe in spite of what you read in the hymn, that this man was one more idolator the way we have been taught about Egyptian Pharaohs.
5. Having shown in #4 that Aten was not the same as Ra therefore I am not doing any analysis in the intro to the Hymn. in this section i am simply introducing the hymn - not stating any POV of mine whatsoever. I can remove this para: "Atenism has been described by some scholars as the earliest known example of monotheistic thought while others consider it to have been an example ofhenotheism.[2]" into the section of analysis. The first 2 paras do not belong in the analysis because they are not analysing anything - they are simply to bring to the attention of the person reading the hymn that they should pay attention to those critical verses that tell the reader that he is reading about a man with a very different makeup to that of an idolater!!
I do not remember any other point to discuss - so I'll close here. See you tomorrow. It's night here and plse excuse any typos - too tired to review. Salim e-a ebrahim 18:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk • contribs)
I understand what's what better! Thank you Parrot. Doug, you have done an excellent job with the final edit and taught me many things along the way. Thank you for your incredible patience. Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk) 14:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Your help is needed on Richard Dawkins' discussion page. A group of editors are pro adding criticism in the article from reliable sources. Another group however, says this is not a good idea at all, and those material should be added to articles like The God Delusion or New Atheism. The problem, however, is that people in the latter articles are also resisting adding criticism to their article. I find this unusually biased to practically ban criticism on the basis of consensus.-- 216.31.211.11 ( talk) 02:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this also a bad edit that should have been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.159.2 ( talk) 04:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
For which the user provided near 10 reliable sources that back his edit but yet turned down by people in the talk page:
I mean this is really obvious that some folks are religiously preventing any criticism against their popular figure in Wikipedia. -- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 06:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the claims is that a criticism is needed at Richard Dawkins, or perhaps The God Delusion, regarding remarks by Dawkins on suicide bombers in that book. A paper ("The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism") by Robert Pape is used as the scholarly basis for criticisms of Dawkins (the most-attacked comment by Dawkins is "If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers." with Pape's analysis used to conclude that religious belief is not neccessary or sufficient to create suicide bombers (I can't see text in the paper which rejects Dawkins' statement, but there are books by critics of Dawkins whose authors can see that conclusion).
The reason that Pape's paper should not be coatracked into an article on Dawkins or his book is that Pape does not mention Dawkins or his book (the paper finishes with "Conquering countries may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but it is important to recognize that occupation of more countries may well increase the number of terrorists coming at us." and seems to be more concerned with the strategy of suicide bombing). My opinion on Pape's paper does not matter, but neither does that of Terry Eagleton who has no qualifications concerning suicide bombing—Eagleton is just another person affronted by Dawkins' views on religion, yet the articles make it clear that there are plenty of those. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, hopefully I'm doing this correctly! I've noticed that the article Day of Deceit, on a book by Robert Stinnett, has numerous issues in what would normally be the "summary" section of the article (as I believe is the (at least non-formal) custom for all articles on media). Namely, the summary section is a jumbled mass of shards of actual summary of what the book says, mixed in with criticism and phrases like "Stinnett's claim has proven baseless" stuck in there. I do not know how this can possibly be seen as "summary". Furthermore, as I explained on the talk page, if I wanted to read this book, and went to Wikipedia to find out what the book said, I'd be at a complete loss. I expect we're not supposed to mention names here, so I won't, but it has become impossible to correct this problem due to an edit war that seems to occur whenever anyone attempts to move criticism to the criticism section, and summary to the summary section. Lastly, I'd like to draw attention to one of the main citations used in the article, by a Admiral Richard E. Young. The only actual article that this links to is an unsubstantiated review of the original book on Amazon.com. I don't believe that qualifies as a reliable source. Anyway, thanks for your time. 69.249.211.251 ( talk) 07:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
As one of those who worked on the article before the current burst of activity, I don't see a problem with the current stronger segregation of the summary and the criticism. The lead, as it stands, is accurate: Stinnett's book is cited by all the conspiracy theorists, and rejected by the historians. I think we're done except for the drama. Mangoe ( talk) 11:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.
or should I go to formal mediation?
I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism and attacks maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.
DRN
Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?
Too much information and way too biased
I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article......... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 00:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Zoebuggie☺ whispers 00:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"Should the article American Family Association include mention in the lead that it has been designated a hate group by one of its political opponents, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or should this be mentioned only in the body?" (emphasis added)
I removed the phrase "one of its political opponents" as it's not only not neutral but also untrue. Per WP:RFC the sum total of what to put as a description states - "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it." I think Do not use the talk page as a forum might apply here as SPLC in non-partisan although their detractors of course believe otherwise.
The removal is being contested as altering a talkpage comment of another, I think the neutrality of an RfC warrants having a neutral statement thus overriding the concern. Is there a statement or opinion on this already that we can refer? Or is it implied somewhere? Should it be implicitly stated at WP:FRC that non-neutral RFCs can be altered for neutrality or suggest how to handle non-neutrality? Any help appreciated. Insomesia ( talk) 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If anyone has extra time, please edit the Zoophilia and the law article for neutrality. This page is built on original research and unsourced content with the attempt of pushing a very non-neutral POV. The article is currently being watched by less than 30 people and I have a history with the one particular editor (who mainly edits that page) in the past to do anything about it without being reverted again, multiple times. If any outside editors are willing to clean up the Zoophilia and the law article up for neutrality and keep an eye on it, that would be very much appreciated!
Thank you, Someone963852 ( talk) 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There has been an expansion in the controversy section, which was mainly executed by a dedicated I.P. user. The expansion was reverted two times on the grounds on defamatory content & undue:weight. The editor still wants it to be expanded in his own way. I have also encouraged him to create account so that effective talk can take place, since the I.P. seems to be a dynamic one. Suggestions are invited. -- доктор прагматик 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"The expansion was reverted two times"- incorrect. The two editors (apparently following the filter bot which noticed "sex") reverted the whole article, not the section in question. The "two reversions" were to correct their error; article was left with the section removed. "Wants it to be expanded in his own way"- incorrect. The best way would be a proper article where the controversies cited would not be out of place. An alternate way, a separate article, was proposed in the meantime. Other proposals? In Pennsylvania, this is a major subject, and the HIV-sex story made national news. Is everything in the news defamatory? Discussion of content is at Talk:Milton_Hershey_School#undue_weight_to_scandal. Should that discussion be moved here? 98.111.146.179 ( talk) 17:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
So figure on 3 lines on the HIV case and end it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Could I get opinions as to the neutrality of the Suetonius on Christians article? There are accusations of undue weight. Thanks. -- spin control 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid specifics, but, as per your request, the complaint is that I have been giving too much weight to a minority view, as stated by this comment:
and
The majority view is claimed through this statement in the lede:
Slingerland's scholarly articles are used mainly for dating issues.
So, does the article currently give undue weight? I personally am most interested in the general balance of the article. -- spin control 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How does WP:DUE cash out in a situation in which the majority view cannot be enunciated other than by repeating what supporters of the view say without any actual rationale? I have placed a contrary peer-reviewed scholarly analysis of the situation and an editor wants to dismantle it because of WP:DUE.
This is the section. The second paragraph is the majority view and the third is a contrary view. -- spin control 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
At List of oldest universities in continuous operation, only European universities are included. This is due to, according to users on the talk page, a number of sources that say that the "university" was a uniquely European institution, and that Muslim institutions are "madrassas", not universities. It is true that eminently reliable sources put forward such a view. There are however other reliable sources that do not hold the same view. A number of users are insisting that the page cannot include what those reliable sources say. This has come up here before, here (a discussion that was completely disregarded here) and here. Sources brought for the inclusion of al-Azhar and al-Karaouine are as follows:
The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th centurey the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
Islamic scientists and scholars developed the first universities as centers for scholarship in North Africa and Egypt; the universities of Al-Azhar in Cairo, founded in AD 988, and of Al-Karaouine in Fez (Morocco), founded in 859, are the world's oldest ongoing universities
Situated in Cairo and formerly also located with the great al-Azhar Mosque, this is the oldest and still the most important Islamic university in the world. Al-Azhar University has taught Islamic law, theology, and Arabic for more than 1,000 years. The first recorded seminar was held in 975, when chief justice Abu El-Hassan sat in the courtyard of the university and, reading from a book on jurisprudence written by his father, instructed students in the intricacies of Shiite law.
The first prayers were held in the mosque in 972, and in 989 it acquired the status of a college with the appointment of thirty-five scholars to teach the Isma'ili Shi'a theology to which the Fatimids adhered.
I have argued that the list should include these universities and also include the fact that other scholars do not consider them to have been founded as universities. That has not proven satisfactory to other editors on the talk page. Should the list include universities that reliable sources report as being the oldest continuously run universities in the world if they are not European? nableezy - 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The definition of a university in the List of oldest universities in continuous operation follows the main article university. This defines the Wikipedia:Scope for the list. There is consensus at both the main article and the list among the users about this definition. The two institutions cited by Nableezy were actually madrasas, Muslim mosque schools, and quality sources careful about the terminology also call and discuss them this way. What Nableezy is basically asking is to overthrow a consensus which is based on specialist scholarship just in order to include these two madrasas in the university list (ignoring that for madrasas already exists a List of the oldest madrasahs in continuous operation). This would creates unsurmountable problems with, inter alia, WP:Weight. There is a ton of high quality scholarly material by internationaly recognized historian of the history of the university who go to great pains and into great detail why the university was a unique creation of Christian Europe and why Muslim madrasas were historically and organizationally a very distinct institution. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Although Djamia, in this sense, includes, in popular and semi-official usage, traditional institutions of higher religious education, officially it is restricted to the modern university, established on western models. Thus, Law no. 184 of 1958, organizing the Djamia of the United Arab Republic does not name al-Azhar among these universities. This article will, consequently, deal with “modern” universities. It should be stressed, however, that in Islamic countries higher education had a remarkable tradition in the older institutions of the mosque, the madrasa and other centres of education and learning...The term djamia seems to have come into use towards the middle of the 19th century, and to have been translated from “université” or “university”....The first definite use of djamia in the technical meaning of university appears to have been in the movement of some intellectual leaders and reformers in Egypt in 1906 for the establishment of a d̲j̲āmiʿa miṣriyya.
What you are basically proposing is to change the entire definition of the university in order to somehow squeeze in the madrasa as "the oldest universities" in a few articles. If this view is to be accepted by the majoritiy of users, we would have to change not only the lead of these three article, far from it, we would have to change hundreds of articles, beginning with adding the category [[Category:University]] and the infobox university to countless Islamic mosques schools which aren't in fact universities at all.
The point you still do not quite comprehend is that while both university and madrasa can be fully regarded as institutions of higher learning, each has to be judged on its own terms and that a medieval madrasa was never a university (or the other way round). It does not help either that you have been edit-warring (you still do) over multiple Wikipedias for months now in order to enforce your view, ironically even in those versions where you don't even have a minimum command of the language.
To provide some information to users still unfamiliar with the history of the university and the madrasa, I will list here reputable sources from encyclopedia, dictionaries on the Middle Ages and internationally renowned historians of the university. Note that these are nearly all written by individual experts in the field or published in leading publications; they plainly make clear that the standard view is that
Reputable sources and definitions from encyclopedias, dictionaries on the Middle Ages and internationally renowned historians of the university
|
---|
Below expert views. The point is that these scholars and sources really give arguments for the position they take. This is in stark contrast to the mostly low quality "sources" of proponents of the madrasa = university claim where the simple use or mention of the word "university" is considered a proof of the madrasa having been a university at the time of its founding, even though the term can denote in English everyday usage any type of institution of higher learning. The medieval Christian origin of the university
The first universities
Definitions of the Islamic madrasa
The difference(s) between the university and the madrasa
Madrasas had no institutional structure, no curriculum, no regular examination and no system of degrees
Al-Karaouine (and Al-Azhar) were not the first madrasas, therefore they cannot have been the first universities, even if a madrasa is considered a university.
Al-Azhar cannot be considered the oldest university in the world and there is not even institutional continuity between medieval and modern madrasas (hence Al-Azhar cannot even be regarded as a continuously operating institution)
|
Reliable sources showing
Al-Karaouine and
Al-Azhar to be madrasas, not universities
|
---|
These sources are reliable, albeit not expert sources, which show that Al-Karaouine and Al-Azhar were actually founded and run as a madrasa, not a university. Al-Karaouine (and Al-Azhar) was founded or run as a madrasa, mosque school or mosque, not a university.Petersen, Andrew: Dictionary of Islamic Architecture, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 978-0-415-06084-4, p. 87 (entry "Fez"):Lulat, Y. G.-M.: A History Of African Higher Education From Antiquity To The Present: A Critical Synthesis Studies in Higher Education, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, ISBN 978-0-313-32061-3, p. 70: Meri, Josef W. (ed.): Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, A–K, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-96691-7, p. 257 (entry "Fez"):
Al-Karaouine was transformed only in modern times into a university.Shillington, Kevin: Encyclopedia of African History, Vol. 2, Fitzroy Dearborn, 2005, ISBN 978-1-57958-245-6, p. 1025:
Al-Karaouine is the oldest madrasah in the world, not the oldest university.Fergusson, James: Taliban: The Unknown Enemy, Da Capo Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-306-82033-5, p. 69:Belhachmi, Zakia: "Gender, Education, and Feminist Knowledge in al-Maghrib (North Africa) – 1950–70", Journal of Middle Eastern and North African Intellectual and Cultural Studies, Vol. 2–3, 2003, pp. 55–82 (65):
|
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 19:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th centurey the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
Islamic scientists and scholars developed the first universities as centers for scholarship in North Africa and Egypt; the universities of Al-Azhar in Cairo, founded in AD 988, and of Al-Karaouine in Fez (Morocco), founded in 859, are the world's oldest ongoing universities
I know this isn't the place to discuss content, but let me try to address the state of historical understanding of the history of higher education in the Latin speaking West and in the Arabic speaking world.
The history of medieval universities has been studied for at least a century, accompanying an even earlier study of the history of ideas in the Middle Ages. Early in that study, Hastings Rashdall (The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, pp. 17-18, (Oxford: Clarendon Press) ,1895) made the crucial distinction between Universities and their predecessors in cathedral and monastic schools, defining them in terms of their form of organization:
As a consequence of this long and detailed examination historians know in great detail when universities were founded, what their origins and precursors were, who taught (and sometimes who studied) at those institutions, and what was taught there. In particular, we have texts that were used for teaching in monastic schools, cathedral schools, and universities. The period from the twelfth century on is not called the era of scholasticism for nothing, it was defined by the development of the universities.
Finally, of course, I must return to Rashdall's definition of the university. The spontaneous origins of the university as a corporate entity provided them a degree of institutional and intellectual autonomy not found when schools were closely patronized by kings, princes, or prelates, and again the battles to maintain that intellectual autonomy has been a recurring element of the history of universities. The Islamic higher educational institutions were, like the European cathedral and monastic schools, were fundamentally religious institutions and had all the limitations (of intellectual control) and benefits (of economic support) that that implied.
The study of scholarship in Islam does not have the depth of the study of medieval universities, but what has emerged is that most scholarship in Islam was not focused on teaching institutions. The texts in the area which I study (the history of astronomy) were produced by scholars who were associated with courts or with religious institutions. See, for example, David King's study of the role of Muwaqqits (religious timekeepers) in Arabic astronomy or the earlier study by Sayili, The Observatory in Islam. Perhaps there is research detailing this kind of deep knowledge of scholarship at Arabic-speaking educational institutions, but it has not been presented in the recurring Wikipedia debates over the University and its origins. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you Gun Powder Ma for inviting me to this discussion even though we have disagreed about this topic in the past. Second, my apologies to Gun Powder Ma for insisting that my lead changes to the List of oldest universities in continuous operation would be enough to avoid further discussion, I was clearly incorrect, but I appreciate that they largely still seem to be there, even though we agreed that they could be removed after 6 months if the dispute was still ongoing.
With regards to the actual issue, I was frankly sick and tired of it a year ago, and I don't think my position on that has changed. However this dispute is still ongoing, and has certainly been continuing on and off for at least 18 months, which is a seriously long time, and certainly that makes the dispute fundamentally unhealthy to the project and therefore it does need resolving.
With regards to resolving the dispute I see several possibilities:
I would really like to avoid that final option, as I am greatly enjoying not having to engage with arbitration cases, but if the first two aren't undertaken seriously that is the only sensible option left - I don't think at this point that we can leave this unresolved. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Notification: Participants are invited to a discussion about the reliability of two sources often used in the dispute. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 13:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyway is there an RFC on this? It's the only way out I believe. -- Tachfin ( talk) 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
See Gunpowder Ma? I am not the only one who uses Rashdall as a source. ;)
I have participated in this discussion previously. I'd like to make three notes:
(1) I find the amount of energy spent on this " List of oldest universities in continuous operation" to be surprising, as it is a rather absurd and useless list. It is absurd because there is simply no documentary basis certifying any date before the 13th C. - the assigned start dates are speculative, disputable and elastic. As a chart of university evolution it is useless as it omits universities that were important then but are now defunct and treats periods of suspended operation inconsistently. Consequently, this list can be nothing more than a "fun" list.
For the purposes of scholarly research, there are good reasons for making a list of Medieval universities in Latin Europe - and this is what the more serious List of medieval universities does, and the criteria is laid out there carefully and explicitly. I don't see any reason to replicate that list twice. The unserious, fun "oldest universities" list, without criteria or usefulness, can and ought to be more flexible.
(2) Gun Powder Ma et al. seems to me to be misreading and ascribing more to his sources than they claim. It is important not to forget that the emergence of universities in Latin Europe - the flowering of scholasticism, mentioned earlier - emerged after the "great translation" period, that is, the sudden influx of material from Islamic and Greek worlds in the late 11th/12th C. Scholars have conjectured that not only the books, but the school fomat to study them, may have been imported wholesale from abroad. All GPM's sources are doing is endeavoring to counter that claim, that is, to suggest that the European Studium generale was probably not imported wholesale from Islamic models. They are not claiming that the Islamic model schools cannot be characterized as universities, simply that the European schools seemed to have developed autonomously and distinctively. They are much more limited, cautious and careful in their claims than GPM ascribes to them.
For instance, GPM glides over the fact that these very same authors acknowledge that some elements might have been imported from Islamic models (e.g. colleges organized as nations, academic robes, degrees and titles, and the all-important "license to teach" elsewhere). True the single corporate body and papal charter wasn't there - but the pope doesn't charter Islamic schools (nor the Caliph, for that matter). Islamic universities were organized much more loosely and independently. Rich patrons funded colleges, professors were allowed to teach whatever they wanted. There don't seem to have been any equivalent of papal, royal or parliamentary statutes regulating the relations between colleges or prescribing the curriculum in detail as found in Latin model schools. The degrees from al-Qaraouine weren't bestowed by al-Qaraouine as a single body, but rather signed by the individual professors in it.
These are differences, yes. But how essential? Some may focus on the corporate model - the existence of a chancellor and a controlling, governing body, something Islamic schools tended to lack, as critical. On the other hand, Rashdall identifies the 'jus ubique docendi' as the distintive element of a Studium generale (as opposed to other types of Studia), and this element was present in the Islamic universities.
In my estimation, there is frankly precious little difference between Islamic model schools and Latin model schools, certainly in their earlier stages. With time, Latin universities took on some extra elements that Islamic universities didn't, so they became more distinctive. But keep in mind there were significant differences in organization between Latin universities as well - Paris vs Bologna model, etc. So what you want to identify as "the" distinctive thing of a university is subject to debate.
All of these subtleties, all these cautions and reservations, are ignored by GPM and go unmentioned in this "List of oldest universities in continuous operations". But, of course, because I see this merely as an unserious "fun" list, I don't recommend burdening it with the same hefty details and careful criteria, as found in the List of medieval universities.
(3) The stance I have taken is that Latin universities are apples, Islamic universities are oranges. Apples are different from oranges, yes, but they are both "fruit". So it remains to decide what this is a list of - a list of apples or a list of fruits?
As noted before, I don't care for the "oldest universities" list. As there already exists a "list of apples" (List of Medieval universities), my personal view is this one ought to be made a "list of fruits", and let everyone in on the fun here, and leave the serious scholarly stuff to the more serious lists. The notes, as Omar-Toons has drafted, are sufficient.
What I definitely don't want to see is the marring of individual university pages on the basis of an unserious "fun" list. I don't want to see the al-Karaouine page crippled by GPM, but equally, I don't think it advisable to mar the Bologna page either. For Bologna, I think it sufficient to say "which would make it the oldest Western-style university in the world still in operation", or to just change the wording to make it clear it is only an allegation, and leave out references to al-Karaouine there. That's just asking for a renewal of this debate at a later date.
Walrasiad ( talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have participated in this discussion before. I believe I tried to find a resolution to a reliable sources dispute, or it may have been NPOV. I occasionally comment on both noticeboards. I don't think I ever went and edited the article itself, although I spent quite a bit of time looking at everyone's sources. I may have commented on a talk page.
I do not have time to read the new comments or re-read the full discussion above but would like to briefly state how matters stood then, and presumably still do.
The editor who brought the issue to the noticeboard was being reverted and patronized rather scathingly when he tried to make his case by other editors who appeared to have some serious academic credentials but to be unclear on the reliable source concept. It is true that some of his sources, Encyclopedia Britannica for example, were high-school level, but they were nonetheless reliable, especially since, as I understood it, all he was trying to prove was the 9th-century founding. I think we all agree that this date, while elastic, precedes the date of Bologna's founding by several centuries. The essence of the opposing position was, again as I understand it, that no school outside of Europe could be described as a university, because the medieval definition of the word had criteria relating to relationships with the Catholic Church.
My own thoughts were these. This narrow definition may in fact be correct. I do not know. But this is not the commonly accepted use of the word, which is as a synonym for "institution of higher learning". Nor can anyone say that schools in north Africa were religious in nature and therefore do not count. Schools in Europe also were religious in nature. The reaction of the Eurocentrists amounted to "don't be silly." Asked for sources to the contrary, someone named Athenian (I think) produced a lists of works with titles like "Universities in Medieval Europe". Naturally these made little to no mention of any institutions elsewhere. I said that in my opinion the scope of these works, no matter how well respected they might be, was too narrow for the purpose for which they were being used. I in turn was also ignored and the discussion at that point was so entangled that hatnotes were being used to keep it straight so there was little hope of enlisting any other uninvolved editors to read it. I spent an evening or two with Google and found quite a few academic works with authors whose credentials could not be questioned that do not use the restrictive definition that some editors are trying to apply to the word university, and others who said that universities began in the Arab world and that the concept came north from there as crusaders returned home to Europe, so I stood by finding. I do not know if this was ever resolved. I suspect not, since this is back on the noticeboards.
I will add that I dislike lists since they tend to oversimplify and thus generate this type of argument. I have seen similar problems on "List of national anthems" for example where some editors were deleting entries for what they considered were not "real" countries. For what it is worth also I will also add that I have no particular ties to north Africa besides an affection for Camus and that I am a Canadian who also has a British passport, so I *sorta* have an allegiance to Europe. Elinruby ( talk) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been eavesdropping on this debate now and then for longer than I care to recall. I see both sides: the oldest universities carried the Latin name universitas during a period when these were institutions of higher learning distinctly characteristic of Western culture, and therefore a list of oldest universitates should not contain institutions that were not universitates. (Even the state university I attended as an undergraduate had a seal with its name in Latin, though founded in 1837.) If we had a list of Oldest structures continually in use as churches, we would not include synagogues and mosques and Stonehenge, right? However, the wrinkle here is that other continuous institutions of higher learning that were called something else in the era of universitates can now be considered what in English we call "universities."
What the long debate demonstrates is that List of oldest universities in continuous operation has inherent issues of scope, forking (logical distribution of content among articles), and synth (applying definitions that are not necessarily intended to dovetail with each other or in novel ways). The issue as I see it is not "neutrality" or anything to do with POV, but rather defining the topic in a way that provides value to WP readers. Nobody has demonstrated what that might be.
List of oldest universities in continuous operation should be deleted, and any unique information it contains merged into
List of medieval universities (which needs to have a date of closing added to the table anyway),
University#History, or other articles, including possibly a new article such as
List of universities by date of founding (an index that could be broken up on multiple pages by century, and would include institutions that are called "universities" in contemporary colloquial English). And no meaningful information will be lost in the process. The emotions here seem to be attached to some perceived value in being included on the list, which frankly I see as non-informative trivia outside the context of a prose narrative on historical development. It's just not a very useful thing for such intelligent editors to be wasting their time on.
Cynwolfe (
talk) 15:30, 29 August 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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
A clear violation of rule of neutrality on Wikipedia has been detected in serbian version of Adriatic Sea article( http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Јадранско_море) and in Croatian version of wikipedia ( http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadransko_more), about an ongoing border dispute regarding the Bay of Piran and Slovenia's junction to the high Sea. In both, a list of countries with access to the High Sea (croatian: "Zemlje s izlazom na otvoreno more") and countries Without Access to the High Sea("Zemlje bez izlaza na otvoreno more") were made. As I edited the croatian version and put Slovenia under the countries with access to the High Sea, and added note saying "disputed"(croatian: osporeno), it got reverse edited by administrator MaGa ( http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:MaGa) and ultimately locked. My call to find a solution to the wiki-warring that occured was so far ignored by other users( http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor:Jadransko_more). As the dispute is to be settled by tribunal, and since the agreement is bound to determine where and how will Slovenia's junction to the High Sea be, not question it, I find the article being prejudgemental and biased, therefore, "unWikipediish" . In an Arbitration Agreement, signed by both Parties in Stockholm in 2011, Article 3 (Task of the Arbitral Tribunal) it clearly states that; "(1) The Arbitral Tribunal Shall determine (b) Slovenia's junction to the High Sea". The term "Junction" has been used by the internacional court of law in Hague regarding the Burkina Faso/Mali border dispute(1986), Salvador/Honduras(1992), Botswana/Namibia(1999), Cameroon/Nigeria(2002), and was used as a word to define a direct contact between two bodies of water according to previously stated agreements. Secondly, according to the Maritime Law, every nation has the right of access to the international sea/high sea, either directly, or indirectly through territorial waters, what is called an "innocent passage".
I also add the reference link to official and signed arbitration agreement, as a proof; http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_Arbitražni_sporazum_-_podpisan_EN.pdf
Mrwho00tm (
talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Please compare the article as it were in July 16, 2009, and how it is now after literally hundreds of small editions -- specially more recently, after Red Rose started vadalising it.. The history of this book is full of contoversy and law suites due to changes made in the book after the death of the author by Self-realization Fellowship. One of the most polemical was the forgery of the author's signature. The vadalism has been made to eliminate the controversy and has turned the page a propaganda of Self-Realization Fellowsip's edition -- ignoring the other publushers and using the cover of the Self-realuzation Fellowship publication to illustrate the article. It is as if the Self-Realization Fellowship publication is the one and only. The reason of so many editions is the fact the book is in publuc domain, Red Rose did the same thing in the Portuguese Wikipedia, but had his sectarian editions reverted. Since the tactic used is to make hundreds of small editions, reverting the article will eliminate all the changes -- but it is impossible to check one by one. Anyway I will revert the article and I ask for mediation. Thank you. Tat Sat ( talk) 09:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, for a long time now there has been a lot of discontent with the Ancient Aliens article. A group of editors have constantly removed edits that explain things brought up in the show and have cited a number of negative sources that are invalid. For example: The Fritze article was published before the TV show was even aired, and a few other negative statements are left uncited. If you look at the talk page a lot of people have asked for this article to be fixed, but the group of editors that have been editing the page refuse to let anything positive by.
We all understand that fringe science does not receive priority on Wikipedia, but we would like to have a section discussing the proposed evidence in the show. We're not trying to present this in a way that seems factual, but simply to give a reference point to people who read this article and see "pseudoscience" all over it and would like to know what exactly is being criticized. -- Xm638 ( talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is a tentative warning for people watching the white nationalism page. According to this thread, there are plans by white nationalists to "infiltrate" and push their POV on the article. I think that administrators and relevant parties should be aware of this situation. - Multirecs ( talk) 14:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I am very new at editing, so forgive me if the wording of this notice strays from protocol.
In Chris Collins (county executive), an article on a congressional candidate, an editor has removed a section titled "Controversies" numerous times now (see [1]) after my own addition of the section, another editor's additions, and reversions of his edits from myself and from much more experienced editors. The editor has been contacted twice on his Talk page (see [2], and I attempted starting a discussion on the article's Talk page as well (see [3])...before I knew the correct definition of "edit warring."
This is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, but it nonetheless appears to constitute censorship and an issue of a less-than-neutral point of view, so I'd appreciate any guidance on how to proceed. For further context, this person has edited only this one article, and has a history of removing negative information from the page since 2010. As of this writing, another editor has since restored the section, but it seems likely "Abe5678" will revert this again if history is any indication. Sssppp888222 ( talk) 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I originally posted this on the fringe theories noticeboard, but I'm not sure whether the issue is most relevant to that board or this one. Please look at my report here on WP:FTN for the details.
Briefly, we seem to have reached an impasse at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories regarding the proper treatment of Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff who has been going to great lengths to "investigate" the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. The NPOV question here is complicated by the fact that the underlying aim of this particular article is to document various fringe theories as fringe theories, without giving them undue prominence or credibility.
This article has been fully protected because of edit warring, but that protection is due to expire in about four hours' time, and I unfortunately predict the problem will resume as soon as the protection expires. Any comments or suggestions for a more effective, long-term intervention would be welcome. Thanks. — Rich wales 04:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've developed an article I'm proposing to call badger culling in the United Kingdom, which is presently in my sandbox. In writing it I've needed to suppress strongly-held personal opinions, so please could someone supply an independent pair of eyes to take a look at it and check for NPOV issues? All the best— S Marshall T/ C 19:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Can a citation be found for "The government had been struggling to keep a lid on compensation payments", (keep a lid on) reads like a POV, if its someones POV that you can cite then you can put it in using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV otherwise that stands out as an editors POV Webwidget ( talk) 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In 2011, about 26,000 cattle were slaughtered because of bTB, at a cost of £100 million.[16] to who? its begging to say "to the tax payer" if that is who foots the bill. Webwidget ( talk) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me and just my opinion that the government are trying to keep things quite like there is some kind of cover up to prevent this coming out in to the public domain which sounds like a POV without a citation to back it up, if they are trying to keep a lid on it then there should be an RS talking about this being the case Webwidget ( talk) 21:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing argument at the article on A Thousand Plateaus about whether to include the following sentence: "Physicsts Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont suggest that, like several of Deleuze and Guattari's other works, A Thousand Plateaus contains many passages that use scientific terms in arbitrary or misleading ways." The sentence is properly sourced, to a widely praised academic book, but two editors - IP address 108.213.200.251 and 271828182 (note that that's not an IP address, despite the numerical name) have objected to it, claiming that it does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. Specifically, they argue that Sokal and Bricmont's view is not "significant" in the sense understood by NPOV ("Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.") I've tried to explain, during the long and tedious discussion that has resulted from this disagreement (see here), that "significant" in the sense that NPOV uses the term basically means non-fringe. The IP has simply rejected this outright, stating "Your reading of the policy has no basis in fact" without offering any further argument.
The IP has also asserted that there is consensus for removing the Sokal and Bricmont material altogether, which is not the case, as Maclean25 supported inclusion in some form. It removed the material most recently here. I apologize for bringing this dispute here, but I see little alternative, due to the persistence of the IP. Comments from editors not previously involved in the discussion would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 08:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Should the reader entertain any further doubts about the ubiquity of pseudo-scientific language in Deleuze and Guattari's work, he or she is invited to consult, in addition to the references given in the footnotes, pages 20-24, 32, 36-42, 50, 117-133, 135-142, 151-162, 197, 202-207, and 214-217 of What Is Philosophy?, and pages 32-33, 142-143, 211-212, 251-252, 293-295, 361-365, 369-374, 389-390, 461, 469-473, and 482-490 of A Thousand Plateaus."
I've got a problem with some of these articles in that they list, with various dates, early United Monarchy kings whose existence and dates are debates ( List of state leaders in 1040s BC and other lists), mythical Irish kings at pages such as List of state leaders in the 13th century BC who are now considered to be pseudohistory ( List of High Kings of Ireland, and other mythical kings such as Latinus Silvius without stating their status as disputed or mythical. Obviously we are not going to call Saul or David, etc mythical, but as it is a fact they are disputed, then how should we phrase this? And should we actually have any clearly mythical kings (although I'd guess there are people who dispute that also). A number of these (as with the United Monarchy rules and Ancient Egyptian ones) have very uncertain dates also, but I guess that's another issue. Dougweller ( talk) 13:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
State the article being discussed.
Article on " Marco Rubio", Major Section on "Personal Life"
Include diff[erence]s to the specific change being proposed, paste text here.
Text as it appeared earlier:
Personal life
Rubio married Jeanette Dousdebes, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, in 1997. She is of Colombian descent, and together they have four children named Amanda, Daniella, Anthony, and Dominic.[37] Rubio and his family live in West Miami, Florida.[1][38] Rubio attends Catholic Mass as well as a Southern Baptist church in West Kendall, Florida.[39][12][40]
"Son of exiles" controversy
In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect as they had in fact left Cuba in 1956 during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. According to The Washington Post, Rubio's "embellishments" resonate with many voters in Florida, who would not be as impressed by his family being economic migrants seeking a better life in the U.S. instead of political refugees from a communist regime.[7]
Rubio responded, "The real essence of my family’s story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here."[41][42][43]
Text as it currently appears:
Questioned immigration story
In October 2011, the St. Petersburg Times and The Washington Post reported that Rubio's previous statements that his parents were forced to leave Cuba in 1959, after Fidel Castro came to power, were incorrect; they had in fact left Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.
In response to the controversy, Senator Rubio’s office elaborated on the events in question in the following way. The office noted that after arrival in the U.S. in 1956, his parents returned to Cuba after Castro’s takeover (i.e., as legal immigrants returning to their home country for a visit with extended family), with possible intent to return to Cuba. In particular, the office stated that Senator Rubio's father, Mario, remained in the U.S., in Florida, in 1961, “wrapping up the family’s matters" while his mother, Oriales, returned to Cuban with their two children “with the intention of remaining permanently”, but that it soon became clear to the visiting Rubios that “Cuba was headed ... toward Communism", leading to a return to the U.S. within weeks.[7] While headlining the conclusion that Rubio embellished his imigration story in political presentations, the same Washington Post article included examination of the passports of Mario and Oriales Rubio, and confirmed the underlying travel contentions made by the Senator's office: that following admission to the U.S. in 1956 and Castro ascendance to power in January 1959, Oriales Rubio made 4 documented trips to Cuba, including a month-long visit in February-March 1961, for a total time in Castro's Cuba of just over 2 months (with visits by the father, Mario, being a shorter five days).[7] Senator Rubio has clarified information on his senatorial web pages, where it now states that "My faith in America’s promise was shaped early on by my parents who left Cuba in 1956 and, after Fidel Castro solidified his communist grip, were never able to return."[37] He has otherwise not altered the essence of his family's immigration story in response to the Post's and related stories, noting that it is "not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they traveled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here",[38][39][40] but about the aspirations that the family sought and achieved through its immigration. Even so, The Washington Post story suggests that Rubio's purported "embellishments" might resonate with voters in Florida, who could be less impressed by economic migrants seeking a better life in the U.S., rather than political refugees from a communist regime.[7] Notably, as of July 2012, the Background subsection (tab) of the WP Politics Section of the Washington Post states that "Rubio was born in Miami to parents who fled Cuba after Communist leader Fidel Castro's takeover."[41]
Marriage, family, and religion
Senator Rubio married his teenage sweetheart; Jeanette Dousdebes-Rubio, from a family of Colombian descent, also attended South Miami High School, though their meeting came at a later neighborhood function (he at age 19, she at age 17).[42][43] Dousdebes-Rubio worked as a bank teller, joined the Miami Dolphins cheerleaders with her younger sister in 1997 (where on game days, the young Rubio cheered from the stands); she had interests in fashion design before expecting their first child, and now stays at home with their four children, Amanda, Daniella, Anthony, and Dominic, as well as leading a weekly woman's bible study group from their home.[44][1][45] Rubio attends Catholic Mass, and Christ Fellowship, a nondenominational church in West Kendall, Florida.[46][47][12][48][49] Rubio and his family live in West Miami, Florida. [edit]
Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
The substance of the issue is that an editor seems to want to maintain control over this section, allowing no edits, and so repeatedly reverts the longer form with greater information and citations, to the shorter -- without explanation or evaluation of the added content.
The edits made here were repeatedly explained in the talk section. The response was nevertheless to repeatedly revert them without discussion. In the science areas where I write extensively, this never happens. Revisions are constantly added, further revised, etc. It therefore leads me to believe there may be an underlying subject bias that leads this editor to want the shorter to remain.
This is stated in particular, because the longer article (i) adds clarifying information from the same sources as the original article, (ii) adds additional sources and information from reputable sources (Fla newspapers, Washington Post site), and (iii) that the added information expands the available information on two subjects (facts regarding immigration, and spouse).
The expanded content should -- in this academic's opinion -- be accepted until critical review indicates other, better content. (It is not my claim this longer version is the best writing, or that it is complete.)
It is, however, much more complete and balanced insofar as it is clearly citation-based, to whit it:
+ clarifies Sen Rubio's wife's correct legal name, as reported in a Fla newspaper expose (earlier, on senatorial candidate spouses) + provides other details regarding the Senator's spouse's history and occupational pursuits (same source), + indicates a change in the Senator's representation of the immigration matter (Rubio website), + provides the response of record of the Senator's office to the Washington Post article (WP, **as it is given in that article**), and so adds no bias, + indicates factual concurrence between the WP report of passport evidence and the Senator's statements (correlating above sources), and, it + indicates that the current information at original reporting site suggests no ongoing controversy (WP site).
I believe it cannot be defended, that the article remain with redacted information on the spouse (which seems to reflect a bias, via her presentation in a particularly limited, and so unflattering way), and with only a description of part of the original WP article on the immigration matter, without the WP report of the Rubio office response, the correspondence between the two accounts, and the WP's follow-up representations (the lack of which, taken together, seems to reflect a bias to present the immigration matter in an incomplete, and so a possibly unflattering way).
Notably, while the response and timelines offered by the Rubio office are not factual merely by virtue of their being offered by that office, their being offered by the office in response (and reported as such by the WP) is a fact of the case, as are other pieces of information reported by the WP. Moreover, **the Rubio office response is given in the same WP article drawn upon for the short article version above, but mention of the response per se is omitted in the short article version** (an oversight corrected in the long); this partial reporting of the content of the WP article suggests bias in the original, shorter wiki article version.
Finally, I would note that I am not a political partisan in this, but as a wiki editor, try to address matters outside my subject area when there are facts that I would like to have to understand this situation. Here, based on what I read initially, I felt I was being left hanging, and with a somewhat negative view of spouse and Senator. I therefore looked to expand the story as full as reputable reporting would allow, with an aim toward balance. News report, and response to news report. Not only one side or the other.
Bottom line, I believe continued reversion to the shorter version, without critical review/editing does not accomplish anything, except to unnecessarily propagate a sense of bias in this article. Prof D. Meduban ( talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) [Note, though omitted above, the longer revision also corrects the church affiliations of the Senator and family, based on a Florida newspaper account, and provides the correct name and location by visit to that church's web-site. Once again, the object is accuracy and neutrality.]
I would ask the reviewers at the NPOVN location to see the long critique from Rrius, and my italicized responses, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marco_Rubio (Section, "Problems with Meduban's version")
given the tone and content of that review, and of an earlier one (Section, "WP:OR, etc."), I remain convinced that there are biases at play that lead to the desire that this Section of the Rubio article not change. I would also ask further advice/decision, because Nomo... has subsequently suggested this matter be adjudicated at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP/Noticeboard#Marco_Rubio (Section, "Marco Rubio")
I don't know the best way forward on this, but am committed to seeing it through to proper adjudication, with more senior Wikipedia guidance. Meduban ( talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
A section of the page 2012 Burgas bus bombing contains the following passage.
The Washington Post's editorial page on July 20 contained an editorial headline "Holding Iran accountable for terrorist attacks," in which The Washington Post said that Iran must suffer for its acts of global terrorism, and "The Security Council should review the abundant evidence of involvement by the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah in this year’s attacks and punish both those groups as well as the Iranian government with sanctions." The newspaper wrote "Using the territory of countries across the world, working sometimes through proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and sometimes with its own forces, Tehran has been intentionally targeting not just diplomats of enemies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia but also civilians."
An appropriate reference to The Washington Post is included.
A certain user decided to add a POV tag to the top of the article. You can see the tag by going to the top of the article. His reasoning in the summary box was - "Added POV tag. User:Activism1234 added a Washington Post opinion piece to the aftermath section."
I don't think that the tag should be there. I have mentioned this to the user who created the tag, but he has ignored my reasoning. I will list my reasoning below. Let me know what you guys think about this - whether the tag should be kept, removed, or whether the passage should be removed.
It may very well be that the editor is unfamiliar with the rules. He has been on Wikipedia since 2010, but apparently didn't know he violated 1RR and 3RR, and still was confused after an administrator told him that he did in fact violate these policies. Still, the only way I can see a breakthrough is if people here agree that the tag should be removed and there is nothing wrong here.
Feel free to ask any questions.
Thanks. -- Activism 1234 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Al-Ahbash ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) An editor is insisting that this article does not conform to NPOV and is insisting on POV tags remaining on the article, though discussion stopped sometime in may. He posts walls of text on the talk page making discussion nigh on impossible. Would a few editors please look over the article to see if it is in fact not neutral. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I just came across this article Yasin al-Qadi which I need a pair of eyes to look at this . Major changes were made to this page in the last month and I'm noticing references to blogs, personal websites, non-credible websites, and "news" organizations. Especially the HUGE HUGE red flag is the "Mitt Romney Connection" ViriiK ( talk) 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello ViriiK, please see the talk page for the Yasin al-Qadi biography. Thanks to your pointed criticism, some of which is reasonable, I intend to re-write the article from scratch, and I hope you will be willing to share your full and frank opinion of the results as the article progresses slowly, section by section. My goal is to produce a solid, peer-reviewed, objective article that is well sourced and does not sound like "blatant conjecture." Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you that the Mitt Romney section was conjecture. It was actually very well sourced, based on a Wall Street Journal article that clearly indicates Yasin al-Qadi's friend, Zuhair Fayez, was helping him to skirt UN Sanction by moving money through off shore accounts. Zuhair Fayez really is on the Board of Directors at University of Colorado (their website says so), and Bruce Benson, the president of CU, really is a major fund-raiser for Mitt Romney. He was national co-chair of the Romney campaign in 2008. With regard to "conjecture" about what all of this means, you may be right. Wikipedia is no place for speculation. However, I will stand by those sources as solid, and the information really is very relevant to Yasin al-Qadi, who remains in the news. Bringing the profile up to date requires going into some very emotional and political issues (he is extremely controversial). If you have suggestions for maintaining balance and objectivity, they will be greatly appreciated. Sniping, however, is not helpful. Please keep it to a minimum. Thank you, Markshern7 ( talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Markshern7 Markshern7
Well, first of all I think it means you have not read the Wikipedia article on Arbusto Energy. Bush really was in business with the Bin Laden family. But more importantly, your point is well taken. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to "connect the dots." That's called synthesis or Original Research (a no-no). My point is that it may be equally wrong for biography writers to ignore or suppress current information. That's called censorship. Modern day propaganda is largely built on the suppression of "inconvenient truths." Half truths and sins of omission damage fairness and distort objectivity every bit as much as the inclusion of false information. To erase data, to erase points on the map, to fail to record ALL relevant information to the best of one's ability, is to distort the truth and to live in a distorted world of half-truths. Ignoring information and erasing uncomfortable facts does not return one to a state of fairness or objectivity. The story of Yasin al-Qadi is a story full of distortions time 10, because he is so political. Striking a rational balance is going to be very difficult. I would appreciate your help in achieving that balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markshern7 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
In article Circumcision and law, editor Sugarcube73 ( talk · contribs) introduced a new section for Canada. It included:
and we both agree this is relevant for this new section.
Sugarcube would also like to add the following two items, which I do not believe adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE in particular:
Regarding #1, I do not believe the opinion of Bouclin is warranted in a high-level section discussing circumcision and law in Canada. From Suzanne Bouclin's resume, this seems to be the only paper she's ever published on this topic, and according to Google Scholar it's rarely cited, and when it is, it's often in an opinion piece in opposition to it. This paper doesn't seem nearly notable enough to line up against statement of the CPSBC. The CPSBC is established by the BC provincial legislature as the licensing and regulatory body for all physicians and surgeons in the province. The notability and weight of Bouclin isn't even in the same ballpark, and in my evaluation, it is undue weight to include Bouclin, and not any of the many dozens of other equally notable commentators on this subject.
Regarding #2, the DJW case, Sugarcube said in our discussion on Sugarcube73's talk page, "The BC Court of Appeal decision is important because it is being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would end up setting a policy for the whole nation of Canada" and I agree with Sugarcube73 that if this were true, it would be warranted to mention here. But (as I wrote on Sugarcube73's talk page),
The nature of the actions of DJW (read the stories above to see what I mean) have nothing to do with what reliable sources mean when they discuss "circumcision". What is happening in the DJW case has nothing to do with "circumcision" as discussed in reliable sources and it's absolutely irrelevant to the Circumcision and law article.
Input please.
Zad
68
18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It may be relevant to mention that I believe Sugarcube has been having a history of POV-pushing or tendentious editing. I outlined this
here on Sugarcube's Talk page in the section "Please stop POV edits regarding circumcision"--please use this link to access it as Sugarcube has since deleted the content of that section.
Zad
68
18:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian DJW case and the controversial Cologne Germany case both involve the conflict between a parent's right to practice religion and the child's right to physical integrity and protection of human rights. For this reason, the DJW case is very important. I don't know why the Canadian media has not picked up on this.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Canada, unlike the United States, has one criminal law code that covers the whole nation. A decision about the criminality or lack thereof of the DJW circumcision case would impact the whole nation.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 18:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been involved in the Cologne court ruling Wikipedia article edits. As for this Canada one (#2), I will honestly say I never heard it either. It doesn't mean much though, I'm sure there's a lot of news I haven't heard. And yes, it does seem noteworthy at first glance. However, it appears that the court ruling is a case where the father performed a non-theraputic circumcision himself, and was charged with a crime. It doesn't appear that circumcision was charged as a crime, and is unlikely to create a precedent. My recommendation is to wait and see what happens with this court case. If it does actually somehow end up criminalizing circumcision, or even ends up saying that circumcision should be encouraged, then it'd be notable to include. As for #1, I haven't checked out the source, but if what Zad68 is true about the author, then it would also appear as WP:UNDUE. As a side note, it's possible that Sugarcube is engaging in good-faith edits and what he honestly fells. In my personal opinion, I certainly wouldn't include the second one, and wouldn't mention the first if what Zad68 is true. Thanks. -- Activism 1234 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For whatever reasons, some editors are refusing to allow any mention of relevant gun control issues to be discussed in the article 2012 Aurora shooting. Over the last few days, every attempt to add it has been removed with discussion on talk amounting to "Viriditas is a gun control advocate so he can't add it" (I've never once discussed my views about gun control on Wikipedia) and "Gun control has nothing to do with this article" (actually, there are dozens of RS devoted to the topic of the Colorado shooting and gun control). I have now added a POV tag to the article 2012 Aurora shooting and I've made a very small list of sources here and here which I'm working on expanding and improving. I'm filing this report in the hopes that someone not involved in the article (or active on gun issues) can point the way forward. Viriditas ( talk) 00:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I am very neutral on gun control. I live in Canada and have never used it as a reason to change who I vote for. I believe it should be decided by democracy in each jurisdiction. That said I agree the article should not be a forum for it. I agree with the one sentence that says permit applications increased and only one other sentence with wikilinks to the state's gun law article and to the gun politics in the US article. 'This incident has led to more debate on gun control and the state laws.' type thing-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. But it should go in a gun debate section in the gun debate article as most others have said. This article is not about gun debates. This article is about the incident. Feel free to create a section in that article and link it. I don't see theater securty debate, police actions debate, evacuation debate, etc, etc all wanting to add to this article. Please stop WP:STICK.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
From: Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 02:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
While certainly a case can be made for adding a paragraph or two about gun control, a case can also be made for just a sentence or two. Ultimately, there are no right or wrong answers, but I can understand the desire to keep the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK for gun control. If it were me, I'd probably err on the side of caution and focus on the shooting itself with just a brief mention of gun control. Readers who want to know about gun control can just go to the Gun control article.
I noticed that one of the editors on the talk page called gun control the "elephant in the room". It seems to me that the elephant in the room is actually mental health.
I suppose one way to handle the situation is to create a separate article on 2012 Aurora shooting and gun control. This way, you can keep the main article focused on the shooting, while still being able to provide in-depth coverage of how the shooting affected the gun control debate. Everyone wins and it gives you guys a second article to fight over. Happy editing. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Viriditas, I would ask that you read my question and answer it, not make stuff up. In my last comment I asked: 'What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of this article talk more about gun control? That is the key question you should be answering.' Instead of talking about that you said "You're not uninvolved, Avanu", which simply puzzled me, and then in your reply just above, you claim I that I don't want a "mention that Colorado has loose gun laws compared to other states", which ALSO puzzles me, because I don't care what you include as long as you do it in a way that makes sense. So please... focus on my question. I didn't ask it just to waste effort typing. I'll repeat it if you missed it: "What is the rationale for making a larger proportion of this article talk more about gun control?" And don't simply say how many sources you have... that only relates to verifiability. So, great... we have sources that show something is covered in the press. But answer my question and MAYBE you'll see why I am asking it. -- Avanu ( talk) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I added more. "The assault rifle had been banned for 10 years starting in 1994 and expired in 2004. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the floor for a vote."-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this article, which appears to engage in subtle WP:PEACOCKing and WP:COATRACKing (e.g, the idea that everything which the subject stands for is necessarily oppression, which we just can't say as a neutral encyclopedia). I am not good at rewriting articles so I ask for your assistance. Magog the Ogre ( talk) ( contribs) 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Imam Daayiee Abdullah,(no comma needed) is a gay Muslim who
aids in the fighthas been fighting against discrimination and hatred (an editor would be able to easily prove that hatred does exist, but another editor may be able to prove that the use of the term shouldn't be here, true or not, so I'll just leave this note here) towards homosexuals and Muslims alike.[1]Adbullah is one of the front-runners against the injustice against LGBT Muslims,Through a group called the Al-Fatiha Foundation, Abdullah has been active in this campaign, and has even been perceived by many as being at the front of this campaign (citation).[2] Although there is much controversy, Abdullah hasbecomeraisinged' awareness of the oppression of homosexuals in Islam (same as before, Muslim communities may be better wording), butalsois also viewed by manystandsas a symbol of hope and proof[peacock term] that one can be gay and Muslim.[2]
David Jewett was a Privateer in the employ of the Buenos Aires businessman Patrick Lynch in 1820. In that year he set sail on a privateering voyage with Letters of Marque that authorised him to seize Spanish ships. However, he failed to find any Spanish ships instead he seized a Portuguese and an American ship. As a result he is considered by many reliable secondary sources to have crossed the line into piracy.
He is considered an important figure in Argentina's sovereignty claim as in October/November 1820 he entered Port Louis, Falkland Islands to repair storm damage and whilst there performed a ceremony claiming the islands for the Republic of Buenos Aires.
Editors are objecting to the use of the word "Pirate" in the article, as in their perception it is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim and thus fails WP:LABEL. Some authors do question the value of a ceremony performed by a pirate, equally other authors point out that as a privateer authorised to seize Spanish property, a former Spanish settlement was fair game.
Other than being one of the lamest edit wars ever, I rather suspect it is a language confusion as the Spanish equivalent Piratas is considered somewhat of an insult. We have politely pointed out this is not the case in English but the same editors point blank refuse to believe us.
I would request a 3rd opinion, as to whether Pirate in this context fails WP:LABEL. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
One clarification: WCM says that those who oppose the use of "...is a pirate" in the lead are introducing the sovereignty dispute into the discussion. But if you check the article, it's another thing: the source that calls Jewett a pirate is a source involved in the dispute and taking a side in it, not a generic source such as a biography or a "history of X place" report. And it is explicit in that it calls Jewett a pirate to justify the British claim of that dispute. Page 9, 4º paragraph.
Besides, the problem of the lead is not just the use of the word "pirate", but the use to construct an ad-hominem description of Jewett, using misleading half-truths to confuse the casual reader. When you read "Colonel David Jewett was an American pirate who played a notable role in the history of the sovereignty dispute between Great Britain and Argentina", you may interpret that when Jewett raised the flag of Argentina at the Malvinas it was an act of piracy. Not quite: the issue that takes piracy into the equation is a completely unrelated issue with a Portuguese ship, and neither Portugal nor the whole action is related to the one of the flag or the sovereignty dispute. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC
Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. p. 77. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 29 July 2012. Quote: "In 1820 he was appointed Commander of the pirate frigate " Heroína", with which he made an ill-fated campaign where he faced mutiny and scurvy". And a Google search [12]. There is ample evidence in secondary sources he was referred to as a pirate. Destéfani is significant, as the book was printed in 1982 and 127,050 free copies distributed to libraries around the world, with the sole purpose of presenting Argentina's sovereignty claim in favourable terms. Clearly even Argentine academics do not consider the denonym "Pirate" as a problem. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
WCM, Slatersteven, Cambalachero, I believe we've all made our points clear. I'd suggest we wait for input now. -- Langus ( t) 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
NPOV requires that we mention all significant viewpoints and opinions about a subject... the opinion that Jewett was a pirate is a significant viewpoint... so it the opinion that he was not a pirate. Thus both opinions need to be mentioned. What is at issue is how we should do so. Wikipedia needs to remain neutral on the question of whether he was or was not a pirate... we achieve this neutrality by noting that there is a difference of opinion among sources... and attributing each opinion to those who hold it. Blueboar ( talk) 14:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
My proposal for the intro:
“ | Colonel David Jewett (1772-1842)was an American-born privateer, who served for many different countries. He fought under the American flag in the Quasi-war and the War of 1812. He moved to South America and served the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata during the Argentine War of Independence. Commanding the ship Heroína, he took possesion of the Falkland Islands in 1820. He captured Portuguese and American ships, and was accused of piracy for those actions. He moved then to Brazil, a Portuguese colony which had declared independence, and joined its navy. | ” |
Is this better? It is a summary of the rest of the article, and address the issue of piracy without labeling. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is concerning the article War on Women, specifically the misuse of sources in an attempt to make an unqualified statement in Wikipedia's voice that Republican politicians are seeking, or have sought, to "redefine rape". When I found this article yesterday, the offending language was present in both the lead and the body.
Here is a diff of how the article looked before my attempt modify the wording for neutrality: [18]
Here is a diff following 3 incremental changes in an attempt to reconcile the article to factual statements actually found in the sources provided: [19]
These adjustments were quickly reverted. I let the article simmer for a day, and found it this afternoon in this state: [20]
As you can see, the changes I made to the body survived, but the lead does not conform to statements made further down. I made a final attempt at compromise by adding a qualification: [21] The qualification, while a less than optimal solution, should have had the effect of satisfying other editors who think the phrase itself is somehow important. (Evidently, not so: [22])
For background and edification purposes, here is the Talk discussion wherein the problem was initially pointed out and discussed: [23] Note that the reverting editor is having trouble with the concept of an editorial comment appearing in a straight news story, particularly in special interest publications (i.e, Ms. Magazine) or boldly partisan new outlets (i.e., Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo), and also seems to be having trouble grasping that sourcing is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee. Also note that I am not asserting bad faith here, merely outlining a need for education.
The crux of my case is that the allegation is based on a specific Congressional proposal, unpopular with liberals, that would have limited Medicaid coverage for a narrowly-defined subset of rape victims (see sources in article). No source says there was an attempt to redefine the word rape, or the crime of rape. Therefore "redefine rape" is an extremist, partisan construct that may or may not be necessary for a Wikipedia reader to understand the article subject matter, but in no case should be stated in Wikipedia's voice as an empirical fact. (There is also some controversy surrounding trans-vaginal ultrasounds, but that involves a Democrat effort to redefine rape, which does not appear to be something that previous editors thought to mention, and does not seem to be a part of this NPOV problem.)
I'm looking for ideas to get this article back on track, short of taking it through DRN. I am not wedded to any edits that I myself have made, only to the proposition that the initial wording should not be allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire ( talk • contribs)
Medicaid (which provides health insurance coverage for the very poorest Americans) is legally barred from covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. As part of an effort to restrict funding options for abortion, the House Republicans proposed to narrow the definition of "rape" to include only "forcible rape". Thus, if a woman became pregnant as a result of statutory rape, or was drugged and raped while unconscious, etc., Medicaid would not cover an abortion. (Since women on Medicaid are unlikely to be able to afford to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket, this restriction would essentially make it impossible for these women to obtain an abortion if they were "non-forcibly" raped). In response to a public outcry from progressive groups, the Republicans removed the "forcible" language.
The issue was framed by the Democrats as part of a Republican "War on Women" (together with Republican efforts to block equal-pay legislation, restrict insurance coverage of contraception, etc.) That political framing may be notable, but it should be clearly characterized as a partisan political narrative, not as uncontested fact. The facts are that the Republicans proposed to narrow the definition of rape for purposes of Medicaid funding, and then withdrew the language in the face of a public outcry. The Democractic narrative is that this was part of a "War on Women"; the Republican narrative was... I dunno, but presumably they had a stated rationale which we could source and convey.
It's not too hard, if we make a distinction between independent vs. partisan sources and facts vs. political narrative. But it's important, because even in this thread there's evidently substantial confusion about the facts of the matter. MastCell Talk 16:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think the Republican narrative amounted to "Oh, good grief! You people are nuts. Whatever."
MastCell, you prove your own point very well though, by way of demonstration. The bill was in no way, shape or form an effort to "restrict access to abortion"; as was clearly spelled out in all but the most slanted of sources, the bill was an effort to restrict federal funding for abortion, which is pretty much all Congress has the ability to do. (If lack of federal funding equals "restricting access", then I will write my Congressman forthwith, demanding a federally-funded Ferrari Enzo, as I very clearly have a fundamental, God-given right to own one, but the federal government refuses to pay for it. Oh, the injustice!)
Similarly, CartoonDiablo's misconceptions regarding "decriminalization" are, well, mind-blowing. But in the interest of AGF, it's best to assume he read that somewhere and thinks it's true.
Nevertheless, we are not here to discuss H.R. 3, only how to describe the putative War on Women using the sources we have to work with. "Attribution" is the obvious solution, as it allows the phrase "redefine rape" to remain in the article, which is probably neutral since it was place before the public by the media. I have three editors here who seem to endorse attribution, and if I add myself that makes four. I'll let this ride for a bit longer to collect additional thoughts before heading back to the article. Belchfire- TALK 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Funding an abortion for a financially destitute woman who is drugged and raped isn't quite the same as asking for a government-funded Ferrari. That analogy is, hopefully, beneath you.
And yes, I made clear that the bill was focused on federal funding for abortion through Medicaid. The bill would have redefined rape for the purposes of Medicaid funding of abortion services - that's a fact, and does not require in-text attribution, only proper footnoted sourcing. What does require attribution is the idea that the redefinition was part of a Republican "War On Women". MastCell Talk 18:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no fringe issue here, and an honest reading of even the Mother Jones piece is sufficient to defeat your claim. And by the way, H.R. 3 did not affect access. Just funding. Belchfire- TALK 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Frontline (U.S. TV series)#Accusations of bias includes examples of perceived examples of leftist biases in individual reports? But is this properly weighted? WhisperToMe ( talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead. " - "David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition", by Richard J. Evans. [24]
TFD ( talk) 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Evans and others have opinions which are citable as opinions. One RS source, however, routinely uses the term "historian" [25] The British historian David Irving, who spent 13 months in an Austrian jail .... A court ruled that the British historian David Irving could serve the rest of his sentence at home on probation, An Austrian judge denied a request for bail for the British historian David Irving, A three-judge panel has rejected an appeal by the historian David Irving of a High Court ruling , and so on. Irving is horridly wrong, but that is not the same as making the case that he is not an historian -- many historians over the years have been horridly wrong. We have sources which call Irving an historian, and a person whose opinion is that he is not an historian. Include both. Collect ( talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The same sort of question came up regarding David Barton (author), a writer and self-styled historian who has written controversial books about history, with disputed facts pointed out along with serious errors of context. The RfC consensus was "no", that Barton should not be labeled "historian" in the infobox. I don't think Irving should get this honor, either. A historian is a respected scholar, not self-taught and disputed. Binksternet ( talk) 16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
These two discussions seem very separate and the one on the article talk page needs attention. Dougweller ( talk) 18:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Can Wiki voice be used to describe rally as antisemitic?
Sources:
Two sources say rally was antisemitic. Other sources highlight antisemitic content - that speakers referred to "treacherous jews" and the crowd vowed to "kill all Jews". I was told by user Nableezy that i mustnt use the narrative voice as rally wasnt antisemitic but this surprises me so i want third party advice. thank you Crystalfile ( talk) 18:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like general answer whether the rally was antisemitic, and after we can discuss inclusion in article, as you have been confusing these things and mixing together BLP, wiki voice, label etc. You said the rally was not antisemitic - this aspect i want third party on. then we can progress to others! Crystalfile ( talk) 18:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Spiritual leader Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb charged in his speech that to this day Jews everywhere in the world are seeking to prevent Islamic and Egyptian unit
Firstly, these are unfair allegations. Malik Shabazz suggested discussing rally by this article to me - i never "found this page". Secondly i thought that when many sources discuss "kill all jews rally" , this means rally was antisemitic. But i wait for third party to hear what they say. Crystalfile ( talk) 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I am sad that when people chant about killing all jews, wikipedia does not let me say this is antisemitic. but thank you for ur third party advice. Crystalfile ( talk) 19:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The real problem is that I took a look at the article and el-Tayeb's attendance at this rally is pretty much the only thing in the biography, and that's a problem. I easily found
this article that would give el-Tayeb's bio more depth and breadth, and the worries over how to characterize this one rally he attended one day will be less important.
Zad
68
19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Just curious about the opinion of other editors on the tone of the article The Zeitgeist Movement. Thanks for your feedback. -- Avanu ( talk) 02:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Wikipietime has been making recent edits that I feel violate NPOV. Some examples:
I'm not quite sure if he is anti-Mormon or just anti-Romney, but it seems from his history of edits that he has failed to adhere to a neutral point of view.
For the record, I'm neither a Mormon nor a Republican, just a long-time editor concerned about this pattern of editing and his unwillingness to change, judging from the following comment on his talk page: [27]. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
On the Thurston, Thurston Howell, III issues, That seems perfectly valid to me. I do not get your logic. Suppose, I could care zilch about Mitt Romney and was a Thurston fan; would finding citations of his presence in the media, currently, not be relevant? It seems you are being pro- Romney biased and not letting the chips lie where they fall. This is not personal, at all; only an exercise in logic. I appreciated your mentoring, even if I am an unruly student - maybe. Thurston should stand, as is. This is symbolic issue in my understanding of Wikipedia; a game changer. Why do you not go looking for other citations of Thurston and include that in order to "bury" the Romney reference and fulfill the Thurston's fans needs. Taking no action where one could; also, shows a bias. I think I am stumbling on the notable source issue. Would this be considered notable http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-steinhorn/mitt-romney-business-success_b_1556140.html ? Is there a list or resource for this? It would seem that with the constant criticism of the "main stream media" by many, that a show such as TRMS would be notable. How are our future Historians and kids going to understand these days without you, and maybe me doing our job? I see Mr. Vernon removed the contributions on August 10, 2012. Should this not be cleared up here, prior to this editor taking action? Wikipietime ( talk) 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Another respectful rebuttal, there has been no attack on editors; but, rather a suppression of an aspiring editor who espouses notable and NPOV contributions that you and other like minded editors find pugnacious to your ideology. As a finacial contributor and user of wikipedia, I reject the notion that a few possible "right" leaning editors can squash the momentous growth of those who would further the wikipedia agenda and mission. Frankly, I feel that my case is made or at least well documented and stated. You obviously are not going to permit any form of an entry into Thurston Howell, III based on a bias and protective position you harbor to those whom you might defend. Thurston Howell, IIIembodies the capitalist, Ayn Rand viewpoint held by a segment of our population. The ability to add to the Howell record should not be the prerogative of a sole editor or two. I am getting an understanding of what may be the underlying agenda; having detected my political tilt, discourage, frustrate and eliminate. Wikipietime ( talk) 04:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing my history; Freckles your statement pertaining to Son of BOSS; As it stands now, it's not a candidate for deletion. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC), Are you kidding me? Are you speaking of the entire article? Seems you should be ecstatic that it has been added rather than an attitude like that. How about showing a little appreciation and objectivity.
I have previously asked the question concerning the determination of whether a sources is reliable and unbiased. It was stated my source was unreliable or biased. I have reviewed [ [29]] and I do not consider mine disqualified. Is this a determination made by a sole editor? The Thurston reference used was The Rachael Maddow Show which was deemed unfit. Is there a wikipedia page of acceptable or unacceptable sources? From a dodge around this question, I have sinking feeling that there is a degree of subjectivity going on here.
On Thurston Howell, III , the entry, under the heading Other Refernces ; There is also a rap artist called Thirstin Howl III whose stage persona emulates the cash-flush Gilligan's millionaire. In addition, a character in the film Magnolia is named Thurston Howell Does not even have a referenced source and how would this justifiably be considered notable? Would you, talk, be so kind as to elaborate so as I might learn. Wikipietime ( talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not much of an editor, I only do little things, and the page I am talking about I am definitively NOT an expert on, so do not want to edit. However it is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. I hope some more experienced wikipedia contributors could have a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilful ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Dont try to fool yourself, the edits are according to the books all of whom are by renowned author and one by Alexander Gardner own account. Similarly the deletion of Godhra Train Burning rumor that muslim girl was abducted was a sourced content which will be restored again as India Today is a reliable infact among the top most reliable sites.
Nitesh kumar nishu (
talk) 10:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Great Hymn to the Aten ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been on my todo list for some time, and when I saw it being edited earlier this week I began work on it. Unfortunately the editor, Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk · contribs), doesn't seem to understand or accept our NPOV policy. Background - Akhenaten has often been said to have changed the religion of Egypt at that time to monotheism. However, this is clearly disputed by a number of Egyptologists and others. This 'hymn' is not a hymn despite its traditional name - there is no evidence that it was ever sung, and at least some more modern writers make this clear. To link it to our article on hymn or to simply claim it to be a hymn in the lead is pov (my wording may need improvement but I was working on that when I was reverted).
This text is quite a long text and not originally broken into stanzas (probably an attempt by earlier Egyptologists to make it look modern) and I'm dubious about the possibility that the excerpt used (which wasn't called an excerpt) originally was cherry picked. Salim's changes [32] remove the word excerpt. They add the word hymn unnecessarily as which looks like an attempt to make a point and certainly has the article stating it is really a hymn. There was a short analysis (sourced to something that didn't back it up) in the section with the excerpt. I removed it as we already have an analysis section and Salim had added text such as "emphatically asserts" in his first edits before I began to edit. His latest edit adds 3 paragraphs of analysis, two of which are not source and all of which I think belong in the analysis section. And no longer calls it an excerpt but just says 'hymn' which is both pov and confusing to the reader who might think it is the whole thing. The analysis section was originally called just 'Analysis' - he changed it to 'Analysis of the hymn' which is again pov.
My version of the lead read:
The Great Hymn to the Aten is the longest form of one of a number of poems written to the sun god Aten and attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten when he revolutionised Egyptian religion and replaced it with Atenism.
His current version reads
The Great Hymn to Aten is the longest form of one of a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe.
His edit summary for these changes states "Corrected some oversights i.e. gave the reference to the monotheistic aspect of Atenism. It is not my POV and I have re-inserted the reference which had been removed! - and the hymn itself clearly speaks of it!" What I removed is here [33] and was a reference to something that the hymn "emphatically asserts" that was not actually in the reference. The replacement makes it clear that some scholars do not agree this was monotheism, yet his changes asserted that it was in the lead.
Minor point - he's twice reverted my using of the name of the article in the lead, removing 'the'. Major points - he's twice made the assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Akehenaten changed Egypt's religion to monotheism, despite the fact that the article now makes it clear this is disputed. And calls it unequivocally a hymn (yes, my version says poem and it's clearly not a hymn, but as I said, this bit needs work).
Another minor point is that I removed Akhenaten and Atenism from 'see also' as they are already linked, and he replaced them [34] saying in the edit summary "added the very, very important links to Atenism and Akhanaten - you cannot remove these and then accuse me of a POV of my own - I do not have any POV except what I have read right here on this Wiki - seriously.".
I will point him to this discussion. Dougweller ( talk) 06:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug and Mike and everyone: This effort pooped me as a newcomer but now that I am rested a bit I see the exciting challenge that it all is! With a little bit more ability to retrieve past edits like Doug is able to I should be able to save a lot of my time - and not get all flustered as if the world has fallen on top of me! I shall post as much as I can and then stop because there is a power b/out due in 15 minutes. I shall then restart when power returns. Please excuse my typos because I am typing in a hurry to get done - I am based in Karachi, Pakistan at present.
Here is what I wrote to Mike who removed a reference [in brackets]: [Hi Mike: I read your comment, "Undid revision 506805666 by Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) removed WP:OR disguised with 'reference'". It seems you have detected something incorrect in what I did because the reference you deleted was meant only to show that the hymn was translated by the referenced persons and that therefore it was not something created by me out of my imagination in order to assert an opinion [WP:OR (Original Research)] as you felt I had done.
[I have no axes to grind since I am not an Egyptian or a Pharaoh-phile. What I stated is right there in the hymn itself staring us in the face! Clearly, I had nothing to do with the hymn itself since I have no expertise in reading hieroglyphs - and that is why the need of that reference to show that it is a bona fide translation - and you removed it! How does that help bring about a better article? After reading the hymn in translation please let me know whether I have stated something that is not there in the hymn itself. People have even compared it to Psalm 104. Clearly therefore it is to be regarded as a hymn and not even a poem.
[The only thing that really shook me up was that this Pharaoh was living before the coming of Moses and was asserting that there was a "unique/sole God" or "spiritual Presence" on earth.]
Doug also feels that my ref was not proper because the reference to Brewer does not have the exact statement that I have made. But my contention is that I am stating very clearly that it is the hymn that is stating what it is stating and the reference simply identifies the source of the translation. However, since the translation is showing the reference also, I accept that I do not need to give the ref again - and make it seem as if Brewer is stating when it is I who is stating the POV based on the hymn itself.
Next: hymns can lose their music if the tradition does not have the ability to note the musical notations. I have seen that happen to other oral traditions and therefore I do not accept Doug saying there is no proof it was sung. Everywhere in the Wiki the references refer to it as hymn but Doug prefers the couple of authors who say it is only a poem.
I'll stop here now for the time being. Salim e-a ebrahim 11:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk • contribs)
I'm back finally! Sorry got busy.
1. I made an error earlier when I referred to Brewer. It should be Pritchard where the poem/hymn is found. I agree and accept that I should not use the reference for my POV because the reference is already there after the poem/hymn.
2. Re poem/hymn. I contend that we cannot ask for exacting proof that it was sung or not in its time because we are looking at a very distant past. So we have to look at the authors who say that it was a prayer because it was found where prayers are said rather than poetry - in a tomb. Next, I should want to look at its comparative value in terms of literary and/or religious quality. the literary quality is acceptable to all - no dispute. Could it qualify as a hymn? When there are writers who say it is comparable to the Psalm 104 then that immediately gives me the right to call it a hymn and refer to that writer as my reference. After that I pose this question. Can a Psalm be sung? The answer is yes indeed because we are so used to thinking that a Psalm is always sung. Take the Muslim Quran. On reading it one would be staggered to say how in heavens can this be sung? Yet, the Muslims found a way. I know of certain Sufi groups that has a 5 minute prayer recited daily. I was so astounded that each member was able to sing it in the most beautiful personalized music invented by each of those who sang - all of them different from each other - and for 5 whole minutes for each one of them! So, having experienced that i cannot accept the argument that there is no "proof" that it was sung or not. The Tibetans sing/chant their Book of the Dead and the Hindus also sing/chant their Gita. So why not the egyptians too.
3. Re Cherry-picking: The hymn excerpt has in it the most expressive items/verses that give the picture very easily and quickly as to what the hymn is all about - the same could be done to Psalm 104 in order to show that it is a creation' Psalm. Therefore, I do not agree the cherry-picking argument. The Great Hymn to Aten is a creation hymn. [again here: Since it has even been titled as the "Great Hymn" I contend that Doug is really expressing his own POV too forcefully that it is a poem because as I have said I too have a very strong argument that it is truly a hymn - and since it even has the title of a hymn then Doug should not use his POV over mine because we both have references in terms of authors who call it what they like according to their taste. It certainly is no misunderstanding to call it a hymn - in fact i believe it in the reverse that it is a misunderstanding to call it a poem and thus mislead people into degrading the power and value of such a beautiful creation hymn akin to the Psalm 104.]
4. The title and the lead words could be either way as to include or exclude the "the" in it. Both ways are written in different places in the Wiki. The lead par is as follows: "The Great Hymn to Aten is the longest form of one of a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe. The ancient Egyptian view of the universe, a view that was common to all the ancient civilizations, was that of the earth as the center of the universe and a material reality separate from the religious reality of an afterlife." Of this the key sentence that Doug probably objects to is: " . . . a number of hymns attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten who in his own lifetime attempted to convert ancient Egypt from its centuries of polytheism to monotheistic Atenism with Aten as the only God of the universe." If you substitute the "hymn" for "poem" the idea of Atenism as a religion immediately goes down the drain - another argument to call it a hymn. The hymn itself talks about the "Sole God of the universe" and so i am simply re-stating what is already there - in the same way Doug takes sentences and paragraphs to write in support of a POV by quoting from his source. I can easily re-write the lead para with a verse in it to show the same POV and then put a reference where i quote the verse for Pritchard! If you prefer I can do that because as the Wiki says make your POV a fact by some means i.e. try to show that the POV is really derived from a source. Since my initial attempt was rejected as a ploy by Mike to misrepresent the reference then I am willing if you want it like that to insert O sole god, like whom there is no other! // Thou didst create the world according to thy desire // Whilst thou wert alone in the lead para and then give reference to it (the verse) with Pritchard's book as the source so that what i do say becomes very clear to all that this man really and truly tried to convert Egypt into a monotheistic culture so much so that he had to move his capital city from Thebes to a new location because of the hatred and lethal animosity of the priesthood. All this is there in history and there is no POV of mine at all involved in all this! You think I am having a POV because you Doug are very much invested in the idea that Akhenaten was only worshipping the sun-god Ra but calling him Aten - a simple name change. If you remove this idea from your mind and replace it with the idea that this man was a monotheist to whom Aten was a "Supreme Spirit" as you will read about Aten in the Wiki itself then you would have no objection at all. you are objecting because you really and truly believe in spite of what you read in the hymn, that this man was one more idolator the way we have been taught about Egyptian Pharaohs.
5. Having shown in #4 that Aten was not the same as Ra therefore I am not doing any analysis in the intro to the Hymn. in this section i am simply introducing the hymn - not stating any POV of mine whatsoever. I can remove this para: "Atenism has been described by some scholars as the earliest known example of monotheistic thought while others consider it to have been an example ofhenotheism.[2]" into the section of analysis. The first 2 paras do not belong in the analysis because they are not analysing anything - they are simply to bring to the attention of the person reading the hymn that they should pay attention to those critical verses that tell the reader that he is reading about a man with a very different makeup to that of an idolater!!
I do not remember any other point to discuss - so I'll close here. See you tomorrow. It's night here and plse excuse any typos - too tired to review. Salim e-a ebrahim 18:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk • contribs)
I understand what's what better! Thank you Parrot. Doug, you have done an excellent job with the final edit and taught me many things along the way. Thank you for your incredible patience. Salim e-a ebrahim ( talk) 14:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Your help is needed on Richard Dawkins' discussion page. A group of editors are pro adding criticism in the article from reliable sources. Another group however, says this is not a good idea at all, and those material should be added to articles like The God Delusion or New Atheism. The problem, however, is that people in the latter articles are also resisting adding criticism to their article. I find this unusually biased to practically ban criticism on the basis of consensus.-- 216.31.211.11 ( talk) 02:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this also a bad edit that should have been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.159.2 ( talk) 04:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
For which the user provided near 10 reliable sources that back his edit but yet turned down by people in the talk page:
I mean this is really obvious that some folks are religiously preventing any criticism against their popular figure in Wikipedia. -- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 06:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
One of the claims is that a criticism is needed at Richard Dawkins, or perhaps The God Delusion, regarding remarks by Dawkins on suicide bombers in that book. A paper ("The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism") by Robert Pape is used as the scholarly basis for criticisms of Dawkins (the most-attacked comment by Dawkins is "If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers." with Pape's analysis used to conclude that religious belief is not neccessary or sufficient to create suicide bombers (I can't see text in the paper which rejects Dawkins' statement, but there are books by critics of Dawkins whose authors can see that conclusion).
The reason that Pape's paper should not be coatracked into an article on Dawkins or his book is that Pape does not mention Dawkins or his book (the paper finishes with "Conquering countries may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but it is important to recognize that occupation of more countries may well increase the number of terrorists coming at us." and seems to be more concerned with the strategy of suicide bombing). My opinion on Pape's paper does not matter, but neither does that of Terry Eagleton who has no qualifications concerning suicide bombing—Eagleton is just another person affronted by Dawkins' views on religion, yet the articles make it clear that there are plenty of those. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, hopefully I'm doing this correctly! I've noticed that the article Day of Deceit, on a book by Robert Stinnett, has numerous issues in what would normally be the "summary" section of the article (as I believe is the (at least non-formal) custom for all articles on media). Namely, the summary section is a jumbled mass of shards of actual summary of what the book says, mixed in with criticism and phrases like "Stinnett's claim has proven baseless" stuck in there. I do not know how this can possibly be seen as "summary". Furthermore, as I explained on the talk page, if I wanted to read this book, and went to Wikipedia to find out what the book said, I'd be at a complete loss. I expect we're not supposed to mention names here, so I won't, but it has become impossible to correct this problem due to an edit war that seems to occur whenever anyone attempts to move criticism to the criticism section, and summary to the summary section. Lastly, I'd like to draw attention to one of the main citations used in the article, by a Admiral Richard E. Young. The only actual article that this links to is an unsubstantiated review of the original book on Amazon.com. I don't believe that qualifies as a reliable source. Anyway, thanks for your time. 69.249.211.251 ( talk) 07:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
As one of those who worked on the article before the current burst of activity, I don't see a problem with the current stronger segregation of the summary and the criticism. The lead, as it stands, is accurate: Stinnett's book is cited by all the conspiracy theorists, and rejected by the historians. I think we're done except for the drama. Mangoe ( talk) 11:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.
or should I go to formal mediation?
I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism and attacks maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.
DRN
Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?
Too much information and way too biased
I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article......... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 00:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 00:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Zoebuggie☺ whispers 00:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"Should the article American Family Association include mention in the lead that it has been designated a hate group by one of its political opponents, the Southern Poverty Law Center, or should this be mentioned only in the body?" (emphasis added)
I removed the phrase "one of its political opponents" as it's not only not neutral but also untrue. Per WP:RFC the sum total of what to put as a description states - "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it." I think Do not use the talk page as a forum might apply here as SPLC in non-partisan although their detractors of course believe otherwise.
The removal is being contested as altering a talkpage comment of another, I think the neutrality of an RfC warrants having a neutral statement thus overriding the concern. Is there a statement or opinion on this already that we can refer? Or is it implied somewhere? Should it be implicitly stated at WP:FRC that non-neutral RFCs can be altered for neutrality or suggest how to handle non-neutrality? Any help appreciated. Insomesia ( talk) 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If anyone has extra time, please edit the Zoophilia and the law article for neutrality. This page is built on original research and unsourced content with the attempt of pushing a very non-neutral POV. The article is currently being watched by less than 30 people and I have a history with the one particular editor (who mainly edits that page) in the past to do anything about it without being reverted again, multiple times. If any outside editors are willing to clean up the Zoophilia and the law article up for neutrality and keep an eye on it, that would be very much appreciated!
Thank you, Someone963852 ( talk) 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There has been an expansion in the controversy section, which was mainly executed by a dedicated I.P. user. The expansion was reverted two times on the grounds on defamatory content & undue:weight. The editor still wants it to be expanded in his own way. I have also encouraged him to create account so that effective talk can take place, since the I.P. seems to be a dynamic one. Suggestions are invited. -- доктор прагматик 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"The expansion was reverted two times"- incorrect. The two editors (apparently following the filter bot which noticed "sex") reverted the whole article, not the section in question. The "two reversions" were to correct their error; article was left with the section removed. "Wants it to be expanded in his own way"- incorrect. The best way would be a proper article where the controversies cited would not be out of place. An alternate way, a separate article, was proposed in the meantime. Other proposals? In Pennsylvania, this is a major subject, and the HIV-sex story made national news. Is everything in the news defamatory? Discussion of content is at Talk:Milton_Hershey_School#undue_weight_to_scandal. Should that discussion be moved here? 98.111.146.179 ( talk) 17:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
So figure on 3 lines on the HIV case and end it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Could I get opinions as to the neutrality of the Suetonius on Christians article? There are accusations of undue weight. Thanks. -- spin control 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid specifics, but, as per your request, the complaint is that I have been giving too much weight to a minority view, as stated by this comment:
and
The majority view is claimed through this statement in the lede:
Slingerland's scholarly articles are used mainly for dating issues.
So, does the article currently give undue weight? I personally am most interested in the general balance of the article. -- spin control 16:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How does WP:DUE cash out in a situation in which the majority view cannot be enunciated other than by repeating what supporters of the view say without any actual rationale? I have placed a contrary peer-reviewed scholarly analysis of the situation and an editor wants to dismantle it because of WP:DUE.
This is the section. The second paragraph is the majority view and the third is a contrary view. -- spin control 18:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
At List of oldest universities in continuous operation, only European universities are included. This is due to, according to users on the talk page, a number of sources that say that the "university" was a uniquely European institution, and that Muslim institutions are "madrassas", not universities. It is true that eminently reliable sources put forward such a view. There are however other reliable sources that do not hold the same view. A number of users are insisting that the page cannot include what those reliable sources say. This has come up here before, here (a discussion that was completely disregarded here) and here. Sources brought for the inclusion of al-Azhar and al-Karaouine are as follows:
The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th centurey the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
Islamic scientists and scholars developed the first universities as centers for scholarship in North Africa and Egypt; the universities of Al-Azhar in Cairo, founded in AD 988, and of Al-Karaouine in Fez (Morocco), founded in 859, are the world's oldest ongoing universities
Situated in Cairo and formerly also located with the great al-Azhar Mosque, this is the oldest and still the most important Islamic university in the world. Al-Azhar University has taught Islamic law, theology, and Arabic for more than 1,000 years. The first recorded seminar was held in 975, when chief justice Abu El-Hassan sat in the courtyard of the university and, reading from a book on jurisprudence written by his father, instructed students in the intricacies of Shiite law.
The first prayers were held in the mosque in 972, and in 989 it acquired the status of a college with the appointment of thirty-five scholars to teach the Isma'ili Shi'a theology to which the Fatimids adhered.
I have argued that the list should include these universities and also include the fact that other scholars do not consider them to have been founded as universities. That has not proven satisfactory to other editors on the talk page. Should the list include universities that reliable sources report as being the oldest continuously run universities in the world if they are not European? nableezy - 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The definition of a university in the List of oldest universities in continuous operation follows the main article university. This defines the Wikipedia:Scope for the list. There is consensus at both the main article and the list among the users about this definition. The two institutions cited by Nableezy were actually madrasas, Muslim mosque schools, and quality sources careful about the terminology also call and discuss them this way. What Nableezy is basically asking is to overthrow a consensus which is based on specialist scholarship just in order to include these two madrasas in the university list (ignoring that for madrasas already exists a List of the oldest madrasahs in continuous operation). This would creates unsurmountable problems with, inter alia, WP:Weight. There is a ton of high quality scholarly material by internationaly recognized historian of the history of the university who go to great pains and into great detail why the university was a unique creation of Christian Europe and why Muslim madrasas were historically and organizationally a very distinct institution. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Although Djamia, in this sense, includes, in popular and semi-official usage, traditional institutions of higher religious education, officially it is restricted to the modern university, established on western models. Thus, Law no. 184 of 1958, organizing the Djamia of the United Arab Republic does not name al-Azhar among these universities. This article will, consequently, deal with “modern” universities. It should be stressed, however, that in Islamic countries higher education had a remarkable tradition in the older institutions of the mosque, the madrasa and other centres of education and learning...The term djamia seems to have come into use towards the middle of the 19th century, and to have been translated from “université” or “university”....The first definite use of djamia in the technical meaning of university appears to have been in the movement of some intellectual leaders and reformers in Egypt in 1906 for the establishment of a d̲j̲āmiʿa miṣriyya.
What you are basically proposing is to change the entire definition of the university in order to somehow squeeze in the madrasa as "the oldest universities" in a few articles. If this view is to be accepted by the majoritiy of users, we would have to change not only the lead of these three article, far from it, we would have to change hundreds of articles, beginning with adding the category [[Category:University]] and the infobox university to countless Islamic mosques schools which aren't in fact universities at all.
The point you still do not quite comprehend is that while both university and madrasa can be fully regarded as institutions of higher learning, each has to be judged on its own terms and that a medieval madrasa was never a university (or the other way round). It does not help either that you have been edit-warring (you still do) over multiple Wikipedias for months now in order to enforce your view, ironically even in those versions where you don't even have a minimum command of the language.
To provide some information to users still unfamiliar with the history of the university and the madrasa, I will list here reputable sources from encyclopedia, dictionaries on the Middle Ages and internationally renowned historians of the university. Note that these are nearly all written by individual experts in the field or published in leading publications; they plainly make clear that the standard view is that
Reputable sources and definitions from encyclopedias, dictionaries on the Middle Ages and internationally renowned historians of the university
|
---|
Below expert views. The point is that these scholars and sources really give arguments for the position they take. This is in stark contrast to the mostly low quality "sources" of proponents of the madrasa = university claim where the simple use or mention of the word "university" is considered a proof of the madrasa having been a university at the time of its founding, even though the term can denote in English everyday usage any type of institution of higher learning. The medieval Christian origin of the university
The first universities
Definitions of the Islamic madrasa
The difference(s) between the university and the madrasa
Madrasas had no institutional structure, no curriculum, no regular examination and no system of degrees
Al-Karaouine (and Al-Azhar) were not the first madrasas, therefore they cannot have been the first universities, even if a madrasa is considered a university.
Al-Azhar cannot be considered the oldest university in the world and there is not even institutional continuity between medieval and modern madrasas (hence Al-Azhar cannot even be regarded as a continuously operating institution)
|
Reliable sources showing
Al-Karaouine and
Al-Azhar to be madrasas, not universities
|
---|
These sources are reliable, albeit not expert sources, which show that Al-Karaouine and Al-Azhar were actually founded and run as a madrasa, not a university. Al-Karaouine (and Al-Azhar) was founded or run as a madrasa, mosque school or mosque, not a university.Petersen, Andrew: Dictionary of Islamic Architecture, Routledge, 1996, ISBN 978-0-415-06084-4, p. 87 (entry "Fez"):Lulat, Y. G.-M.: A History Of African Higher Education From Antiquity To The Present: A Critical Synthesis Studies in Higher Education, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, ISBN 978-0-313-32061-3, p. 70: Meri, Josef W. (ed.): Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, A–K, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-96691-7, p. 257 (entry "Fez"):
Al-Karaouine was transformed only in modern times into a university.Shillington, Kevin: Encyclopedia of African History, Vol. 2, Fitzroy Dearborn, 2005, ISBN 978-1-57958-245-6, p. 1025:
Al-Karaouine is the oldest madrasah in the world, not the oldest university.Fergusson, James: Taliban: The Unknown Enemy, Da Capo Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-306-82033-5, p. 69:Belhachmi, Zakia: "Gender, Education, and Feminist Knowledge in al-Maghrib (North Africa) – 1950–70", Journal of Middle Eastern and North African Intellectual and Cultural Studies, Vol. 2–3, 2003, pp. 55–82 (65):
|
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 19:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th centurey the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.
Islamic scientists and scholars developed the first universities as centers for scholarship in North Africa and Egypt; the universities of Al-Azhar in Cairo, founded in AD 988, and of Al-Karaouine in Fez (Morocco), founded in 859, are the world's oldest ongoing universities
I know this isn't the place to discuss content, but let me try to address the state of historical understanding of the history of higher education in the Latin speaking West and in the Arabic speaking world.
The history of medieval universities has been studied for at least a century, accompanying an even earlier study of the history of ideas in the Middle Ages. Early in that study, Hastings Rashdall (The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, pp. 17-18, (Oxford: Clarendon Press) ,1895) made the crucial distinction between Universities and their predecessors in cathedral and monastic schools, defining them in terms of their form of organization:
As a consequence of this long and detailed examination historians know in great detail when universities were founded, what their origins and precursors were, who taught (and sometimes who studied) at those institutions, and what was taught there. In particular, we have texts that were used for teaching in monastic schools, cathedral schools, and universities. The period from the twelfth century on is not called the era of scholasticism for nothing, it was defined by the development of the universities.
Finally, of course, I must return to Rashdall's definition of the university. The spontaneous origins of the university as a corporate entity provided them a degree of institutional and intellectual autonomy not found when schools were closely patronized by kings, princes, or prelates, and again the battles to maintain that intellectual autonomy has been a recurring element of the history of universities. The Islamic higher educational institutions were, like the European cathedral and monastic schools, were fundamentally religious institutions and had all the limitations (of intellectual control) and benefits (of economic support) that that implied.
The study of scholarship in Islam does not have the depth of the study of medieval universities, but what has emerged is that most scholarship in Islam was not focused on teaching institutions. The texts in the area which I study (the history of astronomy) were produced by scholars who were associated with courts or with religious institutions. See, for example, David King's study of the role of Muwaqqits (religious timekeepers) in Arabic astronomy or the earlier study by Sayili, The Observatory in Islam. Perhaps there is research detailing this kind of deep knowledge of scholarship at Arabic-speaking educational institutions, but it has not been presented in the recurring Wikipedia debates over the University and its origins. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
First, thank you Gun Powder Ma for inviting me to this discussion even though we have disagreed about this topic in the past. Second, my apologies to Gun Powder Ma for insisting that my lead changes to the List of oldest universities in continuous operation would be enough to avoid further discussion, I was clearly incorrect, but I appreciate that they largely still seem to be there, even though we agreed that they could be removed after 6 months if the dispute was still ongoing.
With regards to the actual issue, I was frankly sick and tired of it a year ago, and I don't think my position on that has changed. However this dispute is still ongoing, and has certainly been continuing on and off for at least 18 months, which is a seriously long time, and certainly that makes the dispute fundamentally unhealthy to the project and therefore it does need resolving.
With regards to resolving the dispute I see several possibilities:
I would really like to avoid that final option, as I am greatly enjoying not having to engage with arbitration cases, but if the first two aren't undertaken seriously that is the only sensible option left - I don't think at this point that we can leave this unresolved. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Notification: Participants are invited to a discussion about the reliability of two sources often used in the dispute. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 13:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyway is there an RFC on this? It's the only way out I believe. -- Tachfin ( talk) 23:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
See Gunpowder Ma? I am not the only one who uses Rashdall as a source. ;)
I have participated in this discussion previously. I'd like to make three notes:
(1) I find the amount of energy spent on this " List of oldest universities in continuous operation" to be surprising, as it is a rather absurd and useless list. It is absurd because there is simply no documentary basis certifying any date before the 13th C. - the assigned start dates are speculative, disputable and elastic. As a chart of university evolution it is useless as it omits universities that were important then but are now defunct and treats periods of suspended operation inconsistently. Consequently, this list can be nothing more than a "fun" list.
For the purposes of scholarly research, there are good reasons for making a list of Medieval universities in Latin Europe - and this is what the more serious List of medieval universities does, and the criteria is laid out there carefully and explicitly. I don't see any reason to replicate that list twice. The unserious, fun "oldest universities" list, without criteria or usefulness, can and ought to be more flexible.
(2) Gun Powder Ma et al. seems to me to be misreading and ascribing more to his sources than they claim. It is important not to forget that the emergence of universities in Latin Europe - the flowering of scholasticism, mentioned earlier - emerged after the "great translation" period, that is, the sudden influx of material from Islamic and Greek worlds in the late 11th/12th C. Scholars have conjectured that not only the books, but the school fomat to study them, may have been imported wholesale from abroad. All GPM's sources are doing is endeavoring to counter that claim, that is, to suggest that the European Studium generale was probably not imported wholesale from Islamic models. They are not claiming that the Islamic model schools cannot be characterized as universities, simply that the European schools seemed to have developed autonomously and distinctively. They are much more limited, cautious and careful in their claims than GPM ascribes to them.
For instance, GPM glides over the fact that these very same authors acknowledge that some elements might have been imported from Islamic models (e.g. colleges organized as nations, academic robes, degrees and titles, and the all-important "license to teach" elsewhere). True the single corporate body and papal charter wasn't there - but the pope doesn't charter Islamic schools (nor the Caliph, for that matter). Islamic universities were organized much more loosely and independently. Rich patrons funded colleges, professors were allowed to teach whatever they wanted. There don't seem to have been any equivalent of papal, royal or parliamentary statutes regulating the relations between colleges or prescribing the curriculum in detail as found in Latin model schools. The degrees from al-Qaraouine weren't bestowed by al-Qaraouine as a single body, but rather signed by the individual professors in it.
These are differences, yes. But how essential? Some may focus on the corporate model - the existence of a chancellor and a controlling, governing body, something Islamic schools tended to lack, as critical. On the other hand, Rashdall identifies the 'jus ubique docendi' as the distintive element of a Studium generale (as opposed to other types of Studia), and this element was present in the Islamic universities.
In my estimation, there is frankly precious little difference between Islamic model schools and Latin model schools, certainly in their earlier stages. With time, Latin universities took on some extra elements that Islamic universities didn't, so they became more distinctive. But keep in mind there were significant differences in organization between Latin universities as well - Paris vs Bologna model, etc. So what you want to identify as "the" distinctive thing of a university is subject to debate.
All of these subtleties, all these cautions and reservations, are ignored by GPM and go unmentioned in this "List of oldest universities in continuous operations". But, of course, because I see this merely as an unserious "fun" list, I don't recommend burdening it with the same hefty details and careful criteria, as found in the List of medieval universities.
(3) The stance I have taken is that Latin universities are apples, Islamic universities are oranges. Apples are different from oranges, yes, but they are both "fruit". So it remains to decide what this is a list of - a list of apples or a list of fruits?
As noted before, I don't care for the "oldest universities" list. As there already exists a "list of apples" (List of Medieval universities), my personal view is this one ought to be made a "list of fruits", and let everyone in on the fun here, and leave the serious scholarly stuff to the more serious lists. The notes, as Omar-Toons has drafted, are sufficient.
What I definitely don't want to see is the marring of individual university pages on the basis of an unserious "fun" list. I don't want to see the al-Karaouine page crippled by GPM, but equally, I don't think it advisable to mar the Bologna page either. For Bologna, I think it sufficient to say "which would make it the oldest Western-style university in the world still in operation", or to just change the wording to make it clear it is only an allegation, and leave out references to al-Karaouine there. That's just asking for a renewal of this debate at a later date.
Walrasiad ( talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have participated in this discussion before. I believe I tried to find a resolution to a reliable sources dispute, or it may have been NPOV. I occasionally comment on both noticeboards. I don't think I ever went and edited the article itself, although I spent quite a bit of time looking at everyone's sources. I may have commented on a talk page.
I do not have time to read the new comments or re-read the full discussion above but would like to briefly state how matters stood then, and presumably still do.
The editor who brought the issue to the noticeboard was being reverted and patronized rather scathingly when he tried to make his case by other editors who appeared to have some serious academic credentials but to be unclear on the reliable source concept. It is true that some of his sources, Encyclopedia Britannica for example, were high-school level, but they were nonetheless reliable, especially since, as I understood it, all he was trying to prove was the 9th-century founding. I think we all agree that this date, while elastic, precedes the date of Bologna's founding by several centuries. The essence of the opposing position was, again as I understand it, that no school outside of Europe could be described as a university, because the medieval definition of the word had criteria relating to relationships with the Catholic Church.
My own thoughts were these. This narrow definition may in fact be correct. I do not know. But this is not the commonly accepted use of the word, which is as a synonym for "institution of higher learning". Nor can anyone say that schools in north Africa were religious in nature and therefore do not count. Schools in Europe also were religious in nature. The reaction of the Eurocentrists amounted to "don't be silly." Asked for sources to the contrary, someone named Athenian (I think) produced a lists of works with titles like "Universities in Medieval Europe". Naturally these made little to no mention of any institutions elsewhere. I said that in my opinion the scope of these works, no matter how well respected they might be, was too narrow for the purpose for which they were being used. I in turn was also ignored and the discussion at that point was so entangled that hatnotes were being used to keep it straight so there was little hope of enlisting any other uninvolved editors to read it. I spent an evening or two with Google and found quite a few academic works with authors whose credentials could not be questioned that do not use the restrictive definition that some editors are trying to apply to the word university, and others who said that universities began in the Arab world and that the concept came north from there as crusaders returned home to Europe, so I stood by finding. I do not know if this was ever resolved. I suspect not, since this is back on the noticeboards.
I will add that I dislike lists since they tend to oversimplify and thus generate this type of argument. I have seen similar problems on "List of national anthems" for example where some editors were deleting entries for what they considered were not "real" countries. For what it is worth also I will also add that I have no particular ties to north Africa besides an affection for Camus and that I am a Canadian who also has a British passport, so I *sorta* have an allegiance to Europe. Elinruby ( talk) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been eavesdropping on this debate now and then for longer than I care to recall. I see both sides: the oldest universities carried the Latin name universitas during a period when these were institutions of higher learning distinctly characteristic of Western culture, and therefore a list of oldest universitates should not contain institutions that were not universitates. (Even the state university I attended as an undergraduate had a seal with its name in Latin, though founded in 1837.) If we had a list of Oldest structures continually in use as churches, we would not include synagogues and mosques and Stonehenge, right? However, the wrinkle here is that other continuous institutions of higher learning that were called something else in the era of universitates can now be considered what in English we call "universities."
What the long debate demonstrates is that List of oldest universities in continuous operation has inherent issues of scope, forking (logical distribution of content among articles), and synth (applying definitions that are not necessarily intended to dovetail with each other or in novel ways). The issue as I see it is not "neutrality" or anything to do with POV, but rather defining the topic in a way that provides value to WP readers. Nobody has demonstrated what that might be.
List of oldest universities in continuous operation should be deleted, and any unique information it contains merged into
List of medieval universities (which needs to have a date of closing added to the table anyway),
University#History, or other articles, including possibly a new article such as
List of universities by date of founding (an index that could be broken up on multiple pages by century, and would include institutions that are called "universities" in contemporary colloquial English). And no meaningful information will be lost in the process. The emotions here seem to be attached to some perceived value in being included on the list, which frankly I see as non-informative trivia outside the context of a prose narrative on historical development. It's just not a very useful thing for such intelligent editors to be wasting their time on.
Cynwolfe (
talk) 15:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)