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 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Talk:India#Fact sheet merger proposal should be of some interest to the regulars of this board. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article lead:
The article contains a table that shows some of the elements of each entity in the standard, including the name and numeric and alpha codes. Each row also includes a flag that is not part of the standard, but is there in our article solely as a means of identification and decoration.
There are currently 4 entities for which some editors object to showing a flag, the discussion of which can be found here. Recently, someone re-added the Taiwan flag and I added the other three, along with an explanation clarifying the non-political nature of the standard and the flags being shown. This prompted a revert, but no further discussion, where clearly some is needed.
(My reason for bringing attention to it here is that I believe, by not showing specific flags, we are making a political statement about the legitimacy of those entities, which is not a NPOV. It should be all or none, and it looks better with all.)
—[ AlanM1( talk)]— 05:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States
I recently reviewed the article above and came across the Food Stamp section and discovered that someone had included their own POV from The Heritage Foundation where they worked.
I checked all references and discovered the use of Conservative ezines/websites/newspapers which supposedly referenced the USDA in certain areas of usgae of taxpayer money. I found that the articles had re-written the way the USDA actually provides fisal information, that information regarding 'fraud' was a specific money amount 'investigated' for fraud, in 5 states only and not actual fraud cases that had been prosecuted and found guilty.
The use of the phrase "Conservative commentators have argued..." shows a beginning clearly referencing a non-neutral POV, and as such, I removed all information that refered to this one-sided POv.
Someone then revised that edit to include the POV again and changed one referenced article to The Wall Street Journal, which was an editorial that must be paid for in order to review. This is not what I consider a reference that can be used in a Wiki article.
I have re-revised-- to remove the POV again. If I am incorrect about the POV, please advise. I am sure we have been reading a Conservative POV which was one-sided and I belIeve I am correct about the revision.
FYI--I cannot locate the name of the individual who removed my first revision and I dont know if its my laptop but I seem to be missing what I entered into the 'talk' section. BTW the individual who removed my edit, never discussed anything with me on the talk section.
Please advise--Thanks Brattysoul ( talk) 04:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I must be thick--how does what you've stated apply to a wiki article that has been weeding out POVs and the POV stated in the artcle regarding the food programs-particularly the food stamp program-has only ONE side stated and has links that are 1-not available 2-are only from one-sided media that contains unsupported "facts" or worse, with a spin from a conservative pov.
Wiki rules state an article must have a neutral pov, and that is not the case with this part of the article and must be removed and NOT replaced while it contains someone elses POV that is not an encylopediac entry. I have shown how not only is it a one-sided conservative POV from a conservative wesite, but that references are not usable.
The blog of the Heritage Foundation with one article does not contain actual facts from the USDA. What has been claimed as a source from the USDA doesnt exist in the way it has been used. THAT is the problem. I actually checked the USDA. What the Heritage Foundation article called 'investigated fraud' does not exist on the USDA in the way that the article claims. THAT is what I stated. REPEATEDLY. As long as the use of unsupported facts are contained in an artcle, or a link in an article cannot be accessed the one-sided POV cannot be used.
Hi! Is it okay if I list articles in which I suspect companies may be trying to whitewash their pages? I noticed some edits at ReachOut Healthcare America which included OR rebuttals of sourced content from articles about the company. There is a legal case involved, so it may get contentious Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP removed material at Edinburgh Academy [1] stating that "In an August 2012 analysis of Scottish Independent Schools by the percentage of 'A' grades awarded for the 'Higher Grade' examination, the Academy came second bottom of independent schools in Edinburgh with 34% of passes at A grade." I replaced it and it was then removed with an edit summary saying that " across to me as negative POV - especially when the quoted source is an article saying how well Scottish independent schools have done. And why pick out this particular statistic from no doubt many others which are presumably available?". I can see the point, but this school did particularly badly and we commonly do include exam results in school article. What do others think? Dougweller ( talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
On the talk page of Pavle Djurisic the neutrality of the treatment of two awards made to the article subject is disputed. There is a separate issue which is not being discussed here which relates to the reliability of one of the sources used for the award of the Iron Cross. I am just flagging that so that involved editors can focus on the NPOV aspect.
Djurisic was awarded the Order of the Star of Karađorđe, a high award of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, by the Yugoslav government in exile. The award is sourced but the degree of the award and date of award are not. The award is currently mentioned in the infobox and in the aftermath section (it was put there as it is not known when it was awarded).
Djurisic was also awarded the Iron Cross 2nd Class, an iconic but fairly lowly award of Nazi Germany, by the German commander in Montenegro in October 1944. The award and the date of award are sourced. The award is mentioned in the lead, infobox and in the chronologically appropriate section of the article. It is illustrated by a copy of the entitlement document and a image of a newspaper in which it was announced.
The rationale behind the current mentions of both awards in the article is as follows-
1. The Order of the Star of Karađorđe was a Yugoslav award which was awarded to a number of prominent Chetnik leaders, it is unknown how many were awarded during the war and or in what degrees. It is unknown what degree of the award was bestowed on Djurisic or when. There are no images available of the entitlement document or any announcement of its award.
2. The Iron Cross 2nd Class was an award of Nazi Germany (4.5 million were awarded during WW2), but Djurisic was the only known Chetnik recipient of the award and the only Chetnik known to have received any German award. He was also a notable Chetnik collaborator with both the Italians and then the Germans. The award is also particularly notable for that reason. The class and date of the award are known. There are images available of the entitlement document and the announcement in a local paper.
This is a Featured Article which I assisted to get to that class. As a result I try to maintain a stewardship role in relation to the information included and consider I have dealt with the awards in a neutral way, taking into account the uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross. My request is for a consensus here on whether the current treatment of the two awards provides a NPOV and if not, I ask for suggestions on how that would be achieved. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Wanted! Few Neutral Wikipedia editors who will help with a version of Al-Ahbash page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines
Please, bear in mind that the subject of the Al-Ahbash article is extremely controversial.
Thank you and Good luck. McKhan ( talk)
Methodology / Ground-rules (Proposed)
Given that the topic is extremely controversial, the following Methodology / Ground-rules I would like to propose assuming that only independent, peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources will be used:
That would be wonderful if there are more NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors involved into this process. Thank you. McKhan ( talk)
I have noticed certain articles about politicians getting the Royal Treatment:"King can do no wrong". All "criticism sections" on these politicians have been censored by reverting.
a partial list of these Articles:
do we allow one-sided articles on Wikipedia ? don't these articles violate WP:NPOV ?
I personally have not argued with any of the editors, but reading the Articles' talk pages and their archives, I don't think it would be of any use.-- Ne0 ( talk) 09:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "Lib Dem conference: Clegg promises to push for wealth tax," 23 September 2012, BBC and "A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn," 25 September 2012, New Statesman, would someone with insight into the workings of the UK coalition government please say whether this is noteworthy enough to include as a proposal in Wealth tax yet? I realize that this is more of a subject matter question on the workings of the UK coalition government than a NPOV policy question, but I asked at WP:RDH and they sent me here. — Cupco 07:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book " Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:
"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"
I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, about a Chinese woman subjected to a coerced, late-term abortion. The lede includes the sentence "On June 11, Feng's family posted graphic pictures of her dead child online." I'm considering changing 'dead child' to 'aborted fetus,' as it seems more neutral, if less...humane. But I just wanted to inquire whether there is a standard practice here. Would both terms be acceptable, or there a precedent that establishes that one is preferred? Homunculus ( duihua) 18:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
50.4.162.0 is edit-warring over changing "Describes himself as pro-life"-> "Opposes reproductive freedom". Seems like pretty clear POV to me, and a borderline BLP violation on a politician during election season to boot. Glaucus ( talk) 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Unarchiving this because the problem is still readily apparent.
Could someone with more energy and patience for it please take a look at Special:Contributions/108.28.53.169? He seems to primarily do NPOV edits. Thanks. — Kerfuffler 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The BLP article of Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) has had a neutrality flag on the Controversy section since October 2011. This section comprises roughly half the article length and consists of a string of "news item" subsections listing incidents within Jones' broadcasting career. Jones is a radio "shock jock" and his schtick is to get up the noses of people holding leftist political views. He is blatantly biased. He is also Australia's most popular and influential radio presenter.
Although there have been some recent positive edits, the section as a whole is problematic. I quote from WP: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 impartial, but still 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.
Discussion on the article's neutrality has been ongoing since 2007, and most recently in this discussion initiated a few days ago. Those arguing most strenuously for the preservation and suitability of the section are possibly best described here as possessing noses of the sort which Jones gets up, and I feel that this article is being used as a platform for some private retaliation.
If, for example, a person is ultimately found innocent of a charge, do we need to list each incident? I quote here from the lede:
His on-air conduct has attracted numerous adverse findings from Australia's media regulators, and one on-air incident resulted in Jones being charged with contempt of court, of which he was found guilty of breaching the law but the charge was dismissed.
The basic argument of those pushing for retention is "Well, he's a controversial public figure, paid to generate controversy - duh" but in Wikipedia terms, far more controversial figures like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin have no "Criticism and Controversy" section, with such material being a natural part of the overall structure. You cannot get much more controversial than mad dictators responsible for the deaths of millions, so why should this far less notable person have half his biographical article devoted to it?
I find Jones a vigorous opponent of causes I support, abhorrent, a travesty of objective journalism and a pin-up boy for the face of political bias but we do not have to descend to a similar level in our encyclopaedic treatment of him.
I'd like the advice of editors possessing fresh and unbiased eyes. Thanks. -- Pete ( talk) 14:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of mistakes in the English article about Udo Kier, also very subjective point of view, no neutral position. For example, it's written that Udo Kier is German actor while he lives and works both in Germany and America since 1991 so he is German and American/Hollywood actor. Also written that he is "known primarily for his work in horror and exploitation movies". Known for whom, I wonder? For horror fans? He did more than 200 films and only very few among them are horror or "exploitation"(by the way, what is "exploitation movie"? it must be "sex exploitation"what is also not true as he did no more than 5-6 films like that). Udo Kier did many serious films. Then there is very offensive quote by the frontman of music band Korn that contains word "fuck" and so on..Then Udo Kier never said that he is homosexual! Is it possible to add him into the "Gay actors" page?? Then he never was "protege" of Fassbinder, it's an old myth, he was discovered in London by another director and did about 10 films before to work with Fassbinder and they were more friends than collegues, Udo did mostly episodes in his films. Then Udo kier play sonly in episodes in Lars von Trier movies after "Europe" film whicj was in early 90s...and many other mistakes! Unfortunatelly, user called "Joshmaul" didn't accept my editing, almost no one change I did. It looks that there is personal hateness towards Udo kier or probably even homophobic. Please help to edite Udo Kier page correctly! For the moment the text of the page based mostly on one old article/review which has nothing to do with reality and was many times disproved by Udo Kier himself in his interviews. I sent links to many interviews with the actor where he says the true about himself but almost nothing was written and accepted by Joshmaul and almost no change done, even in a movie title which I took from IMDB, now there are lots of mistakes! What to do?? Who is "Joshmaul"? Your official editor? How to write true (based on Kier's resent Interviews and IMDB bio) in Wiki????? The interview about his childhood and work with Paul Morrissey (information was not accepted by your editor) [1]
The interview where he talk true about Fassbinder and their relationships! My edits wasn't accepted!
Another interview whre he tells about Fassbinder and how he (Udo Kier) in real came into cinema, about how he made debut!
[3] Almost nothing was accepted by "Joushmaul", he also can't prove am I represent Udo kier or not, and it's not his business at all. i never says that I'm representative myself, I said that some information was passed by his representatives what is true and also it wass their asking to change the article. I can provided you with 50 other articles and interview with Udo Kier which disproved almost all the information in the English wiki article! Besides the article wrote more as a critique that neutral bio and besides the language of it is very poor and even sound as slang..("He has strarred" instead "he played" or "he was in") and so on. Please help!!! Can people edite anything in Wiki or not??? I'm totally into this theme and subject!
References
The reliability or otherwise of the CSM article for the claim being made is a WP:RS issue, and as such is of no relevance to this noticeboard. Take it to WP:RSN |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this article, the commercial status is in dispute. There are around 6 secondary sources saying its non-profit, 2 primary source that proclaim that the site is now non-profit, and 3 additional secondary sources adding support to the primary claim. On the other side, there is 1 secondary source saying that the founders of the site was found guilty of extensive infringement of copyright law in a commercial and organized form. Yet, the article states that the site is commercial, and the claims about non-profit was instant reverted. Diff of adding the new section. Diff of instant revert 20m later. I think this is wrong, but so far I and the person doing the revert is the only participants in the discussion. Belorn ( talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I asked a simple question: 'was the extract I quoted the material being cited for The Pirate Bay being a commercial enterprise?' Since the IP is now saying it isn't, can I ask how the heck you expect anyone here to make any sensible comments on the issue? And no, I'm not going to read 375 different source articles to try and figure this out. Instead, I'll point out that per policy, it is down to those wishing to include a statement to provide the necessary citations when required. If any of you wish to claim that The Pirate Bay is a commercial organisation, provide the sources that say it is. Likewise, if any of you wish to claim that it isn't, provide sources. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss here. The default position is clearly to make no definitive statement one way or another - and if there are contradictory sources of any reasonable credibility, to make clear that this is the case. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This might be the place to point out that the Swedish Supreme Court said exactly nothing about Pirate Bay, as it refused the appeal. The originator of the quote above, Tomas Norström, <- redacted by AndyTheGrump ->. So it is correct that he, also as the judge in the case, claims that Pirate Bay was commercial. But he is not the supreme court, he is not a reliable source, and most definitely does not overrule the other reliable sources that exist. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
THE MATERIAL QUOTED DOES NOT STATE THAT TPB IS COMMERCIAL AT ALL. That is all that needs to be said here. This isn't an NPOV dispute, and should not have been raised here. Take it to WP:RSN if you like, but otherwise, this thread should be closed as off-topic for this notice board. 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
This one has an incredible history, with lots of long unsourced essays accreting, reversions to stubs, etc. At its worst, it's gone over 29,000 characters. At the stub, it's down to something like 929 characters. Please look at the edit history before touching this one. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".
In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday, Shaun Suisham failed a kick that would have given the Steelers a victory against the Tennessee Titans, and at the end the Steelers lost. An anonymous IP edited the page on what I think is a clear example of fan rage, calling Suisham "the weakest, most unreliable player of his generation" and casting doubt on his permanence on the Steelers, without any source at all. I undid the changes, but then a registered user restored them, calling them "reality". What is the proper action to take here, to ensure the page is OK until the dust settles?
Thanks. Not A Superhero ( talk) 17:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
In the article about the company Honeywell_Turbo_Technologies I feel that there's a large amount of contents meant to show case the company in a positive light and showing off its product offerings. One example is a fairly long list of race cars utilizing the subject company's turbos, but only the ones that did well. The product sections go on about product features and patents. In this article, and in articles about companies in general, I think that the style of writing places excessive bias in favor of the subject and deviates from neutral and impartial informational page.
Similar, the article GenArts created and extensively edited by User:Corporate Minion who is a self-identified COI editor in my opinion sparkles excess promotional tone. I am talking about liberal use of WP:PEACOCK terms that uplifts the subject. For example "Compared to other visual effects plugins, GenArts is a premium brand," that imparts positive tone like "well known computer scientist..." etc. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 07:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Combat system in Mass Effect 3 has been changed and refined. In particular, the cover system has been improved. There are more options for moving around the battlefield and scoring instant melee kills. More conventional grenades are available and an improved artificial intelligence is introduced.
The article Mohamed Nasheed has used carefully choosen sources to create a specific image of himself. This article needs to reflect the other side of the coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.148.60 ( talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
We have a situation here which needs clarifying. In the past two years there have been four failed move request from Tenedos to Bozcaada plus one super-lengthy and -tedious move review. The result was invariably no consensus to move respectively closure endorsed. So keeping Tenedos as article name all the way. This should have settled things, one might think, but unfortunately it did not. Now Bozcaada advocates have been repeatedly substituting Tenedos for Bozcaada in the sections dealing with the island's history after the Ottoman occupation, including the section on its most recent, modern history. In my view, this violates WP:Place; the name used should be "Tenedos" throughout the article:
1. WP:Place specifies: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." But "Bozcaada" is no widely accepted historic name for any period as "Tenedos" always existed alongside it. Four move discussions have made this plainly clear, so why not accept its outcome?
2. As for the modern section, replacing "Tenedos" with "Bozcaada" even more violates the clear consensus of the move requests: WP:Place requires the article name to conform to current/modern usage. The result of four move discussions was that the current article name is Tenedos. This means that the community believes Tenedos is the term most often used in modern English and since it is most often used in recent times, it is the only choice of words in the section on the island's modern history.
Put differently: It is contradictory to have an article named "Tenedos" on the one hand, but to use "Bozcaada" in its section on the most recent events on the other hand, because if "Bozcaada" were really the most common name, the entire article would have been named "Bozcaada" which it isn't.
Put yet again differently: it follows from WP:Place logically and directly that an article name and the place name used for its modern history must be the same, because WP:Place makes the latter its basis to define the former and if there is ample consensus about the former, and it is here, the latter must comply to the former. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Is "massacre" in the title (rather than "incident"/"event") the right word coming from Wikipedia's voice, especially when there are contesting perspective and nothing has been proved so far? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 04:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And even the sources that are cited in the article, are woefully tantamount to opinion pieces, mainstream "news reporting" is what could be more credible. These sort of articles need to be backed by solid sources. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, this article has an incompleteness problem:
the discussed writing system was used in dozens of languages in the USSR in 1930s, not just in one language as the article says. Thus, the preamble must be rephrased, and the entire presentation revisited.
Not sure which template to put. Borovi4ok ( talk) 12:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, I have come to this noticeboard to ask for editors to assist me with addressing bias in the Ductile iron pipe article. After careful review of the current content and recent editing history, I believe that the article's content has become negatively slanted. I am not alone is drawing this conclusion, as other editors have commented on this in the past on the talk page, however I will disclosure that my interest derives from working with the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. I am here on behalf of this organization, aiming to reduce the bias in the article by working with disinterested editors on talk pages.
So far, I have asked on the article's talk page for help with the content under the heading "Environmental". There I have detailed the issues with the existing content and provided new content drawn from quality sources—primarily peer reviewed journal articles—aiming to give a balanced view of ductile iron pipe's environmental impact. My proposal is to replace the existing biased content with this new content.
Just one editor has commented, but only to say they too noticed a suspicious pattern of editing in the article. Since this noticeboard focuses on issues such as these, I would be grateful if someone here will review my suggestion and offer an impartial opinion. If you can, please reply here: Talk:Ductile_iron_pipe#Bias_in_this_article PiperOne ( talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This section is in serious need of a good editor. There is redundant information and some very biased language. For example, a sentence about the coup describes the new President as " President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup."
I'm too much of a novice and not an expert on the events, so I would appreciate it if someone more bold could attempt to correct this.
Thank you. Perew ( talk) 00:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented are as follows:
One of the users has claimed, at RS/N, that this is not the most common description for the event, though nobody has requested a move to change the article title. Does it violate UNDUE to include the well-sourced material on this event being known as the Lydda death march? nableezy - 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
At the Rachel Corrie page a few editors have been deleting information from the lead that has a reliable source ( BBC News) and is not (to my knowledge) contradicted by any other source. Also, what has again been reverted/deleted is already included later in this Wiki-article itself. I have previously attempted to initiate discussion [21] but none of the deleting editors has adressed my particular points nor answered my specific questions.
Now an editor has again reverted the information and the cited reliable sources. The editor has not been involved in any discussion. He has reverted by claiming there is no consensus. Therefore I decided to bring this here rather than the dispute resolution board as this consensus argument seems to me to be a way of avoiding the points I have made and the questions I have asked and of skewing the article away from a neutral point of view. The deleting editor in this instance is Jethro B. He has an Israeli Barnstar of National Merit, and is a menber of the Wiki Project Israel. Therefore it appears he might be deleting the information from an allegiance to some sort of Pro-Israeli point of view and thereby not a neutral unbiased viewpoint.
Here are just a few of the many reliable sources describing her as a 'Peace activist' [26] (there are more on the talk page which have been ignored):
SUMMARY: It looks to me as though a few editors are editing this page from a point of view that is not neutral, are refusing to discuss their reasons in regard to specific questions and now this claim for consensus seems to be arguing for a non-neutral editing of this article based on numbers. Despite the fact that can be contested (e.g. I myself, Mirokado, Bastun [30] and JonFlaune are in agreement on this inclusion), can a few editors do that: overule reliable sourcing and non-neutrality by claiming consensus?-- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 09:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the following from WP:ANI. De728631 ( talk) 12:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Unregistered user 75.51.171.155 is violating NPOV and persistently vandalising the article on White Terror (Russia) trying to turn it into a Communist propaganda piece, using clearly biased sources, refusing necessary warning tags, and insisting on pro-Red Terror remarks, thereby demonstrating his biased POV. He clearly thinks that the way to write a Wikipedia article is to start with a political position and to search for sources no matter how biased and unreliable to support that pre-determined viewpoint. Is this the right place to report this? cwmacdougall 10:17, 23 October 2012
One general issue has come up under this continuing dispute: have we discussed elsewhere the extent to which it is appropriate to rely on Soviet Historians? For a subject like palace intrigue under Catherine the Great or Napoleonic military tactics I think they could be very good, but for a subject like White or Red Terror I would think they would be inherently biased and unreliable, especially noting that they wrote under conditions of political censorship about a very political subject; I think they would be inconsistent with NPOV on Soviet subjects. Has a consensus been reached elsewhere? cwmacdougall 15:36, 29 October 2012
The impossibly biased editor is refusing even the most minor amendments to "his" precious article. I started by deleting supposedly factual and not terribly important items which turn out to have as their only source a Bolshevik propagandist (Victor Serge), before planning to move on to the clearly more difficult issue of apparently respectable Soviet historians. But he refuses even to concede that there is a bias problem with Bolshevik propagandists. How will he respond to more complex issues, and how do I respond to such rubbish without a reversion war? cwmacdougall 15:20, 3 November 2012
The article seems to be a combination of the history of Amritsar and of Sikhism in general, from a definite Sikh slant. I know nothing about Sikhism and perhaps everything is true, but the language of the article is far from encyclopedic, for example:
at the hands of the intolerant, oppressive and bigoted Islamic government of Hindustan, who wished to stop the spread of the Sikh faith
. Will someone who knows the subject look into this? Ratzd'mishukribo ( talk) 05:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at a DRN case regarding the RT (TV network) article. The issue is whether or not the article should have sections entitled "Criticisms" or "Controversies"; or would the NPOV policy require that the sections be more neutrally titled as "Reception" and "Incidents" etc. The DRN discussion is here ... after clicking that link, scroll down to issues numbered 2,3,4 and 5. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Given recent events regarding Jimmy Savile, the UK press have been looking at Derek McCulloch and examining a passage in John Simpson's memoirs. There's been discussion on the talk page and the material has been in and out of the talk page with discussions about how reliable the sources are. Given Andrew O'Hagan has authored an essay on the allegations and named McCulloch, and The Independent have reported O'Hagan doing so, I've amended the article as seen in this edit, [43] with the proviso that I will mention the fact here to get more eyes on the material and perhaps solve the deadlock. Hiding T 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at Racism in France over how much, if any, article space should be given to recent claims by right-wing politicians about anti-white racism in France. There seems to be no dispute that these are controversial claims, but there is dispute over whether that means there are weight concerns over their inclusion. The current text reads:
On September 2012, Jean-François Copé, the leader of the Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) denounced the development of an anti-White racism by people living in France, some of them French citizens, against the "Gauls" – a widespread name among immigrants for the native French – on the basis of these having a different religion, colour skin and ethnic background.[1][2] Marine Le Pen criticized that the UMP had denied the existence of such a racism during its five-year reign (2007–2012) and suspected a tactical move to win over voters and support from the Front National.[3]
Considering that the rest of the article, based on a UN report on racism in France against Romani, is even shorter, this seems undue and overly specific. I have proposed the following replacement:
Members of the right-wing French political parties UMP and National Front have claimed the existence of an anti-White racism directed against white French citizens.
Can we get some fresh blood in here to build a consensus over this? Glaucus ( talk) 20:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the topic, so maybe someone knowledgeable could review the last 2 edits by an anon editor: [44] -- Grand master 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I ask that noninvolved Wikipedians weight in at the CfD discussion on Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 29#Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China. Cheers, Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 02:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether the company's statement about shutdown of Paragon Studios and the impending closure of City of Heroes should be merely reported on or reproduced verbatim. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the other user, but not only were we unable to reach an agreement, another anonymous IP has reverted the changes.
I have doubts about my own neutrality on this subject due to possible WP:COI already, and I am not going to allow myself to be goaded into violating WP:3RR. Hence I'm reporting this here.
My concerns with this are as follows:
What I believe is the right solution:
It is my opinion that the wording I used (The exact reasons behind this sudden closure remain unknown, the official announcements explaining it only as "a realignment of company focus and publishing support".) is if not appropriate then at least close to being such. As noted, my own neutrality is questionable under the circumstances.
-- The Fifth Horseman ( talk) 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Misleading statements, false balance and synthesis has been used in in this sporting article to make it appear far less controversial than it really was. I am also unhappy with the recent Dispute Resolution procedure which was aiming towards a majority if not unanimous consensus but was then compromised.
It has been dogged with Anglo bias since I started it, and there is still a concerted attempt to either to remove it by previously uninvolved editors.
Before progressing to mediation or otherwise I was wondering if it may be acceptable to involve someone from the French version of Wikipedia to oversee it in some way, so that overall neutrality is maintained. This would provide far greater credibility to the dispute/mediation procedures which have not been helpful so far.
You may have to press show to see the comments here however I have temporarily amended the talk page for viewing, someone has attempted to hide it!
-- Andromedean ( talk) 21:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The Advert tag claims says that the page should be re-written from a neutral point of view and not have external links. I believe that I have met both criteria. I would be happy to further edit the page to address anything that is considered promotional rather than informational but I cannot do that without some specific feedback. Pjgruen ( talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Pjgruen
Between July and November 2012 an Advert tag was added to the Black Duck Software ( talk) page by three different users. Each time it was removed by user Pjgruen ( Pjgruen), who has only ever edited this page and two logos belonging to either Black Duck Software itself or a website owned by that company.
-- ajchapman ( talk) 10:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Editor Ibrahim ebi has created new templates for Hadith and Muhammad. The old, general Islam templates on dozens of hadith-related articles have been removed, and these new templates added. The Muhammad template is FAR from NPOV. It has a section for Miracles, and one for Durood, a term new to me, which is apparently the practice of verbal genuflection (PBUH, praise be upon him, and that sort of thing) after mentioning Muhammad's name. This template link goes to ONE article. I've learned a fair bit of Islamic terminology editing Islam-related articles, but this is new to me and would not be understood by 90% or more of Wikipedia users.
The hadith template seems to be in a state of flux -- I saw it change between page refreshes -- and one section of a template that may or may not be in play has a section on "Rightly Guided Caliphs", which would be seriously offensive to Shi'a Muslims.
What the @!#$@#%#@ is happening? Is this just one pious Sunni editor doing his thing or has this been discussed somewhere? Zora ( talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
At the P K Aziz page, a particular editor has been deleting section "Indictment by Government Agencies" on the grounds that it is not neutral. Whenever I have tried to engage the editor in conversation, I have been threatened with blockage on the topic talk page and my own talk page, instead of logic or rule behind deletion. To quote this particular editor my action is "absolutely fucking" ( on summary of edit).
Now I have shown uttermost respect to this editor and others who have tried to correct me. On getting logical feedback from another editor I evened toned down my language considerably but despite this, the said editor continues to delete the section permanently rather than keeping it in a toned and neutral way.
I would love to hear what other experienced editors think about the matter Infinity4just ( talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". In this discussion it has been argued that in determining weight, sources should be considered as "eligible" for weight if they have independently developed the information. My reading of prevalence, however, and that of dictionary.com, is that it refers to how widespread something is. If something is widespread, it already implies that it has spread somewhere from somewhere else.
The context here is that a poll was published in an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz), and a large number of international publications, including the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and Sydney Morning Herald ran articles on the poll, citing the Haaretz article. (see here for a list of sources). It has now been argued that since these international publications are "based" on the Haaretz article, they are irrelevant for weight. In my own opinion, the opposite is the case as the story has "spread" to them and thus become "widespread", which is how prevalence (the term in the policy) is understood. I searched the archives but didn't find a discussion where this issue would have been covered. There are a few other wrinkles in the discussion as well, but the point in this section is the determination of weight as described above. Opinions on which it would be? Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing to see here. The same arguments being repeated over and over again editors who refuse to find a resolution and enjoy forum shopping since there is an obvious stalemate. ARBPIA3 is the only correct venue. Cptnono ( talk) 07:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is rude and disregards the obvious, Dlv999. This discussion was derailed years ago and is not getting back on the tracks via this forum. You may not like it but it is the way it is. Cptnono ( talk) 05:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If I read this rightly, a newspaper made a claim about a poll it undertook which it later determined did not fairly represent what the actual findings of the poll were. This would be relevant to an article about that paper, but not strongly relevent to anything else. The actual findings of the poll might be relevant in other articles, but the misuse of a word, ain't. Collect ( talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The Edward Said article has serious issues with its NPOV. See, for example:
"Character assassination:
To undermine Edward Saïd as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel, Justus Weiner, an American lawyer and resident scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs think-tank, said that Saïd was dishonest about his childhood biography. In the Commentary magazine article “My Beautiful Old House and Other Fabrications by Edward Saïd” (1999), Weiner impugned Saïd’s intellectual honesty and personal integrity when he said that Saïd lied when he said: “I was born in Jerusalem, and spent most of my formative years there; and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt.”[76]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said
To describe a critique of Said's biographical claims like Weiner's as "character assasination," and attribute motives to him like "undermin(ing) Said as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel" reflects an inappropriate degree of political bias and lack of objectivity.
The entire article has a similarly biased tone. I request an NPOV disputed tag until it's re-written to comply with Wiki policies.
Kamandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.75 ( talk) 01:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The article for Squatting in England and Wales appears to be created, and extensively re-written – after being copy-edited for neutrality (by the User:FT2) – by the User:Mujinga – who, from his overtly positive and flattering contributions, especially to the article for the UK Social Centre Network (an organisation of sorts, or a collective, of so-called "social centres" set up in real properties, mostly of the commercial kind, that are being occupied by squatters, in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff, at Glasgow and some other major cities in England) – probably himself has links, associations or affiliations of some sort to the anarchist "Squatting" movement here in England – to show a continuing pro-squatting bias. Is this actually so, or am I mistaken? The tone of the article certainly (still) does not sound or read right, or at least neutral in tone. And ought some of the links to more "outrageous" external sites and references thereto be removed? -- KC9TV 11:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Here lies a problem of stating "fringe" view of the Famine or not. It started with the removing of some lines by a former Chinese dissenter Li Minqi, because his words are contracting with all lines above. In my opinion, there should be a space for those who believe this Famine is not the greatest. The death number of Famine is varied (and controversial), the death number of Republican era famine also varied, so there does exist a possibility. So I add more supporting Li's view, but I could only find this from internet instead of reference books. -- WWbread ( Open Your Mouth?) 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC on Reliable Sources for Names in BLP. LittleBen ( talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
the ethnicity of this individual is disuputed/or unknown so wouldnt it be neutral to not include an ethnicity as the header seeing there is an ethnicity section in the article already? some editors on the talk page brought up undue weight but if other encyclopedias dont put any ethnicity as the header then why should wikipedia? Baboon43 ( talk) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Reuven Feuerstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This ostensible biography is on the most part an overly-detailed advertisement-like description of the subject's invention, the "Feuerstein Method". In addition, the "theory" presented in the first line of the article as the subject's claim to fame does not seem to say much. = WP:SPAM + WP:NPOV + WP:COATRACK. Note that these issues were already once addressed in part on the article's talk page; apparently an NPOV tag had been removed.
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Joel C. Rosenberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alliance Defending Freedom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As you stated in your NPOV board...I truly did not mean it to be inferred as accusatory language and if allowed I would gladly edit out that last sentence.
Earlier I was merely stating the 'false impression' produced by many blogs that many of the news sources picked up and presented as fact. Again I was not insinuating that you personally were participating in a smear campaign and again I can clarify by removing those parts to merely present the facts with proof links.
Orangemike - I appreciate you and I have a lot to learn from you. I checked out your page and I'm truly impressed by your dedication, helpfulness and contribution to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.239.13 ( talk) 17:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
QlikTech seems to be written like an advertisement. Just the 3rd paragraph in the introduction is almost like a sales pitch:
"Traditionally, presentation of information is put into printed reports via a process whereby data and notes are gathered from a wide range of sources (eg, spreadsheets, printed material, etc.). The end result of using this time-consuming process is a paper presentation filled with colored graphic charts and pictures. While fancy, the information on printed presentations is all static and user interaction with it is passive. If someone wants a chart in the report to display certain data differently (eg, change some numbers based on years to basing it on months), then a new paper report would have to be generated. With Qlikview, endusers are given presentations on an interactive software program that allows them to enter new data (depending on the dashboard setup) or simply move saved data around (within the parameters of the template) so that they can see the same set of data from different viewpoints on the same presentation. In effect, QlikView creates real-time customized presentations by allowing endusers to move and change data within it instantly."
The Talk page has mentioned that this is indeed in need of a Neutral Point of View, yet nothing has been accomplished ExilorX ( talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The Propositions:
1 A point of view (POV) is a view that an observer takes from the position occupied by the observer.
2. Using the adjective "neutral" to describe a POV implies that the POV is independent of any observer.
Conclusion:
The term "Neutral Point Of View" is misleading because it does not and cannot exist. It is an oxymoron.
Suggestion
Rather than requiring a neutral point of view, it seems to me that it would be better to require a contributor to explain the "position" from which he or she is viewing the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Simple: Consider acids and bases ... H+ is "acid" and (OH)- is "base." With a pH of 7 - there are an equal number of each -- but the acid H+ is still "acid" and the (OH)- is still "base" - the "neurality" comes not from having "all particles be neutral" but from having a balance of each. Is this analogy clear? Collect ( talk) 13:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the confusion here is that in this context, "NPOV" means "The point of view of a hypothetical neutral observer" - so (for example) in a war between two countries, a neutral observer is one who is from a country that is not involved with the war and who has no special interests in any of the issues relating to it. It may be tough to find a truly neutral observer in some situations - but that doesn't invalidate the concept. Hence proposition (2) is false and NPOV is not an oxymoron. SteveBaker ( talk) 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is almost entirely an attack on the book that the article describes. The analysis section read like an editorial rather than the proper encyclopedic description of criticisms that have been voiced against the book. It also resembles some kind of student essay, as it sourced only on a brief excerpt found in an anthology. -- 98.24.43.97 ( talk) 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If someone has an idea about how to keep Palestine/Israel POV pushers off the page about indigenous peoples which frankly has no relevance to that dispute I would be thrilled to hear it. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This new user (or returning?) user has done nothing except to tag almost every article about Esperanto institutions as "purely promotional"; and has starting instigating AfDs against many of them (initially as a bundle, although that one has been closed). The level of sophistication in the edits and moves, makes it hard for me to attempt to assume good faith. Full disclosure: I am an Esperantist. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if this is better asked here, at WP:NORN or maybe even somewhere else, sorry. Do we have any sort of standard definition of what constitutes "terrorism", "terrorist" etc? For example, in articles such Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012 it sometimes has seemed to be the case that people have added incidents that, yes, may be terror-related but could equally well be "mere" criminal acts (armed robbery, for example), tribal disputes, honour killings relating to marriage etc, retribution against corrupt police, etc. Where do we draw the line? Can we limit it to instances where the source actually uses the word and, if so, does a "sectarian attack" amount to a "terrorist attack", does "persecution" amount to terrorism ... and so on. It is a bit of a semantic minefield, I'm afraid, but articles such as this can be prone to POV-warring. In fact, articles relating to India-Pakistan are especially prone to it, particularly with those supporting India doing whatever they can to make Pakistan look bad, and vice versa. How do we achieve neutrality here? - Sitush ( talk) 07:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Eliding the tangents presented above: Wikipedia has no fixed definition of "terrorism" but it appears to be like Potter Stewart's standard for "hard-core pornography": "I know it when I see it." In international politics, it frequently depends on the POV of the writer, so, as ever, I suggest we ascribe the label as an opinion, properly ascribed to those holding that opinion. "Persecution" moreover rises to "terrorism" if, and only if, some level of violence is threatened or occurs - which is fairly rare, fortunately. Requiring "consensus" is futile as there will always be sufficient people with the opposing POV for anything other than "personal terrorist acts" meaning no one is ever a "terrorist" other than someone like Manson. Collect ( talk) 13:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, according to this [55] I am able to publicize an RfC on content by posting a notice here. The RfC can be found here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#rfc_E6DA8F8 and it deals with a concern regarding neutrality. Thank you for your time, Fordx12 ( talk) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
IP editor is changing the existing text to what reads like a very POV version without any sourcing that uses his pointed language. Last version is here [56]. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
192.223.243.6, Please read the Wikipedia WP:BRD guide. Articles here are developed by consensus. There is an assumed consensus on the preexisting version of the article. You made a WP:BOLD edit and it was reverted, so it's now time to discuss your proposed change on the article talk page and develop consensus among other editors that the change is warranted. Mojoworker ( talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article ( [59] [60]) as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo ( [61]). Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" ( [62]) and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table ( [63]), creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.
Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not what a push poll is. A push poll is when a poll is used as a guise for efforts to convert somebody. It's not a poll that is handled in a manner that is designed to create a particular result for the poll. North8000 ( talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to DRN.
1. Are these single-payer polls or polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare"?
2. Whether or not to categorize the polls as a table.
To cut through all the argument... why does the article in question rely so heavily on polls as sources in the first place. Poll results are time and time again proven to be inaccurate and flawed. Polling is a very unreliable art. Surely there are more reliable sources we can use for the topic. Blueboar ( talk) 16:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
We still have the issues of the table and the misstatement of the polls in the remaining articles where this dispute sits. Some extra help on this would be very useful. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Kashmir conflict ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See these first:
Note:Please do not succumb to
non sequiturs and
red herrings.
This is what the issue is all about.
The lines that were added in the lead by none other than Killbillbrowser, are downright irrelevant and lending undue weight to one man's POVs (which is most likely deliberate). Contrary to Killbillbrowser's claims, you will hopefully notice that they are not actually balancing any other POV. In fact, there is no other POV inside Musharraf's interview there in the lead. He admitted (it's not his POV) to forming terrorist/militant groups and turning a blind eye towards there existence simply to force India re-enter negotiation. This is what he himself admitted. This is what Indian Government always accused Pakistan of doing. Now, it has been conceded/confessed.
Even if I agree that the mention of that POV statement is needed to give more clarity to the previous admission, I submit that there is no need to use quotation. The quotation is being used without pertinence. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations.
A. Paraphrasing conveys the meaning more neutrally than his POV-laden quotation ever could. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording is excessively POV-ridden. In a sensitive article as this, I think, we should consider an extra dose of neutrality.
B. This quote may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification.
Furthermore, whether or not India is killing civilians, this question is covered (according to some, excessively) in detail in subsequent sections, other articles this one and this one. Perhaps, Musharraf's direct quotation about India Killing civilians in Kashmir is more suited there. But other than that section it's not needed to use direct quotation.
P.S. If only a direct quote can convey the message and not the paraphrasing, if all this is pertinent, then I think we should copy-paste the whole interview there. Thanks to all in advance. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggest that the word "stated" would be more neutral than either "admitted" or "claimed". Blueboar ( talk) 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, note that when I first inputted the info about this interview KBB quickly deleted all of that leaving it for me to put it in the correct section and back in the article. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
WAIT A SECOND: The quoted portion "doesn't question India about the killings of innocent civilians in Kashmir" doesn't even exist in the sources. It was not even an assertion, it was a rhetorical question..He said, "The West blames Pakistan for everything. Nobody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" and that was before he admitted that The Pakistani government formed militant groups. ThisThat line was personal and biased opinion of Killbillbrowser all along.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"What does this mean?" - This means it's your synthesis of the source. That quoted should never have been attributed to Musharraf. They were never his original words. Also this word you keep using, "exile", why? He, for one, has claimed in that very interview that he still has hundreds of thousands of Pakistani fans. Notability is not temporary, one person or an event does not need to have ongoing coverage (one time significant coverage is enough). Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest news: Pervez musharraf is going to run for President in 2013 elections in Pakistan. He even claims that he will win Pakistan's 2013 elections (see this). What Exile were you referring to, huh?? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
See my dear, if you could prove to me that you were the president of EU earlier and going to run again while feeling confident, I would believe you. The fact of the matter is, Musharraf in "exile" is your own synthesis. Pakistani people love him now and always will. Besides, like I told you these are all off-topic, notability is not temporary. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:11, 29 November 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 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Talk:India#Fact sheet merger proposal should be of some interest to the regulars of this board. Tijfo098 ( talk) 04:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
From the article lead:
The article contains a table that shows some of the elements of each entity in the standard, including the name and numeric and alpha codes. Each row also includes a flag that is not part of the standard, but is there in our article solely as a means of identification and decoration.
There are currently 4 entities for which some editors object to showing a flag, the discussion of which can be found here. Recently, someone re-added the Taiwan flag and I added the other three, along with an explanation clarifying the non-political nature of the standard and the flags being shown. This prompted a revert, but no further discussion, where clearly some is needed.
(My reason for bringing attention to it here is that I believe, by not showing specific flags, we are making a political statement about the legitimacy of those entities, which is not a NPOV. It should be all or none, and it looks better with all.)
—[ AlanM1( talk)]— 05:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States
I recently reviewed the article above and came across the Food Stamp section and discovered that someone had included their own POV from The Heritage Foundation where they worked.
I checked all references and discovered the use of Conservative ezines/websites/newspapers which supposedly referenced the USDA in certain areas of usgae of taxpayer money. I found that the articles had re-written the way the USDA actually provides fisal information, that information regarding 'fraud' was a specific money amount 'investigated' for fraud, in 5 states only and not actual fraud cases that had been prosecuted and found guilty.
The use of the phrase "Conservative commentators have argued..." shows a beginning clearly referencing a non-neutral POV, and as such, I removed all information that refered to this one-sided POv.
Someone then revised that edit to include the POV again and changed one referenced article to The Wall Street Journal, which was an editorial that must be paid for in order to review. This is not what I consider a reference that can be used in a Wiki article.
I have re-revised-- to remove the POV again. If I am incorrect about the POV, please advise. I am sure we have been reading a Conservative POV which was one-sided and I belIeve I am correct about the revision.
FYI--I cannot locate the name of the individual who removed my first revision and I dont know if its my laptop but I seem to be missing what I entered into the 'talk' section. BTW the individual who removed my edit, never discussed anything with me on the talk section.
Please advise--Thanks Brattysoul ( talk) 04:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I must be thick--how does what you've stated apply to a wiki article that has been weeding out POVs and the POV stated in the artcle regarding the food programs-particularly the food stamp program-has only ONE side stated and has links that are 1-not available 2-are only from one-sided media that contains unsupported "facts" or worse, with a spin from a conservative pov.
Wiki rules state an article must have a neutral pov, and that is not the case with this part of the article and must be removed and NOT replaced while it contains someone elses POV that is not an encylopediac entry. I have shown how not only is it a one-sided conservative POV from a conservative wesite, but that references are not usable.
The blog of the Heritage Foundation with one article does not contain actual facts from the USDA. What has been claimed as a source from the USDA doesnt exist in the way it has been used. THAT is the problem. I actually checked the USDA. What the Heritage Foundation article called 'investigated fraud' does not exist on the USDA in the way that the article claims. THAT is what I stated. REPEATEDLY. As long as the use of unsupported facts are contained in an artcle, or a link in an article cannot be accessed the one-sided POV cannot be used.
Hi! Is it okay if I list articles in which I suspect companies may be trying to whitewash their pages? I noticed some edits at ReachOut Healthcare America which included OR rebuttals of sourced content from articles about the company. There is a legal case involved, so it may get contentious Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP removed material at Edinburgh Academy [1] stating that "In an August 2012 analysis of Scottish Independent Schools by the percentage of 'A' grades awarded for the 'Higher Grade' examination, the Academy came second bottom of independent schools in Edinburgh with 34% of passes at A grade." I replaced it and it was then removed with an edit summary saying that " across to me as negative POV - especially when the quoted source is an article saying how well Scottish independent schools have done. And why pick out this particular statistic from no doubt many others which are presumably available?". I can see the point, but this school did particularly badly and we commonly do include exam results in school article. What do others think? Dougweller ( talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
On the talk page of Pavle Djurisic the neutrality of the treatment of two awards made to the article subject is disputed. There is a separate issue which is not being discussed here which relates to the reliability of one of the sources used for the award of the Iron Cross. I am just flagging that so that involved editors can focus on the NPOV aspect.
Djurisic was awarded the Order of the Star of Karađorđe, a high award of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, by the Yugoslav government in exile. The award is sourced but the degree of the award and date of award are not. The award is currently mentioned in the infobox and in the aftermath section (it was put there as it is not known when it was awarded).
Djurisic was also awarded the Iron Cross 2nd Class, an iconic but fairly lowly award of Nazi Germany, by the German commander in Montenegro in October 1944. The award and the date of award are sourced. The award is mentioned in the lead, infobox and in the chronologically appropriate section of the article. It is illustrated by a copy of the entitlement document and a image of a newspaper in which it was announced.
The rationale behind the current mentions of both awards in the article is as follows-
1. The Order of the Star of Karađorđe was a Yugoslav award which was awarded to a number of prominent Chetnik leaders, it is unknown how many were awarded during the war and or in what degrees. It is unknown what degree of the award was bestowed on Djurisic or when. There are no images available of the entitlement document or any announcement of its award.
2. The Iron Cross 2nd Class was an award of Nazi Germany (4.5 million were awarded during WW2), but Djurisic was the only known Chetnik recipient of the award and the only Chetnik known to have received any German award. He was also a notable Chetnik collaborator with both the Italians and then the Germans. The award is also particularly notable for that reason. The class and date of the award are known. There are images available of the entitlement document and the announcement in a local paper.
This is a Featured Article which I assisted to get to that class. As a result I try to maintain a stewardship role in relation to the information included and consider I have dealt with the awards in a neutral way, taking into account the uniqueness of the award of the Iron Cross. My request is for a consensus here on whether the current treatment of the two awards provides a NPOV and if not, I ask for suggestions on how that would be achieved. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 05:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Wanted! Few Neutral Wikipedia editors who will help with a version of Al-Ahbash page which presents the information written by the Al-Ahbash as well as its opponents objectively under the light of pertinent academic sources and Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines
Please, bear in mind that the subject of the Al-Ahbash article is extremely controversial.
Thank you and Good luck. McKhan ( talk)
Methodology / Ground-rules (Proposed)
Given that the topic is extremely controversial, the following Methodology / Ground-rules I would like to propose assuming that only independent, peer-reviewed academic and verifiable sources will be used:
That would be wonderful if there are more NEUTRAL and UN-INVOLVED editors involved into this process. Thank you. McKhan ( talk)
I have noticed certain articles about politicians getting the Royal Treatment:"King can do no wrong". All "criticism sections" on these politicians have been censored by reverting.
a partial list of these Articles:
do we allow one-sided articles on Wikipedia ? don't these articles violate WP:NPOV ?
I personally have not argued with any of the editors, but reading the Articles' talk pages and their archives, I don't think it would be of any use.-- Ne0 ( talk) 09:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "Lib Dem conference: Clegg promises to push for wealth tax," 23 September 2012, BBC and "A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn," 25 September 2012, New Statesman, would someone with insight into the workings of the UK coalition government please say whether this is noteworthy enough to include as a proposal in Wealth tax yet? I realize that this is more of a subject matter question on the workings of the UK coalition government than a NPOV policy question, but I asked at WP:RDH and they sent me here. — Cupco 07:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I am wondering what type of sources qualify for third-party reliable sources when it comes to criticism of a figure. For example in Criticism of Muhammad, the opinion of 20th century Christian missionaries are allowed in the article even though one might think of the two faiths as competitors. My question then is whether I can use a pro-intelligent design's opinion for criticism of a pro-Darwinism. To be specific, take for example Steve Fuller who is a professor of sociology and happens to be a fan of intelligent design. In the book " Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal" published by Brill he writes the following about Richard Dawkins on page 65:
"In the notorious but revealing final scene in Ben Stein's pro-intelligent design film, Expelled (2008), Dawkins is caught musing that in light of the complex logic on display in the genetic code, it is entirely possible that it was seeded by an alien life-form. While hardly a confession of faith, Dawkins' admission touch-kicks the question of life's origins into a zone where the theologians and physicists trying to peer into the mind of God rub shoulders with earthbound biologists and seekers for extraterrestrial life. Implicit in Dawkins' admission is a reluctance to accept the standard Darwinian line that life boot-strapped its way out of the primordial soup"
I would like to know if the sole fact that Steve Fuller is a pro-ID and has voluntarilly interviewed in the documentory Expelled, makes his criticism unreliable. Thank you.-- 24.94.18.234 ( talk) 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on the article Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, about a Chinese woman subjected to a coerced, late-term abortion. The lede includes the sentence "On June 11, Feng's family posted graphic pictures of her dead child online." I'm considering changing 'dead child' to 'aborted fetus,' as it seems more neutral, if less...humane. But I just wanted to inquire whether there is a standard practice here. Would both terms be acceptable, or there a precedent that establishes that one is preferred? Homunculus ( duihua) 18:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
50.4.162.0 is edit-warring over changing "Describes himself as pro-life"-> "Opposes reproductive freedom". Seems like pretty clear POV to me, and a borderline BLP violation on a politician during election season to boot. Glaucus ( talk) 14:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Unarchiving this because the problem is still readily apparent.
Could someone with more energy and patience for it please take a look at Special:Contributions/108.28.53.169? He seems to primarily do NPOV edits. Thanks. — Kerfuffler 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The BLP article of Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) has had a neutrality flag on the Controversy section since October 2011. This section comprises roughly half the article length and consists of a string of "news item" subsections listing incidents within Jones' broadcasting career. Jones is a radio "shock jock" and his schtick is to get up the noses of people holding leftist political views. He is blatantly biased. He is also Australia's most popular and influential radio presenter.
Although there have been some recent positive edits, the section as a whole is problematic. I quote from WP: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 impartial, but still 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.
Discussion on the article's neutrality has been ongoing since 2007, and most recently in this discussion initiated a few days ago. Those arguing most strenuously for the preservation and suitability of the section are possibly best described here as possessing noses of the sort which Jones gets up, and I feel that this article is being used as a platform for some private retaliation.
If, for example, a person is ultimately found innocent of a charge, do we need to list each incident? I quote here from the lede:
His on-air conduct has attracted numerous adverse findings from Australia's media regulators, and one on-air incident resulted in Jones being charged with contempt of court, of which he was found guilty of breaching the law but the charge was dismissed.
The basic argument of those pushing for retention is "Well, he's a controversial public figure, paid to generate controversy - duh" but in Wikipedia terms, far more controversial figures like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin have no "Criticism and Controversy" section, with such material being a natural part of the overall structure. You cannot get much more controversial than mad dictators responsible for the deaths of millions, so why should this far less notable person have half his biographical article devoted to it?
I find Jones a vigorous opponent of causes I support, abhorrent, a travesty of objective journalism and a pin-up boy for the face of political bias but we do not have to descend to a similar level in our encyclopaedic treatment of him.
I'd like the advice of editors possessing fresh and unbiased eyes. Thanks. -- Pete ( talk) 14:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of mistakes in the English article about Udo Kier, also very subjective point of view, no neutral position. For example, it's written that Udo Kier is German actor while he lives and works both in Germany and America since 1991 so he is German and American/Hollywood actor. Also written that he is "known primarily for his work in horror and exploitation movies". Known for whom, I wonder? For horror fans? He did more than 200 films and only very few among them are horror or "exploitation"(by the way, what is "exploitation movie"? it must be "sex exploitation"what is also not true as he did no more than 5-6 films like that). Udo Kier did many serious films. Then there is very offensive quote by the frontman of music band Korn that contains word "fuck" and so on..Then Udo Kier never said that he is homosexual! Is it possible to add him into the "Gay actors" page?? Then he never was "protege" of Fassbinder, it's an old myth, he was discovered in London by another director and did about 10 films before to work with Fassbinder and they were more friends than collegues, Udo did mostly episodes in his films. Then Udo kier play sonly in episodes in Lars von Trier movies after "Europe" film whicj was in early 90s...and many other mistakes! Unfortunatelly, user called "Joshmaul" didn't accept my editing, almost no one change I did. It looks that there is personal hateness towards Udo kier or probably even homophobic. Please help to edite Udo Kier page correctly! For the moment the text of the page based mostly on one old article/review which has nothing to do with reality and was many times disproved by Udo Kier himself in his interviews. I sent links to many interviews with the actor where he says the true about himself but almost nothing was written and accepted by Joshmaul and almost no change done, even in a movie title which I took from IMDB, now there are lots of mistakes! What to do?? Who is "Joshmaul"? Your official editor? How to write true (based on Kier's resent Interviews and IMDB bio) in Wiki????? The interview about his childhood and work with Paul Morrissey (information was not accepted by your editor) [1]
The interview where he talk true about Fassbinder and their relationships! My edits wasn't accepted!
Another interview whre he tells about Fassbinder and how he (Udo Kier) in real came into cinema, about how he made debut!
[3] Almost nothing was accepted by "Joushmaul", he also can't prove am I represent Udo kier or not, and it's not his business at all. i never says that I'm representative myself, I said that some information was passed by his representatives what is true and also it wass their asking to change the article. I can provided you with 50 other articles and interview with Udo Kier which disproved almost all the information in the English wiki article! Besides the article wrote more as a critique that neutral bio and besides the language of it is very poor and even sound as slang..("He has strarred" instead "he played" or "he was in") and so on. Please help!!! Can people edite anything in Wiki or not??? I'm totally into this theme and subject!
References
The reliability or otherwise of the CSM article for the claim being made is a WP:RS issue, and as such is of no relevance to this noticeboard. Take it to WP:RSN |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In this article, the commercial status is in dispute. There are around 6 secondary sources saying its non-profit, 2 primary source that proclaim that the site is now non-profit, and 3 additional secondary sources adding support to the primary claim. On the other side, there is 1 secondary source saying that the founders of the site was found guilty of extensive infringement of copyright law in a commercial and organized form. Yet, the article states that the site is commercial, and the claims about non-profit was instant reverted. Diff of adding the new section. Diff of instant revert 20m later. I think this is wrong, but so far I and the person doing the revert is the only participants in the discussion. Belorn ( talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I asked a simple question: 'was the extract I quoted the material being cited for The Pirate Bay being a commercial enterprise?' Since the IP is now saying it isn't, can I ask how the heck you expect anyone here to make any sensible comments on the issue? And no, I'm not going to read 375 different source articles to try and figure this out. Instead, I'll point out that per policy, it is down to those wishing to include a statement to provide the necessary citations when required. If any of you wish to claim that The Pirate Bay is a commercial organisation, provide the sources that say it is. Likewise, if any of you wish to claim that it isn't, provide sources. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss here. The default position is clearly to make no definitive statement one way or another - and if there are contradictory sources of any reasonable credibility, to make clear that this is the case. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
This might be the place to point out that the Swedish Supreme Court said exactly nothing about Pirate Bay, as it refused the appeal. The originator of the quote above, Tomas Norström, <- redacted by AndyTheGrump ->. So it is correct that he, also as the judge in the case, claims that Pirate Bay was commercial. But he is not the supreme court, he is not a reliable source, and most definitely does not overrule the other reliable sources that exist. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
THE MATERIAL QUOTED DOES NOT STATE THAT TPB IS COMMERCIAL AT ALL. That is all that needs to be said here. This isn't an NPOV dispute, and should not have been raised here. Take it to WP:RSN if you like, but otherwise, this thread should be closed as off-topic for this notice board. 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC) |
This one has an incredible history, with lots of long unsourced essays accreting, reversions to stubs, etc. At its worst, it's gone over 29,000 characters. At the stub, it's down to something like 929 characters. Please look at the edit history before touching this one. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
In the article Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford at least two editors, Tom Reedy and Paul B, continually express their POVs, thus distorting the historical image of the person to whom the article is dedicated. They have openly disclosed their bias and even enmity to Edward de Vere on the Talk page to this article. On this Talk page, there were also massive personal attacks on my address, which are not acceptable, including using of expressions like "you are making yourself ridiculous" and indirectly calling me "peanut gallery".
In my view, Edward de Vere as a historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the William Shakespeare authorship question. And there was one very outrageous expression by Tom Reedy on 9 October 2012 on this same Talk page to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which probably everybody would call blasphemy. This expression was used by Tom Reedy in connection with Jesus Christ. The use of only this one expression, in my view, disqualifies Tom Reedy as an editor on Wikipedia. -- Zbrnajsem ( talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday, Shaun Suisham failed a kick that would have given the Steelers a victory against the Tennessee Titans, and at the end the Steelers lost. An anonymous IP edited the page on what I think is a clear example of fan rage, calling Suisham "the weakest, most unreliable player of his generation" and casting doubt on his permanence on the Steelers, without any source at all. I undid the changes, but then a registered user restored them, calling them "reality". What is the proper action to take here, to ensure the page is OK until the dust settles?
Thanks. Not A Superhero ( talk) 17:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
In the article about the company Honeywell_Turbo_Technologies I feel that there's a large amount of contents meant to show case the company in a positive light and showing off its product offerings. One example is a fairly long list of race cars utilizing the subject company's turbos, but only the ones that did well. The product sections go on about product features and patents. In this article, and in articles about companies in general, I think that the style of writing places excessive bias in favor of the subject and deviates from neutral and impartial informational page.
Similar, the article GenArts created and extensively edited by User:Corporate Minion who is a self-identified COI editor in my opinion sparkles excess promotional tone. I am talking about liberal use of WP:PEACOCK terms that uplifts the subject. For example "Compared to other visual effects plugins, GenArts is a premium brand," that imparts positive tone like "well known computer scientist..." etc. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 07:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Combat system in Mass Effect 3 has been changed and refined. In particular, the cover system has been improved. There are more options for moving around the battlefield and scoring instant melee kills. More conventional grenades are available and an improved artificial intelligence is introduced.
The article Mohamed Nasheed has used carefully choosen sources to create a specific image of himself. This article needs to reflect the other side of the coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.148.60 ( talk) 19:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
We have a situation here which needs clarifying. In the past two years there have been four failed move request from Tenedos to Bozcaada plus one super-lengthy and -tedious move review. The result was invariably no consensus to move respectively closure endorsed. So keeping Tenedos as article name all the way. This should have settled things, one might think, but unfortunately it did not. Now Bozcaada advocates have been repeatedly substituting Tenedos for Bozcaada in the sections dealing with the island's history after the Ottoman occupation, including the section on its most recent, modern history. In my view, this violates WP:Place; the name used should be "Tenedos" throughout the article:
1. WP:Place specifies: "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context." But "Bozcaada" is no widely accepted historic name for any period as "Tenedos" always existed alongside it. Four move discussions have made this plainly clear, so why not accept its outcome?
2. As for the modern section, replacing "Tenedos" with "Bozcaada" even more violates the clear consensus of the move requests: WP:Place requires the article name to conform to current/modern usage. The result of four move discussions was that the current article name is Tenedos. This means that the community believes Tenedos is the term most often used in modern English and since it is most often used in recent times, it is the only choice of words in the section on the island's modern history.
Put differently: It is contradictory to have an article named "Tenedos" on the one hand, but to use "Bozcaada" in its section on the most recent events on the other hand, because if "Bozcaada" were really the most common name, the entire article would have been named "Bozcaada" which it isn't.
Put yet again differently: it follows from WP:Place logically and directly that an article name and the place name used for its modern history must be the same, because WP:Place makes the latter its basis to define the former and if there is ample consensus about the former, and it is here, the latter must comply to the former. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Is "massacre" in the title (rather than "incident"/"event") the right word coming from Wikipedia's voice, especially when there are contesting perspective and nothing has been proved so far? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 04:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And even the sources that are cited in the article, are woefully tantamount to opinion pieces, mainstream "news reporting" is what could be more credible. These sort of articles need to be backed by solid sources. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, this article has an incompleteness problem:
the discussed writing system was used in dozens of languages in the USSR in 1930s, not just in one language as the article says. Thus, the preamble must be rephrased, and the entire presentation revisited.
Not sure which template to put. Borovi4ok ( talk) 12:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, I have come to this noticeboard to ask for editors to assist me with addressing bias in the Ductile iron pipe article. After careful review of the current content and recent editing history, I believe that the article's content has become negatively slanted. I am not alone is drawing this conclusion, as other editors have commented on this in the past on the talk page, however I will disclosure that my interest derives from working with the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association. I am here on behalf of this organization, aiming to reduce the bias in the article by working with disinterested editors on talk pages.
So far, I have asked on the article's talk page for help with the content under the heading "Environmental". There I have detailed the issues with the existing content and provided new content drawn from quality sources—primarily peer reviewed journal articles—aiming to give a balanced view of ductile iron pipe's environmental impact. My proposal is to replace the existing biased content with this new content.
Just one editor has commented, but only to say they too noticed a suspicious pattern of editing in the article. Since this noticeboard focuses on issues such as these, I would be grateful if someone here will review my suggestion and offer an impartial opinion. If you can, please reply here: Talk:Ductile_iron_pipe#Bias_in_this_article PiperOne ( talk) 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This section is in serious need of a good editor. There is redundant information and some very biased language. For example, a sentence about the coup describes the new President as " President Waheed appears to be too busy lurching from crisis to crisis led by the nose by his coalition partners and by Nasheed, to bother about a small matter such as an investigation into allegations of a military coup."
I'm too much of a novice and not an expert on the events, so I would appreciate it if someone more bold could attempt to correct this.
Thank you. Perew ( talk) 00:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
At 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, a line in the article saying "it became known as the Lydda death march." and an aka field in the infobox giving Lydda death march have been removed due to, in the words of those removing the material, There are a few sources that mention that term, but saying "it became known as the Lydda death march" is a bit of an exaggeration and that It has not been established by either the quantity or quality or sources that the term deserves the UNDUE emphasis its proponents are trying to put into the article. The sources presented are as follows:
One of the users has claimed, at RS/N, that this is not the most common description for the event, though nobody has requested a move to change the article title. Does it violate UNDUE to include the well-sourced material on this event being known as the Lydda death march? nableezy - 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
At the Rachel Corrie page a few editors have been deleting information from the lead that has a reliable source ( BBC News) and is not (to my knowledge) contradicted by any other source. Also, what has again been reverted/deleted is already included later in this Wiki-article itself. I have previously attempted to initiate discussion [21] but none of the deleting editors has adressed my particular points nor answered my specific questions.
Now an editor has again reverted the information and the cited reliable sources. The editor has not been involved in any discussion. He has reverted by claiming there is no consensus. Therefore I decided to bring this here rather than the dispute resolution board as this consensus argument seems to me to be a way of avoiding the points I have made and the questions I have asked and of skewing the article away from a neutral point of view. The deleting editor in this instance is Jethro B. He has an Israeli Barnstar of National Merit, and is a menber of the Wiki Project Israel. Therefore it appears he might be deleting the information from an allegiance to some sort of Pro-Israeli point of view and thereby not a neutral unbiased viewpoint.
Here are just a few of the many reliable sources describing her as a 'Peace activist' [26] (there are more on the talk page which have been ignored):
SUMMARY: It looks to me as though a few editors are editing this page from a point of view that is not neutral, are refusing to discuss their reasons in regard to specific questions and now this claim for consensus seems to be arguing for a non-neutral editing of this article based on numbers. Despite the fact that can be contested (e.g. I myself, Mirokado, Bastun [30] and JonFlaune are in agreement on this inclusion), can a few editors do that: overule reliable sourcing and non-neutrality by claiming consensus?-- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 09:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the following from WP:ANI. De728631 ( talk) 12:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Unregistered user 75.51.171.155 is violating NPOV and persistently vandalising the article on White Terror (Russia) trying to turn it into a Communist propaganda piece, using clearly biased sources, refusing necessary warning tags, and insisting on pro-Red Terror remarks, thereby demonstrating his biased POV. He clearly thinks that the way to write a Wikipedia article is to start with a political position and to search for sources no matter how biased and unreliable to support that pre-determined viewpoint. Is this the right place to report this? cwmacdougall 10:17, 23 October 2012
One general issue has come up under this continuing dispute: have we discussed elsewhere the extent to which it is appropriate to rely on Soviet Historians? For a subject like palace intrigue under Catherine the Great or Napoleonic military tactics I think they could be very good, but for a subject like White or Red Terror I would think they would be inherently biased and unreliable, especially noting that they wrote under conditions of political censorship about a very political subject; I think they would be inconsistent with NPOV on Soviet subjects. Has a consensus been reached elsewhere? cwmacdougall 15:36, 29 October 2012
The impossibly biased editor is refusing even the most minor amendments to "his" precious article. I started by deleting supposedly factual and not terribly important items which turn out to have as their only source a Bolshevik propagandist (Victor Serge), before planning to move on to the clearly more difficult issue of apparently respectable Soviet historians. But he refuses even to concede that there is a bias problem with Bolshevik propagandists. How will he respond to more complex issues, and how do I respond to such rubbish without a reversion war? cwmacdougall 15:20, 3 November 2012
The article seems to be a combination of the history of Amritsar and of Sikhism in general, from a definite Sikh slant. I know nothing about Sikhism and perhaps everything is true, but the language of the article is far from encyclopedic, for example:
at the hands of the intolerant, oppressive and bigoted Islamic government of Hindustan, who wished to stop the spread of the Sikh faith
. Will someone who knows the subject look into this? Ratzd'mishukribo ( talk) 05:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated at a DRN case regarding the RT (TV network) article. The issue is whether or not the article should have sections entitled "Criticisms" or "Controversies"; or would the NPOV policy require that the sections be more neutrally titled as "Reception" and "Incidents" etc. The DRN discussion is here ... after clicking that link, scroll down to issues numbered 2,3,4 and 5. Please post any comments there, not here, to keep the discussion co-located. Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Given recent events regarding Jimmy Savile, the UK press have been looking at Derek McCulloch and examining a passage in John Simpson's memoirs. There's been discussion on the talk page and the material has been in and out of the talk page with discussions about how reliable the sources are. Given Andrew O'Hagan has authored an essay on the allegations and named McCulloch, and The Independent have reported O'Hagan doing so, I've amended the article as seen in this edit, [43] with the proviso that I will mention the fact here to get more eyes on the material and perhaps solve the deadlock. Hiding T 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at Racism in France over how much, if any, article space should be given to recent claims by right-wing politicians about anti-white racism in France. There seems to be no dispute that these are controversial claims, but there is dispute over whether that means there are weight concerns over their inclusion. The current text reads:
On September 2012, Jean-François Copé, the leader of the Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) denounced the development of an anti-White racism by people living in France, some of them French citizens, against the "Gauls" – a widespread name among immigrants for the native French – on the basis of these having a different religion, colour skin and ethnic background.[1][2] Marine Le Pen criticized that the UMP had denied the existence of such a racism during its five-year reign (2007–2012) and suspected a tactical move to win over voters and support from the Front National.[3]
Considering that the rest of the article, based on a UN report on racism in France against Romani, is even shorter, this seems undue and overly specific. I have proposed the following replacement:
Members of the right-wing French political parties UMP and National Front have claimed the existence of an anti-White racism directed against white French citizens.
Can we get some fresh blood in here to build a consensus over this? Glaucus ( talk) 20:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on the topic, so maybe someone knowledgeable could review the last 2 edits by an anon editor: [44] -- Grand master 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I ask that noninvolved Wikipedians weight in at the CfD discussion on Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 29#Category:Political prisoners and detainees of China. Cheers, Zloyvolsheb ( talk) 02:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether the company's statement about shutdown of Paragon Studios and the impending closure of City of Heroes should be merely reported on or reproduced verbatim. I have attempted to discuss the issue with the other user, but not only were we unable to reach an agreement, another anonymous IP has reverted the changes.
I have doubts about my own neutrality on this subject due to possible WP:COI already, and I am not going to allow myself to be goaded into violating WP:3RR. Hence I'm reporting this here.
My concerns with this are as follows:
What I believe is the right solution:
It is my opinion that the wording I used (The exact reasons behind this sudden closure remain unknown, the official announcements explaining it only as "a realignment of company focus and publishing support".) is if not appropriate then at least close to being such. As noted, my own neutrality is questionable under the circumstances.
-- The Fifth Horseman ( talk) 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 ( talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Misleading statements, false balance and synthesis has been used in in this sporting article to make it appear far less controversial than it really was. I am also unhappy with the recent Dispute Resolution procedure which was aiming towards a majority if not unanimous consensus but was then compromised.
It has been dogged with Anglo bias since I started it, and there is still a concerted attempt to either to remove it by previously uninvolved editors.
Before progressing to mediation or otherwise I was wondering if it may be acceptable to involve someone from the French version of Wikipedia to oversee it in some way, so that overall neutrality is maintained. This would provide far greater credibility to the dispute/mediation procedures which have not been helpful so far.
You may have to press show to see the comments here however I have temporarily amended the talk page for viewing, someone has attempted to hide it!
-- Andromedean ( talk) 21:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The Advert tag claims says that the page should be re-written from a neutral point of view and not have external links. I believe that I have met both criteria. I would be happy to further edit the page to address anything that is considered promotional rather than informational but I cannot do that without some specific feedback. Pjgruen ( talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Pjgruen
Between July and November 2012 an Advert tag was added to the Black Duck Software ( talk) page by three different users. Each time it was removed by user Pjgruen ( Pjgruen), who has only ever edited this page and two logos belonging to either Black Duck Software itself or a website owned by that company.
-- ajchapman ( talk) 10:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Editor Ibrahim ebi has created new templates for Hadith and Muhammad. The old, general Islam templates on dozens of hadith-related articles have been removed, and these new templates added. The Muhammad template is FAR from NPOV. It has a section for Miracles, and one for Durood, a term new to me, which is apparently the practice of verbal genuflection (PBUH, praise be upon him, and that sort of thing) after mentioning Muhammad's name. This template link goes to ONE article. I've learned a fair bit of Islamic terminology editing Islam-related articles, but this is new to me and would not be understood by 90% or more of Wikipedia users.
The hadith template seems to be in a state of flux -- I saw it change between page refreshes -- and one section of a template that may or may not be in play has a section on "Rightly Guided Caliphs", which would be seriously offensive to Shi'a Muslims.
What the @!#$@#%#@ is happening? Is this just one pious Sunni editor doing his thing or has this been discussed somewhere? Zora ( talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
At the P K Aziz page, a particular editor has been deleting section "Indictment by Government Agencies" on the grounds that it is not neutral. Whenever I have tried to engage the editor in conversation, I have been threatened with blockage on the topic talk page and my own talk page, instead of logic or rule behind deletion. To quote this particular editor my action is "absolutely fucking" ( on summary of edit).
Now I have shown uttermost respect to this editor and others who have tried to correct me. On getting logical feedback from another editor I evened toned down my language considerably but despite this, the said editor continues to delete the section permanently rather than keeping it in a toned and neutral way.
I would love to hear what other experienced editors think about the matter Infinity4just ( talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV states that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". In this discussion it has been argued that in determining weight, sources should be considered as "eligible" for weight if they have independently developed the information. My reading of prevalence, however, and that of dictionary.com, is that it refers to how widespread something is. If something is widespread, it already implies that it has spread somewhere from somewhere else.
The context here is that a poll was published in an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz), and a large number of international publications, including the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and Sydney Morning Herald ran articles on the poll, citing the Haaretz article. (see here for a list of sources). It has now been argued that since these international publications are "based" on the Haaretz article, they are irrelevant for weight. In my own opinion, the opposite is the case as the story has "spread" to them and thus become "widespread", which is how prevalence (the term in the policy) is understood. I searched the archives but didn't find a discussion where this issue would have been covered. There are a few other wrinkles in the discussion as well, but the point in this section is the determination of weight as described above. Opinions on which it would be? Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 19:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing to see here. The same arguments being repeated over and over again editors who refuse to find a resolution and enjoy forum shopping since there is an obvious stalemate. ARBPIA3 is the only correct venue. Cptnono ( talk) 07:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is rude and disregards the obvious, Dlv999. This discussion was derailed years ago and is not getting back on the tracks via this forum. You may not like it but it is the way it is. Cptnono ( talk) 05:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If I read this rightly, a newspaper made a claim about a poll it undertook which it later determined did not fairly represent what the actual findings of the poll were. This would be relevant to an article about that paper, but not strongly relevent to anything else. The actual findings of the poll might be relevant in other articles, but the misuse of a word, ain't. Collect ( talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The Edward Said article has serious issues with its NPOV. See, for example:
"Character assassination:
To undermine Edward Saïd as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel, Justus Weiner, an American lawyer and resident scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs think-tank, said that Saïd was dishonest about his childhood biography. In the Commentary magazine article “My Beautiful Old House and Other Fabrications by Edward Saïd” (1999), Weiner impugned Saïd’s intellectual honesty and personal integrity when he said that Saïd lied when he said: “I was born in Jerusalem, and spent most of my formative years there; and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt.”[76]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said
To describe a critique of Said's biographical claims like Weiner's as "character assasination," and attribute motives to him like "undermin(ing) Said as a public intellectual qualified to speak of and about the Palestinian dispossession by Israel" reflects an inappropriate degree of political bias and lack of objectivity.
The entire article has a similarly biased tone. I request an NPOV disputed tag until it's re-written to comply with Wiki policies.
Kamandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.75 ( talk) 01:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The article for Squatting in England and Wales appears to be created, and extensively re-written – after being copy-edited for neutrality (by the User:FT2) – by the User:Mujinga – who, from his overtly positive and flattering contributions, especially to the article for the UK Social Centre Network (an organisation of sorts, or a collective, of so-called "social centres" set up in real properties, mostly of the commercial kind, that are being occupied by squatters, in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff, at Glasgow and some other major cities in England) – probably himself has links, associations or affiliations of some sort to the anarchist "Squatting" movement here in England – to show a continuing pro-squatting bias. Is this actually so, or am I mistaken? The tone of the article certainly (still) does not sound or read right, or at least neutral in tone. And ought some of the links to more "outrageous" external sites and references thereto be removed? -- KC9TV 11:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Here lies a problem of stating "fringe" view of the Famine or not. It started with the removing of some lines by a former Chinese dissenter Li Minqi, because his words are contracting with all lines above. In my opinion, there should be a space for those who believe this Famine is not the greatest. The death number of Famine is varied (and controversial), the death number of Republican era famine also varied, so there does exist a possibility. So I add more supporting Li's view, but I could only find this from internet instead of reference books. -- WWbread ( Open Your Mouth?) 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
RfC on Reliable Sources for Names in BLP. LittleBen ( talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
the ethnicity of this individual is disuputed/or unknown so wouldnt it be neutral to not include an ethnicity as the header seeing there is an ethnicity section in the article already? some editors on the talk page brought up undue weight but if other encyclopedias dont put any ethnicity as the header then why should wikipedia? Baboon43 ( talk) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Reuven Feuerstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This ostensible biography is on the most part an overly-detailed advertisement-like description of the subject's invention, the "Feuerstein Method". In addition, the "theory" presented in the first line of the article as the subject's claim to fame does not seem to say much. = WP:SPAM + WP:NPOV + WP:COATRACK. Note that these issues were already once addressed in part on the article's talk page; apparently an NPOV tag had been removed.
הסרפד ( Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Joel C. Rosenberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alliance Defending Freedom ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As you stated in your NPOV board...I truly did not mean it to be inferred as accusatory language and if allowed I would gladly edit out that last sentence.
Earlier I was merely stating the 'false impression' produced by many blogs that many of the news sources picked up and presented as fact. Again I was not insinuating that you personally were participating in a smear campaign and again I can clarify by removing those parts to merely present the facts with proof links.
Orangemike - I appreciate you and I have a lot to learn from you. I checked out your page and I'm truly impressed by your dedication, helpfulness and contribution to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.239.13 ( talk) 17:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
QlikTech seems to be written like an advertisement. Just the 3rd paragraph in the introduction is almost like a sales pitch:
"Traditionally, presentation of information is put into printed reports via a process whereby data and notes are gathered from a wide range of sources (eg, spreadsheets, printed material, etc.). The end result of using this time-consuming process is a paper presentation filled with colored graphic charts and pictures. While fancy, the information on printed presentations is all static and user interaction with it is passive. If someone wants a chart in the report to display certain data differently (eg, change some numbers based on years to basing it on months), then a new paper report would have to be generated. With Qlikview, endusers are given presentations on an interactive software program that allows them to enter new data (depending on the dashboard setup) or simply move saved data around (within the parameters of the template) so that they can see the same set of data from different viewpoints on the same presentation. In effect, QlikView creates real-time customized presentations by allowing endusers to move and change data within it instantly."
The Talk page has mentioned that this is indeed in need of a Neutral Point of View, yet nothing has been accomplished ExilorX ( talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The Propositions:
1 A point of view (POV) is a view that an observer takes from the position occupied by the observer.
2. Using the adjective "neutral" to describe a POV implies that the POV is independent of any observer.
Conclusion:
The term "Neutral Point Of View" is misleading because it does not and cannot exist. It is an oxymoron.
Suggestion
Rather than requiring a neutral point of view, it seems to me that it would be better to require a contributor to explain the "position" from which he or she is viewing the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Simple: Consider acids and bases ... H+ is "acid" and (OH)- is "base." With a pH of 7 - there are an equal number of each -- but the acid H+ is still "acid" and the (OH)- is still "base" - the "neurality" comes not from having "all particles be neutral" but from having a balance of each. Is this analogy clear? Collect ( talk) 13:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the confusion here is that in this context, "NPOV" means "The point of view of a hypothetical neutral observer" - so (for example) in a war between two countries, a neutral observer is one who is from a country that is not involved with the war and who has no special interests in any of the issues relating to it. It may be tough to find a truly neutral observer in some situations - but that doesn't invalidate the concept. Hence proposition (2) is false and NPOV is not an oxymoron. SteveBaker ( talk) 15:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is almost entirely an attack on the book that the article describes. The analysis section read like an editorial rather than the proper encyclopedic description of criticisms that have been voiced against the book. It also resembles some kind of student essay, as it sourced only on a brief excerpt found in an anthology. -- 98.24.43.97 ( talk) 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If someone has an idea about how to keep Palestine/Israel POV pushers off the page about indigenous peoples which frankly has no relevance to that dispute I would be thrilled to hear it. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 03:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This new user (or returning?) user has done nothing except to tag almost every article about Esperanto institutions as "purely promotional"; and has starting instigating AfDs against many of them (initially as a bundle, although that one has been closed). The level of sophistication in the edits and moves, makes it hard for me to attempt to assume good faith. Full disclosure: I am an Esperantist. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if this is better asked here, at WP:NORN or maybe even somewhere else, sorry. Do we have any sort of standard definition of what constitutes "terrorism", "terrorist" etc? For example, in articles such Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012 it sometimes has seemed to be the case that people have added incidents that, yes, may be terror-related but could equally well be "mere" criminal acts (armed robbery, for example), tribal disputes, honour killings relating to marriage etc, retribution against corrupt police, etc. Where do we draw the line? Can we limit it to instances where the source actually uses the word and, if so, does a "sectarian attack" amount to a "terrorist attack", does "persecution" amount to terrorism ... and so on. It is a bit of a semantic minefield, I'm afraid, but articles such as this can be prone to POV-warring. In fact, articles relating to India-Pakistan are especially prone to it, particularly with those supporting India doing whatever they can to make Pakistan look bad, and vice versa. How do we achieve neutrality here? - Sitush ( talk) 07:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Eliding the tangents presented above: Wikipedia has no fixed definition of "terrorism" but it appears to be like Potter Stewart's standard for "hard-core pornography": "I know it when I see it." In international politics, it frequently depends on the POV of the writer, so, as ever, I suggest we ascribe the label as an opinion, properly ascribed to those holding that opinion. "Persecution" moreover rises to "terrorism" if, and only if, some level of violence is threatened or occurs - which is fairly rare, fortunately. Requiring "consensus" is futile as there will always be sufficient people with the opposing POV for anything other than "personal terrorist acts" meaning no one is ever a "terrorist" other than someone like Manson. Collect ( talk) 13:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, according to this [55] I am able to publicize an RfC on content by posting a notice here. The RfC can be found here Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#rfc_E6DA8F8 and it deals with a concern regarding neutrality. Thank you for your time, Fordx12 ( talk) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
IP editor is changing the existing text to what reads like a very POV version without any sourcing that uses his pointed language. Last version is here [56]. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
192.223.243.6, Please read the Wikipedia WP:BRD guide. Articles here are developed by consensus. There is an assumed consensus on the preexisting version of the article. You made a WP:BOLD edit and it was reverted, so it's now time to discuss your proposed change on the article talk page and develop consensus among other editors that the change is warranted. Mojoworker ( talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
We have an issue of factual inaccuracy here, as User:Scjessey insists on calling a reputable poll a "push poll" and giving an incorrect portrayal of said poll in article ( [59] [60]) as well as mischaracterizing the nature of certain polls with User:CartoonDiablo ( [61]). Upon request for evidence of Scjessey's claims, he instead claims the factual assertions are "fantasy land comments" ( [62]) and will not provide even basic documentation for his claim. CartoonDiablo, also, insists on keeping certain sections as a table ( [63]), creating a strange situation where the POV of certain ideologies gets undue weight, and is questionable for MOS issues considering the way the articles are structured.
Some assistance on this would be worthwhile. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not what a push poll is. A push poll is when a poll is used as a guise for efforts to convert somebody. It's not a poll that is handled in a manner that is designed to create a particular result for the poll. North8000 ( talk) 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to DRN.
1. Are these single-payer polls or polls of "various levels of government involvement in healthcare"?
2. Whether or not to categorize the polls as a table.
To cut through all the argument... why does the article in question rely so heavily on polls as sources in the first place. Poll results are time and time again proven to be inaccurate and flawed. Polling is a very unreliable art. Surely there are more reliable sources we can use for the topic. Blueboar ( talk) 16:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
We still have the issues of the table and the misstatement of the polls in the remaining articles where this dispute sits. Some extra help on this would be very useful. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Kashmir conflict ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See these first:
Note:Please do not succumb to
non sequiturs and
red herrings.
This is what the issue is all about.
The lines that were added in the lead by none other than Killbillbrowser, are downright irrelevant and lending undue weight to one man's POVs (which is most likely deliberate). Contrary to Killbillbrowser's claims, you will hopefully notice that they are not actually balancing any other POV. In fact, there is no other POV inside Musharraf's interview there in the lead. He admitted (it's not his POV) to forming terrorist/militant groups and turning a blind eye towards there existence simply to force India re-enter negotiation. This is what he himself admitted. This is what Indian Government always accused Pakistan of doing. Now, it has been conceded/confessed.
Even if I agree that the mention of that POV statement is needed to give more clarity to the previous admission, I submit that there is no need to use quotation. The quotation is being used without pertinence. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations.
A. Paraphrasing conveys the meaning more neutrally than his POV-laden quotation ever could. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording is excessively POV-ridden. In a sensitive article as this, I think, we should consider an extra dose of neutrality.
B. This quote may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification.
Furthermore, whether or not India is killing civilians, this question is covered (according to some, excessively) in detail in subsequent sections, other articles this one and this one. Perhaps, Musharraf's direct quotation about India Killing civilians in Kashmir is more suited there. But other than that section it's not needed to use direct quotation.
P.S. If only a direct quote can convey the message and not the paraphrasing, if all this is pertinent, then I think we should copy-paste the whole interview there. Thanks to all in advance. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggest that the word "stated" would be more neutral than either "admitted" or "claimed". Blueboar ( talk) 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, note that when I first inputted the info about this interview KBB quickly deleted all of that leaving it for me to put it in the correct section and back in the article. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
WAIT A SECOND: The quoted portion "doesn't question India about the killings of innocent civilians in Kashmir" doesn't even exist in the sources. It was not even an assertion, it was a rhetorical question..He said, "The West blames Pakistan for everything. Nobody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" and that was before he admitted that The Pakistani government formed militant groups. ThisThat line was personal and biased opinion of Killbillbrowser all along.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"What does this mean?" - This means it's your synthesis of the source. That quoted should never have been attributed to Musharraf. They were never his original words. Also this word you keep using, "exile", why? He, for one, has claimed in that very interview that he still has hundreds of thousands of Pakistani fans. Notability is not temporary, one person or an event does not need to have ongoing coverage (one time significant coverage is enough). Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest news: Pervez musharraf is going to run for President in 2013 elections in Pakistan. He even claims that he will win Pakistan's 2013 elections (see this). What Exile were you referring to, huh?? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
See my dear, if you could prove to me that you were the president of EU earlier and going to run again while feeling confident, I would believe you. The fact of the matter is, Musharraf in "exile" is your own synthesis. Pakistani people love him now and always will. Besides, like I told you these are all off-topic, notability is not temporary. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 08:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)