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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
A controversial move/edit was made to 1971 Bangladesh genocide was made on 28 February 2013 and I can't find any discussion in WP to substantiate that there was a consensus. An earlier discussion on the talk page seemed to produce no consensus. I want to know what the procedure was behind this move? See difference [1]
What is the most neutral title? Prior to this diff, the article was called "1971 Bangladesh atrocities" but now it's called "1971 Bangladesh genocide". Perhaps a more neutral term would be "1971 Bangladesh war crimes"? Until this issue is resolved, I've questioned the neutrality of the article and posted a template on the front page. Crtew ( talk) 23:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Since this was the original title of the article, I suggest a requested move discussion is more appropriate for figuring out whether genocide, atrocities, or war crimes are better titles. (This is also discussed here.)-- regentspark ( comment) 13:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Checking Questia -- "genocide" and "crime" are quite infrequently applied to the civilian deaths during the Bangladesh independence war. The article can contain the terms ascribed to those using them, but the title should be as absolutely neutral in tenor as possible. I suggest
Civilian deaths during the 1971 Bangladesh independence war. Similar results for Highbeam, with "genocide" being very far down the list, and "war crime" also fairly rare. See also
[2]. I suggest this Columbia University Press book is likely RS for asseeting, in fact, that "genocide" etc. are used by " ' the 'liberation literature' of Bangladesh ... in blissful disregard of the need to provide substantiation." This is a farirly strong statement in a reliable source, and suggests that Wikipedia ought not use such terms in any title.
Collect (
talk) 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Book of Leviticus summarized in this talk page discussion, that has arrived at an impasse, largely due to the small number of participants. The dispute is about adding a small amount of content to the article mentioning that the Book of Leviticus lays out proscriptions against homosexuality, and to a lesser extent, does so while permitting slavery. The content in question can be seen here here where it was removed by User:PiCo. The content needs some wordsmithing and better sources, but that's the gist of it.
The discussion began with objections to the content being added to the lede ( first revert here), but now it seems there are objections to having in the article at all. Although I think the talk page discussion is self-explanatory, I think there are two schools of thought at opposition.
and, conversely
Of course, I will let the other involved editors speak for themselves. Any help with this would be appreciated. - Mr X 02:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
COMMENTS
User:MaryKlida who works for Cobo Convention Center as Marketing and Communications Manger is removing factual information. Factual information concerning the death of George Overman Jr at Cobo Center and later lawsuit is based on newspaper articles and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Text in question: On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. [4] [5] George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall. [6] Codepro ( talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
"reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." So why does User:Fluffernutter still consider it an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious" 4 references were used. 2 of the references are linked to google newspaper archives, 1 reference is linked to google books, and 1 reference is linked to www.detroityes.com because it contained a comment from a user regarding the death of George Overman Jr. www.detroityes.com reference can be removed because it no longer relevant based on changes User:Fluffernutter made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
User:MaryKlida stated in comment "...Post also disrupts timeline of history section..." Post has been moved up in the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that citation of a lawsuit against the city of Detroit belongs on their Wiki page, not Cobo Center's. Also, anyone can file a lawsuit, and the citation of a 45 year old lawsuit is only historically relevant with information about the verdict and outcome, which is not included. I would submit, therefore, that the post is not relevant to the history of the city or the center. The City of Detroit has had countless lawsuits. They are all not relevant to its history in an encyclopedia. I ask for a Wiki administrator to clarify Wiki policy on this.
(cite: Today, Cobo Center is owned (under a 30-year capital lease) and operated by the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority (DRCFA))
In addition, as MacPro was identifying your original links as potentially malicious, I would make sure that they are not, for your own security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 ( talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "...There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious. I clean up the best I can.." Instead of removing the reference that she mentions, she decided to remove the entire post. Codepro ( talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that Codepro has again added copy relating to the death (15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died). As he was instructed prior to remove this reference about the death, I would ask that it is again removed by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 ( talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Also see that Codepro has entered the previous links as articles on the Cobo Center page. Request that they be removed, and placed on the City of Detroit page if determined that they are historically relevant. All refer to an ongoing scandal with the city, not the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 ( talk) 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Posts from User:MaryKlida on Cobo Center do not include references and are potentially biased since she works as Marketing and Communications Manger for Cobo Convention Center Codepro ( talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that you have added numerous links and tags to the article. I ask that you cease and desist until we can have this issue mediated. Thank you.
An editor recently attempted to open up as case at WP:DRN naming this noticeboard as the locus of the dispute. I closed the case; as it clearly states at the top of the DRN page, DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Forgive my breach of protocol. I understood Mediation and Arbitration as other forms of dispute resolution, not noticeboard discussions. As you have cleared up, if noticeboards are considered to be a dispute resolution forum, are we restricted to discussing neutral point of view in this forum? Are there time limits to the discussion if not resolved? Can we request that other, more experienced Wikipedia editors give input? If so, how? We don't seem to be getting much of anywhere in this forum. I would appreciate any and all assistance. -- MaryKlida ( talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Codepro, give the responses of Paul Barlow and Guy Macon, I would ask that you consider voluntarily removing the warnings on the Cobo Center page and your info about the Overman incident.
I have been working to provide reference material for the statements that you noted needed citation, and removed others that you might find offensive. Other than that, all I can do is assure you that I do strive to maintain a neutral point of view. On the other hand, your insistence on including the one sided and partial information on this incident leaves your neutrality in question, and you have not yet responded to this. Given your response, I will determine if a request for mediation is appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryKlida ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor - I saw this issue at the DRN noticeboard. The material is not appropriate for the Cobo Center article, unless there is some specific emphasis placed on the incident by the sources. For instance:
Barring sources which demonstrate some strong nexus to the center, this looks like a run-of-the mill crime that happened near the Cobo Center. There must be hundreds of crimes that happen near major facilities, but it is not encyclopedic to list them. And it is certainly not neutral to select a single murder case and insert it in the article. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
On a procedural note: user CodePro requested that the [second] DRN case on this topic be closed, because there was an on-going discussion here at NPOVN (which makes sense: we can't have two parallel discussions going at once). The DRN case has been closed. Another DRN or RFC could be created in the future, if necessary. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been substantial edit warring at Cleo Rocos and heated discussion at the associated talk page, with some claiming it violates NPOV to say a subject is "best known for" something, and some think it's okay. Reading the recent obituary of Richard Briers on BBC News here, I notice they use the phrase "Actor Richard Briers, best known for his role in TV's The Good Life...." To hopefully close the lid on this feud once and for all, I'm going to bring it here for a wider audience to see what everyone else's opinion is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This has spilled out into attempts to push a POV in places like Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Cleo Rocos. [3] [4]
BTW, I would like to see someone dispute the fact that Guy Fawkes is best known for the Gunpowder Plot. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq I feel this article has multiple violations of the NPOV policy. Several headings like "manufactured evidence" and "A letter concocted by the CIA" are obviously one-sided. Most claims are missing sources. The "Government statements that set the stage for war" section seems to have just been copied and pasted from outside Wikipedia. The article also has many grammatical errors. There seems to be little sourced and neutral information in the article, I would propose deletion in its entirety but could not find a criteria that it met. Judging from the Talk page, it's had NPOV problems brought up before and has had no responses to the latest discussion of NPOV on the Talk page, which was made in 2010. The proposer of discussing the NPOV issues of the article received no responses and is an IP address that hasn't had Wikipedia activity in nearly 3 years. -- Padenton ( talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Edited: -- Padenton ( talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
We are approaching the early screening and release dates for the second of Eric Merola's homages to the Burzynski Clinic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - as ever, in lieu of published peer-reviewed and replicated scientific evidence, we have advertorial and attacks on critics. There's a whole section devoted to teh evil skeptics, who it seems came into being solely to suppress Burzynski's miracle cancer cure and who allegedly harass the patients Burzynski uses as a human shield against criticism. All bollocks, of course, but expect the usual flood of clueless newbies zealous to "correct" our bias towards the consensus view. Guy ( Help!) 14:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Anti-union organizations in the United States appears at first glance to be quite POV in nature, to make unsourced statements about groups which might not be NPOV, and to use colourful language to make its points. (The brief nod to union rights didn't last. In the late 1970s the NAM "was so confident in the appeal of its anti-union position that it no longer bothered to hide behind the euphemisms.") I think a few eyes on this "article" would help in making it into a real article instead of a set of what appear to be polemics. Collect ( talk) 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Requesting independent editors review the recent removal of content from the lede of Obsession. A new editor has stripped the material out three times; I reverted twice, hence I'm involved and would prefer others take a look. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. As many of you know, the Goldman Band ceased operations in 2005. The article on the subject has some issues, especially with regards to reliable sourcing, verifiability, and what I believe to be its neutrality. Specifically, I am concerned about the statement, "There is ongoing debate as to the real cause of the organization's demise, with the Board of Directors on one side and a group of long-time band members and their union reps on the other," and some time ago, I tagged it as it did not include a citation. The demise has been disputed on the talk page and on the article ( [5], [6], [7], [8]), but no proper discussion on the talk page was going on there. Today, I added the NY Times source, which details the Band's demise. Another reliable source can be found here, which details how the band got shut down. It would be good if this article could have some attention from neutral editors. Your input on this would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There are dozens of articles referring to both real and fictitious individuals in substance abuse recovery as having "cleaned themselves up". A few examples are included below. Though it is in common usage, this phrase has a pejorative connotation, implying that the opposite of a sober individual is a dirty one. This does not reflect the nature of substance dependence as a lifelong disease which can include an ongoing cycle of recovery and relapse as described in the Substance Dependence entry. These references should be re-written more literally to describe these individuals as having "stopped using drugs/alcohol".
"Lil' Fly (1994–1995) - Was booted off the label by Paul & Juicy because of a drug habit, He cleaned himself up and changed his alias to Playa Fly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotize_Minds
"Having lost everything (save for the PPAD club), as well as all his money, Noah descended into a drunken depression that led to reckless driving charges and other acts which almost cost him Donna's love, before he cleaned himself up and focused on running the PPAD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_characters
"His life was characterized by alcohol and drug abuse, but in 1981 an American Indian, Lewis Sawaquat, introduced him to his Indian heritage and he cleaned himself up." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Plamondon
"But, after cleaning himself up in 2008, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis became a collaborative and creative unit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macklemore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustfluence ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to have opinions coming from uninvolved editors about the merging of the articles Flag of Western Sahara and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as well as Coat of arms of Western Sahara and Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
For information, that same issue was previously discussed through:
Following this first process, a decision was made to have an "elaborated disambiguation page" for each article related to Western Sahara, each one giving links to the topic related to both SADR and Morocco, as it can be seen on the 22 jan. 2012 version of Flag of Western Sahara (note : history of Coat of Arms of Western Sahara broken after a controversial merging, but it was looking like that).
However, after a merger proposal to which 3 people participated:
Since we didn't get a consensus on the respective talk pages I ask uninvolved users about their opinion regarding this issue:
Reminder: Western Sahara is a disputed territory, claimed by:
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminder: This discussion is about the NPOV policy, not the merging itself, and how can these articles fulfill it:
Regards. -- Omar-toons ( talk) 05:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Religious articles often have problems with pov editing for obvious reasons, but the latest version of this article is worse than most. For instance:"the idea that the view of Mosaic authorship began only in the era of the 2nd Temple is difficult to conceive of ... It is completely implausible that Ezra, who was the spiritual leader of the Jewish people, would not have known... It is almost inconceivable that a complete nation should without a basis come to believe this about any book, let alone a book that was published only several centuries earlier and whose authorship at the time was known to all. It has never been contemplated about any other book whose author/s' were known at the time of publication that it has been falsely held by the nation in which that book was published that the author was somebody completely different, let alone that that author wrote it 1500 years earlier." That's the worst of it, other examples aren't as blatant. Dougweller ( talk) 10:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Legendary creature#Mythical creatures such as deities, i.e. gods & God for the discussion/argument over this. I found this at ANI but I think the issue needs to be discussed here first. Some editors object because they find this offensive. Dougweller ( talk) 06:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Legendary creature" be a category instead of an article? Nobody talks about "legendary creature" in general, nobody I know, anyway. This article is nothing but POV edit warring bait. I vote to delete it and save those dwindling hours of our lives for something more constructive than trying to hash out an unhashable pseudo-topic. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
At Secular Islam Summit, we have an editor restoring a stale neutrality tag without starting or continuing any discussion. Given that we know neutrality tags are to be used to identify actionable issues, and not as permanent badges of shame when a user has failed to convince the community that they are right, perhaps we could get some uninvolved input as to whether there are issues here. As far as I can see, the last "neutrality" issue identified (and unresolved, since if you'll look here, you'll see that we resolved the last issue under discussion, as well as all or most of the previous ones further up) was that we supposedly can't identify a public figure as a former Muslim when they're open about it and when it's in the source, because in completely different regions of this wide world, people are killed for not being Muslims. I honestly have no goddamn clue what Kwami is trying to do here other than reverting me out of spite (cf. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive190#User:Kwamikagami_reported_by_User:Roscelese_.28Result:_24_hours.29), but maybe this board can throw some light. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Except that Roscelese knows exactly what the problem is, because we've been here over and over again. Every few months she comes back and attempts to reimpose her anti-Muslim POV, and gets indignant that people *still* object to it. — kwami ( talk) 07:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello.
Turkey and Turkish-related article on the english language wikipedia have been almost completely taken over by Greek and armenian ultra-nationalists who have turned them into anti-Turkish propaganda pieces while promoting their own nationalist agenda. There are no editors to counter these people and make the content neutral. Thats why I ask you to please come and help neutralize these articles, namely Turkey (currently under attack), Turkification, Turkish nationalism, Template:Turkish nationalism, Geographical name changes in Turkey, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, Racism and discrimination in Turkey, Animal name changes in Turkey.
Some of these were hijacked, others created specifically for slander by Turkophobes which should be deleted. thank you 217.150.82.12 ( talk) 09:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
McKhan ( talk · contribs), who has a habit of pushing POV because he hates this group(based on talk page archives) has inserted a POV academic to put the group in bad light
Article name: Al-Ahbash
link to the talk page discussion [9]
diff to content [10]
The academic quoted ( Tariq Ramadan) is not neutral mainly because he has family ties with the Muslim Brotherhood whom are opponents to this group Al-Ahbash also in the quote ramadan makes a vicious attack by saying ahbash labels the ulama as unbelievers which can't even be verified by any other RS. whats more deceiving is that the article currently paints Ramadan as an orthodox sunni when in his quote he is attacking the whole sufi establishment by mentioning "praying to the dead".. so i don't see how its neutral & based on the user mckhan's previous sockpuppeting behaviour i believe its editing in bad faith. It should be replaced by something NPOV Baboon43 ( talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I could use a second opinion at Talk:Misandry in discussing the definition of the topic. I added text and sources but another editor is removing them. What is the neutral path? Binksternet ( talk) 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Kevyn Orr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have called attention to this article but have not yet received a response. I inserted a quote from the World Socialist Web Site in which they referred to Mr. Orr as a "ruthless defender of corporate interest and a bitter enemy of working people." As there are many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr I believe this quote helps balance the article. User Terrance7 has repeatedly edited out this content for different reasons each time. First it was "ranting language, unencyclopedic" the next time it was "libelous" and more recently "an unreliable source." I feel that his editing is biased. Your opinions? This article is getting a lot of hits due to the situation in Detroit being of international interest and I would like to see the dispute resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevyn_Orr Truman Starr ( talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to insinuate that I am merely looking to find negative opinion of Mr. Orr. This is not the case. A google search on Mr. Orr will quickly bring up the quoted article as the International Committee of the Fourth International is a well respected and internationally recognized organization. As Mr. Orr has become the Emergency Manager to one of the homes of industrialization in America, with deep roots in the labor movement, their opinion is pertinent to the article and the censorship of their opinion detracts from the weight of the article. Perhaps the labor movement does not appeal to you personally and you find the opinion of leftists to be inconsequential despite the fact that non-leftists have often quoted this website. I find your tone to be condescending. I certainly don't need you to explain why you think that any negative quotes are a detriment to this article. You have shown obvious bias in your editing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.26.255 ( talk) 03:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits to Carnival Cruise Lines by Noremac617 ( talk · contribs) have been removing or toning down well-sourced negative info about recent problems with Carnival ships. (Carnival has been having many serious problems lately, and there's substantial news coverage.) This looks like a WP:SPA situation - few edits on any other topic. No comments on Talk, edit summaries are all default values. Please take a look. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to which line is better
Parties | Choice | Rationale given |
---|---|---|
Mrt3366 | "Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory under Pakistani control." |
Many, |
Mar4d, Darkness Shines | "Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan." | Mar4d said, "Gilgit-Baltistan is a region of Pakistan. It is a federally autonomous region and the government of Pakistan exercises de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan." (his emphases) |
—My proposal sounds (to me at least) a lot more neutral and objectively accurate than the current lead section.
I genuinely don't feel such a basic change merits an edit war [21].
Now, to omit the Indian POV altogether and to say that it's a ″territory of Pakistan″ when there is a long-standing international dispute over that very territory, is undue. That's all. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 13:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I am open towards proposals for minor changes in the wording. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"I don't see where it's a "Pakistani POV" at all"- you still don't see it as Pakistani POV? Besides, Tibet is not claimed by another country as its own. Maybe you don't want to see it as a Pakistani POV but some of the more neutral sources, the tertiary sources describe Gilgit-Baltistan not as a territory of Pakistan but as being under Pakistani control. Are they not reliable? That's the difference. Don't divert issue here. [22], [23], [24], etc. Britannica describes it as "Baltistan, geographic region of Gilgit-Baltistan, in the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region".
"The reality of the situation is that one of Pakistan's administrative territories is Gilgit–Baltistan."- That's only partial reality. There is more to it than that (which I have talked about already above). And not mentioning the other side of the dispute is censorship and not neutral. Kindly again read what I wrote. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"It is only disputed by India."
- what does that supposed to mean? Of course it's India that disputes it. So? Does it not merit a mention? "(
United Nations) for instance is neutral on the matter"
- yes of course the UN is neutral and that is why even World Bank declined to provide loan for the construction of Diamir-Bhasha dam because of its disputed status. That is all the more reason to provide the reader with the information about the conflict. We ought to be neutral too. —
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Chitkara, M. G. (2003).
Combating terrorism. New Delhi: APH Publ. Corp. p. 288.
ISBN
8176484156.
",
[27],
Google scholars,
[28], there are numerous other sources.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 11:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)P.S. I would like to point to constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir in India based on that we may also modify the language further. Again these are not exactly germane to our current topic. "Jammu and Kashmir" should be discussed elsewhere. Kindly don't digress from our current topic. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"What status India gives to Jammu and Kashmir does not negate the international designation of the region" - it matters a lot as far as Indian POV is concerned, don't say it doesn't matter. But I never said I was opposed to J&K changes, did I? Why the heck do you want to create unnecessary fuss about that here? No body is opposed to it here. That's why I am wondering why not incorporate a similar and much relevant change in gilgit baltistan article? What is the matter with you? J&K is not directly relevant here. And we have reached some sort of consensus ( which doesn't have to be unanimous). Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"the territorial status of GB deserves ideally no more than one sentence in the lead and that too in the second or third paragraph." — do you really believe that the thing that makes GB-sector (of Kashmir) a matter of Global concern doesn't merit more than one line in the article?! Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Mr. T's arguments are really strange, especially considering the apparent double standard of the lead of Jammu and Kashmir, which unproblematically refers to it as a "state of India". Also, he uses the term "military occupation" incorrectly, since there is an autonomous civilian administration in GB.
Also, make no mistake, to tar GB with the "Kashmir" brush, whether in the lead or not, is to tacitly accept some Indian POV. Pakistan only designates part of the disputed territory, Azad Kashmir (to be reunited with "Jammu and Kashmir") as "Kashmir". The indigenous Shias and Baltis of GB don't like to be under Kashmiri control, and successfully fought for devolution.
India also claims that certain territory of China is part of "Kashmir", although neither China or Pakistan accept this. The point is that while the world may recognize that there is a "Kashmir dispute", there is far less agreement on the scope of this dispute, and whether it applies to peripheral areas like GB, whose self-determination is denied by Indian claims. This controversy is why mention of GB's disputed status (as opposed to Azad Kashmir's status) should come second, not first. Shrigley ( talk) 17:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Qwyrxian and Shrigley. Irrelevant to what India, the UN, or others think, the territory is fully controlled by Pakistan, who claim it, and has been for quite a while. The reality is that it is part of Pakistan, and the wording shouldn't be subject to whatever individual editors think about the implications of eternal legal right or truth or some such. There's more to this territory than just a dispute. CMD ( talk) 13:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"Gilgit Baltistan (formerly known as the Northern Areas) of Pakistan, is a self-governed region in the north of Pakistan. It is governed through a representative government and an independent judiciary." Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
″The region of Gilgit-Baltistan is the Pakistani-administered
[or replace administered with better word if you can]
territory/sector of the Kashmir region that is subject to a long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan.″
@Vecrumba: You're again right. "De facto" is an euphemism for "no indisputable evidence exists" or something like "not ordained by law". Hence we cannot use "de facto" anything to describe the official status of a place; either it's disputed or it's not. In this case the former is true. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Jesus I get tired of POV editors complaining about "censorship" on Wikipedia just because everything is not worded just exactly the way they want it to be. Nobody's censoring anything. As I have said before, the material can be covered later in the lead. Everything doesn't have to be jam-packed in the first graf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 April 2013
Is it neutral to show the Portal:India on the see-also section of Gilgit-Baltistan (see the ugly edit war in that article recently)? GB is not administered by India neither does it belong to India per WP:NPOV, yet a bunch of nationalist Indians are eager and over-the-top zealous to add Indian POV. Even Mrt3366 has started dancing to the tune; it's amazing how he opposes GB being called a territory of Pakistan (when it is) because it's Pakistani POV according to him and yet he has no qualms about adding Indian POV to the article? Talk about double standards? There is no moral equivalence between Pakistani POV and Indian POV in the case of Gilgit-Baltistan, because it is administered by the former and not the latter - hence, it is the Pakistani POV that should prevail, whether anyone likes it or not.
One of the POV-warriors who's been part of that edit war ( User:Zeeyanwiki) was enthusiastically opposing my removal of Portal:India from the article on the talk page, accusing me of "aggression" and treating Wikipedia as my "home property" and ironically was the first editor to remove Portal:Pakistan from the see-also section of Jammu and Kashmir which I added as counter-POV. What to say of this POV-pushing by nationalists? I am aware that there are sanctions imposed on the Afghanistan, Pakistan and India topic area. In my opinion, single-sided POV-pushing like this should be rewarded by instant blocks. Mar4d ( talk) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Pizzicato_(software): I added templates for neutrality and primary sources and a user, whose username indicates association with the article, has repeatedly removed them. I attempted discussion on the talk page and have been ignored so far. I also warned the individual about edit wars and am now stepping back to allow WP moderators to deal with it. I'm pretty new myself, so I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this notification. If not, please educate me! Plays88keys ( talk) 20:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems to have endemic POV issues - and an editor now has been trying to add specific corporations as being part of it, although the sources used make no claim about them being part of a "prison-industrial complex" and thier articles made no such claim until he added it to their articles. I suggested that he needed consensus to add such material per WP:BRD, but was rebuffed, alas. More eyes would be useful to assure adherence to policies and guidelines, and maybe even get the POV reduced a tad. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Several articles were created [29] by an editor User:BengaliHindu where some articles like 2013 Canning riots didn't follow a neutral point of view. I tried to clean-up by citing from reliable sources but this was reverted by the user & some other ip. The difference is here [30]. May be i'm wrong but it may also possible that such articles were created per Islamophobia. I believe Wikipedia should be free from personal feelings or views and articles on sensitive topics need extra care to maintain a NPOV. Best Regards, Mrwikidor ←track 17:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems an odd sort of article - it uses an acronym, and lists a slew of cases, but the sources do not use the acronym nor the term Strategic lawsuit against public participation. I wonder if this is a neologism-push where OR and SYNTH is used to connect disparate cases to promote a legal theory. The states described as having "anti-SLAPP legislation" appear to have laws not referring to this concept at all, but only to aspects which have always been problematic in law. The legal cases cited for other nations also appear not to involve use of this term or any similar term. Opinions thereon should surely be of value. Collect ( talk) 00:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
The article Khalsa has this sentence in the intro:
I had removed it earlier, but Vickle1777 (now blocked as a sockmaster) and Jujhar.pannu kept adding it back. I discussed this and several other problems at Talk:Khalsa. However, Jujhar.pannu insists that this statement should be allowed in the intro since it's supported by a reference. No luck at WP:THIRD, so dropping a note here. utcursch | talk 00:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the context of the complete argument I would like to add what I originally wrote, "The first part is basically saying the Khalsa is the ultimate end point of devoted Sikhs which is imporant because people of little knowledge may not be familiar with the context, the next part is a quote and quotes can say whatever they want as long as they are referenced and relevent to the topic. Quotes may only be removed with benift if something better is used in its point. If the user feels the word pinnacle to be subjective I would be alright if the the first statement is changed to - Once a Sikh becomes baptized he is called a Khalsa." Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 08:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The other editors persistently keep telling me I'm trying to push my POV into this article. My talk page proposals either get ignored or they are used to call me a pov pusher. To give an example:
There are hundreds of researchers involved. As of 2008 we have peer reviewed cold fusion complete with replications. Most of the article is sourced on Pons and Fleischmann, who are just 2 of them. You don't notice it at first sight but for example reference numbers: 19, 41, 44, 61, 68, 100, 130, 133, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156 and 157 all point at a single book published in 1991.
Because the elaborate Pons and Fleischmann coverage is basically good content, I propose to create a separate article about the initial P&F press release. With over 300 reliable sources there cant be any question about notability. When creating such article it should always reflect the same scientific consensus as the main article. I know this perfectly well, I'm an ip editor not allowed to edit the article and there is a huge cold fusion police force watching the article like a hawk.
This is not a question if the article should be split but if I have the right to propose it.
The responses:
As the first response this is fair enough. Between these POV acusations I keep explaining Article spinouts:""Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."
It is suggest I'm whitewashing something without edit privileges.
1989 is not recent.
I have no idea what this means.
It may seem that way at first sight but the sources are used to describe things that happened 20 years after their publication without much attribution. It is great for P&F coverage but this is the main article about a science topic.
Between the POV acusations I keep explaining the splitting guidelines.
Fair enough, even said please. But I will get back to this one.
This doesn't seem an important argument for splitting off the excessive coverage. It doesn't even go there? Is it really true that I have to address this argument or else I'm pushing my pov?
This is the whole text in our article dedicated to peer reviewed cold fusion:
I think it is not enough. Am I entitled to such opinion? Am I allowed to propose such split? Because apparently I'm not, the proposal is shut down after 1 day.
I've tried asking 2 other editors for their opinion, neither showed up but I now stand accused of canvassing: [37] and this is now a talk page topic? [38]
This is just one example out of many. I've never managed to produce acceptable content for this article. I've suggested many very sensible improvements. Non of which have ever been accepted. I've seen many new and experienced editors get screamed down and/or banned by these editors.
I'm going to leave for a while now. I'm writing this in case there is anyone who still cares about content. This is the only reason.
bye
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 06:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any ideas about what could or should be done about these articles List of Christian martyrs and List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian? The first one, List of Christian martyrs, tries to list notable Christian martyrs from all periods and is divided into sections. In the first section "Apostolic Age—1st century", 16 names are listed, of which the death of one, James the Just, is corroborated in a work of secular history, Josephus, and two, James the Great and Stephen, have their deaths described in the New Testament in the book of Acts (although whether they can really be called Christians is highly debatable, there was not a clearly defined Christian identity at that early time, they were a sort of sect of Jews.) The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are early Christian traditions, though uncorroborated by any independent historical evidence. The rest are made up fabrications from hundreds of years later although this article just flatly states things like "Saint Matthias was stoned and beheaded" and "Saint Luke the Evangelist was hanged" even though if you click on the link "Saint Luke the Evangelist" it takes you to the WP article where it is stated that "Luke died at age 84 in Boeotia"! (when the truth is that no one has the faintest idea when or how he died). In the next section of that article "Age of Martyrdom—2nd to 4th centuries" 17 martyrs or groups of martyrs are listed, again saying things like "Saint Lucy/Lucia, martyred in Syracuse for refusing to marry a pagan suitor" with no indication that this is anything other than undisputed historical fact, when out of those seventeen entries there are seven that have some possible historical facts behind them, the rest,as Professor of Early Christianity Candida Moss has written in a recent book 'The Myth of Persecution were "fabricated out of thin air". The article goes on into more recent times and lists other figures who are undoubtedly historical. It is not right to mix fact and fiction in this way, I have left other remarks on the article talk page. The second article List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian is if anything a bit worse as it lists some seventy names and the WP article Diocletianic Persecution says from all the many stories of martyrs at that time "only those of Agnes, Sebastian, Felix and Adauctus, and Marcellinus and Peter are even remotely historical" so that's six out of some seventy or so that may have some truth to them, although even those are questionable and have been highly embellished, but the "list" article not only states flatly that all these saints were killed at that time but even gives exact dates and places for their supposed martyrdoms, for instance "Eulalia of Barcelona (February 12, 303, Barcelona)" - their saint's day being assumed as the day they were killed, the year I can only imagine that whoever created this article ( by a google search according to the talk page) just made it up. Really these articles are not just presenting fiction as fact, they are lies. I have tagged them both for accuracy and neutrality and left messages on the article talk pages, but I don't know what steps to take - try to move them to List of (legendary) Christian martyrs mixed in with real ones and List of Christians supposedly killed during the reign of Diocletian, according to ridiculous old made up stories, except for three or four that might have some truth to them, who knows? Nominate them for deletion? Go through and mark every one as invention except for the tiny handful that may have a kernel of truth? And then I suppose you would have to have a source for every one saying that there is not any truth to that story, and who knows how long that would take. But I do feel it is just intolerable for WP to be presenting these old fabrications as truth. Can anyone suggest anything? Smeat75 ( talk) 04:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Algeria#Listing_French_name_in_lead_in_Algeria_article there is a debate over whether French names should be listed in articles about Algeria (for instance, "Algèrie" for Algeria and "Alger" for Algiers).
In Languages of Algeria I did extensive work on chronicling the language situation. On one hand Modern Standard Arabic (which is different from spoken Algerian Arabic) is official and French is not official, and in the past the Algerian government attempted to eradicate French from use in society by enacting government policies that would remove French. Unlike Tunisia and Morocco Algeria is not a part of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
On the other hand, as shown by the CIA World Factbook and other sources, French is the lingua franca of Algerian society and is still extensively used in the business and technology sectors in society. Senat.fr says that Algeria has the second largest French-speaking community in the world. Recently the Algerian government has reintroduced French into the education system. While some Algerian government agencies are Arabized (they only use MSA Arabic) others are not (the agencies make documents in French, and provide MSA Arabic translations). The documents submitted to United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names and the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names from the Algerian government used French, and the government used French in almost all of its conferences.
There is an undercurrent of divisions in society. The sources I used say that bilingual Arabic-French is promoted by upper class and secular elements of Algerian society, while Arabic only was often promoted by Islamists. Also, the elites in Algeria at one time had their own kids learn French while others learned Arabic, making an "elite closure" that only gave the best jobs to those who spoke French.
Anyway, in terms of POV, knowing that there is a conflict over how important French should be in society, what is the NPOV solution? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Narendra Modi is a controversial Indian politician running for the Hindu Nationalist BJP party -considered by some to be a likely candidate for the next Indian Primeminister. The lead of the article currently doesn't mention the political stances of either MOdi or the party he is a leader of, and it only gives the Hindi names of the parties - without supplying even the English translation nor the political platform. When I tried to insert mention of his politics, as neutrally worded as I could, it was removed without explanation. And the article now again does not mention anything about his politics. I think it might be worth it to keep some eyes on the article as it seems it may become a likely problem area with the upcoming Indian elections. It is nwt claimed on the talk page that it is undue weight to mention his political stance or to describe the political platform of his party in the lead. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has had a low-level POV problem for years, with negative views on her minimised. However, after an 800-strong party in Glasgow in celebration of her death], and another in Brixton, amongst others, and even some MPs speaking out in celebration of her death. ( [39]). This is is not normal, but all criticism of her is being systematically removed. The miners hated her, and still hate her. [40], [41].
At the moment, the artocle contains meaningless platitudes by Cameron and Milliband, and doesn't mention the controversy.
The simple fact is, Thatcher is widely hated. Not by everyone, of course. But by presenting positive views and censoring the negative, we hide the controversy of one of the most divisive and controversial PMs of British history. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 22:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with JohnKAnderson. "That's what blogs are for" should sum up my opinion on this. Too many people try to use Wikipedia to further their personal agenda rather than having anything substantial and encyclopedic to contribute. No offense to the folks above but this has been my general observation on this project. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 04:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have the content background to start a meaningful discussion on the talk page, but as a passer-by looking for information hoo boy is Steinberger (regarding the instrument manufacturer of the same name) far off NPOV once it gets to "history and production". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.105.44 ( talk) 02:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Steven Crowder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In Steven Crowder's article, the alleged assault against him was included, and he attempted to press charges against the other party.
Despite video of the incident, and the Union Spokesman himself condemning the violence and the acknowledged trampling of a tent by union protestors that belonged to a group Steven Crowder is affiliated with, the Prosecutor dropped all charges against union members, and refused to charge the ones involved in this alleged assault.
The dispute is that some think it is sufficient to say only that the charges were dropped, which leaves the impression they charges were completely without merit (that's usually the reason charges are dropped against the will of the complainant). Others believe that mentioning that the prosecutor was endorsed by the unions provides critical context, as well as treating him with the same standards as all the other players by being transparent with his affiliations.
However, it is misleading to omit the information that he is endorsed by them, which he displays prominently in his campaign material. Including it lets the reader decide, with complete, relevant information and full context on both parties' affiliations.
There have been multiple attempts to resolve this on the "talk" page by rewording, deleting the actual name of the union and using the generic noun, rearranging words within the sentence, separating the sentences completely to further any possibility of a suggestion of cause and effect, with no counter-compromises being offered nor any discussions of the compromises proposed as is suggested in the guidelines for resolution.
Thank you, JohnKAndersen ( talk) 05:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
It's done more in the interest of full disclosure and transparency. Many would find nothing wrong with his endorsements. Fine. They can draw their own conclusions, I do not want to make them for them. But leaving as it is implies the charges were frivolous (there were documented physical injuries). Additionally, I don't think the Prosecutor's home page where he lists his endorsements, and the union page that proudly endorses him, is "digging up tangentially related facts". And it certainly can't be considered irrelevant. Selective omission to steer the reader to a particular conclusion is not NPOV, providing a readily (actually the primary biographical fact, often before his party affiliation) simple, provable fact from reliable sources is harmless, where selectively omitting a fact that is so clearly part of the story leaves a gaping hole in the article's integrity, not to mention POV issues.From the guidelines, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority AND significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." JohnKAndersen ( talk) 10:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
Meanwhile another editor has dropped in from time to time, made proclamations, edited arbitrarily while we were working on consensus, then announced they are done and leaving with no compromising. To make it perfectly clear, once again, I am NOT suggesting that there should be a link made between the Prosecutor and the unions charges being dropped and/or not brought. Simply as part of contextual info of a major public figure in this event, including that he is endorsed, since this entire article is ABOUT the union protests, just as the alleged assaulter had his union affiliation immediately pointed out, Crowder's conservative affiliations pointed out, I think it's worth merely mentioning the person's affiliations who at this point is attempting to end the issue. Additionally, his political affiliations, being an elected official, should never be hidden. At least in the normally used form of "(D)".
I do not understand a clear and concerted effort to to include every negative statement about Crowder, even if they are conjectural, but refusal to include relevant, provable, biographical facts about the person who refused to press charges and who conjectured about Croweder's intentions. It is NECK DEEP in POV; presenting only one side of the case rather than the balanced approach that is expected by an encylopedic source and the consensus procedure. The reliable sources issue is specious as it is on both the Prosecutor's website and the union's website, pointed on in numerous articles, etc. As far as what his opinion about the video (opinions I thought were to be excluded? We can't include the other side's opinions? Crowder's quotes about the union and why he is pressing charges and about the Prosecutor? To truly make it "facts only", saying "he refused to press charges" would keep it "facts only", since the rest of it is HIS interpretation, dripping with sarcasm, and his opinion alone. That carries absolute zero weight in court, just keeps it out of court for now; he would not be a witness to offer his subjective point of view.
So we're back to just facts. The problem on the talk page has been an extreme lack of compromise and assumption of good faith that is clearly spelled out in the guidelines about coming to consensus, for instance, offering different ideas that INCLUDE everyone's input and that everyone can agree with. As it is, it is worded to imply that the charges were without merit (in one man's totally objective opinion we are led to believe). THAT'S why including his affiliation, just like everyone else's in the article is noted, would balance and give sufficient information for a reader to decide on their own which scenario is more likely. Without it, misleading by omission results.
There were other details from reliable sources about people being injured in the tent collapse admittedly caused by the union protesters, among other details. One by one these were deleted to imply they caused no violence, even by their own admissions, which puts more weight to the Prosecutor's decision. "No one was hurt, not laws broken,right?" Wrong. They even pleaded guilty to FELONIES. There also were death threats, racial epithets, etc. All deleted to remove context of what led to the altercation (and the charges) that involved Crowder defending the tent that contained heating stoves, a food vendor with cooking appliances, women and elderly volunteers; all deleted to imply that the charges against the protesters had no merit. Going by the video alone and ignoring all the eye-witnesses, even from union members supporting Crowder's version of events not considered (or ignored). I think with the context of the protest in regard to Crowder. For anyone to make an informed opinion about this subject, I STRONGLY encourage you to watch the UNEDITED version on the article which supports the threats, intimidation, people crawling out from a collapsed tent, etc (sometimes from multiple angles). As always, I'm open for compromise to include everyone's input; the edits made now destroy the painstaking progress made over weeks and months (the polar opposite of consensus). JohnKAndersen ( talk) 03:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
"On Dec. 6 — the first of the two days of major protests — eight people were arrested and charged with felonies in Ingham County’s 54A District Court, because they attempted to rush the Senate floor. All of them pleaded GUILTY in February to a misdemeanor charge and are scheduled to be sentenced in September."
"The three individuals arrested during the massive right-to-work protests at the Capitol on Dec. 11 won’t face criminal charges, Ingham County prosecutors have decided."
"After being made aware of the miscommunication and reviewing the criminal statute this past week, (Dunnings' Chief Asst DA) McCormick said prosecutors couldn’t find a crime that fit this particularly case...“We’re denying all the charges,” she said today."
"The determination means that ALL FORMAL CHARGES formal criminal charges stemming from (all of) the right-to-work demonstrations in December have been resolved." (Emphasis added)
That is just one reliable source of the Prosecutor's office dismissing ALL charges by ALL union members at this protest, even those that had been arrested and charged with felonies. This article includes about a dozen, even some who had pleaded guilty, but there are other RS articles with additional detail. (Btw, the legislators in the article ARE identified by party affiliation.) This should satisfy "second sources" of incidents and connections to the union from the Prosecutor.
And I'm not even suggesting including this information in the article...ONLY that he is simply endorsed by the local unions. So, does there need to be a whole new section included that shows this entire history in order to include that simple affiliation?
I'm sorry, but the two of you don't seem to be reading what is being written. If you want to mention that Dunning has been supported or endorsed by unions, in any article other than one about Dunning himself, you need to show a source that mentions Dunning's union connections in that context. We don't need sources about Dunning dismissing charges against union members, and we don't need sources about Dunning being supported by unions - rather, we need one single source that mentions the union association in connection with the dismissals. Anything else is original synthesis at worst, and utterly irrelevant at best. The neutral point of view is not about "presenting both sides", or coming to a compromise every time editors disagree with each other. The neutral point of view is entirely about sticking to what reliable sources have mentioned, in context. When you invent a new side to a story, you are violating the neutral point of view. The only "sides" we care about, the only points of view that make it into an article, are the ones discussed in reliable sources. Someguy1221 ( talk) 06:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, if we want to suggest, even with a nudge and a wink, that a public official has discharged their duties in any way that is less than proper, we need, as a bare minimum, strong and unambiguous sourcing that makes the same allegation. That would include a situation where a judge/proseuctor is alleged to have dealt with a case based on anything other than his understanding of the facts and the law. There's really no wriggle room on this one. Formerip ( talk) 12:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've carefully avoided reading this article to see which union you are talking about, since my own affiliations are a matter of public record. The point is that your belief that the endorsement of this politician (which is not the same as an affiliation with that union) by a union is relevant to the article, is original research and synthesis, and has no place here, per WP:NOR (not to mention our constraints on BLPs). -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, it seems as if we have come to an equitable compromise and the page is all the better, and more accurate, for it. The NAME of the union was never an intended addition. There were several "opinion", POV statements made about the main subject, Crowder, that made it seem like it was appropriate to include information that didn't leave the reader with a very slanted view. Now that those have been removed, and "just the facts" type statements made, alternate NPOV quotes replacing opinion-tainted ones, there is much less feeling to give "the other side" in order to balance. So even though the Prosecutor who has a log history of union "issues" as you see in the links above, affiliations to them are NOT included, but anyone going to his website or reading the he released even those who had pleaded guilty can draw their own conclusions which are quite clear. This idea that overpowering and incontrovertible evidence is irrelevant is naive. Just because he isn't video-taped taking a bag with a $ sign on it doesn't mean that certain repeated, targeted, specific actions are irrelevant. People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than some editors require when they are either A)Biased or B)Stubborn and refuse to admit they MIGHT be wrong purely out of spite or pride, even when they agree in "talk" sections. In any case, the page now is much approved, thank everyone very much that offered constructive input, and I feel the two most involved editors have reached consensus....hallelujah! JohnKAndersen ( talk) 03:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
Please review these deletions. I do not believe they are neutral. Thank you. EllenCT ( talk) 09:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an issue as to whether putting psychoanalysis in the pseudoscience category would be an issue of NPOV. As far as I can tell, if reliable sources criticize an article for being pseudoscience it should be listed. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 09:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I took a stroll through Category:Pseudoscience, and what I notice is that literally every article I saw is on a subject that is widely recognized as pseudoscience. For the purpose of consistency with how the category is used, it seems that a small if significant accusation that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience should not necessarily place it in that category. To quote from the category itself, "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth). The pejorative term itself is contested by various groups for various reasons." Again, I don't think psychoanalysis fits the bill here. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
My statement is here. I think this category is highly POV. Not only in this article. It displays a narrow unterstanding of philosophy of science. CartoonDiablo is a user I can't take seriously anymore. He fights the psychoanalysis by using dreadful arguments and reveals a minor understanding of scientiffic fields and the wikipedia. I think, he should banned for this an other POV-wars. -- WSC ® 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Scientific sources that considered the field pseudoscience:
Scientific sources that considered Freudian theory pseudoscience but that it was useful in appropriating concepts for modern usage.
CartoonDiablo ( talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Just so you all know where I am coming from: My personal opinion on psychoanalysis is that it is clearly a pseudoscience, though for historical and sociological reasons it is not generally recognised as such. At this point it is not clear what will happen. There are some encouraging signs that it might mature into a proper science, but it is certainly possible that it will be generally seen as a pseudoscience before that happens.
But here is my analysis as to the pseudoscience category and the psychoanalysis article:
Conclusion: Though the criticism of psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience is highly notable and relevant, according to long-standing principles which were developed with an eye to this special case, this is not sufficient to put its article into the pseudoscience category. Hans Adler 12:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
When all is said and done -- nothing that is not "empirically provable" is "science." Religion is "not science". Numerology is "not science". Economics is "not science." Philosophy is "not science" and virtually anything to do with how or why people act as they do is "not science." Labelling any such as "pseudo-science" is, moreover, of no real value to anyone. Why not restrict the term and label to such things as someone might reasonably expect to be "hard science" which is empirically disproven as being of value? Thus stopping a huge amount of useless discussion and drama on Wikipedia. (BTW, since no one really claims Astrology to be "science" the label "pseudoscience" is pretty useless, folks.) Collect ( talk) 21:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Where to start? Maybe the removal of the category and list article, as suggested?
"Pseudoscience" is a declaration and list-gathering editing style on a slippery slope that has slid too far without preserving Wikipedia's voice. Eturk001 ( talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the general case of whether or not there should be a category of pseudoscience makes the individual case moot.
So, because it's not clear to the causal Wikipedia reader what pseudoscience means and because we cannot include that definition on the same page as the article on the pseudoscience, it should be removed. The category being perjorative makes this very important. Can someone PM me when this is being considered please.
Secondly, from personal experience of hanging around skeptics (one being Derren Brown, to namedrop), criticising woo woo stuff can become a pastime, even a profitable one. I'd cite Dawkins as a well-known example (I prefer Randi who prefers to let science do the talking). Whether or not this attempt to classify psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience is motivated by an anti-psychoanalysis POV, I suspect there is a widespread vested interest in abusing this term. We all know that Wikipedia is subject to edit wars when there is any vested interest. To allow this categorisation to continue would be to waste thousands of hours of Wikipedians' time.
For some of the same reasons, I want to add that we need clear guidelines on relevant pages (perhaps WP:MEDRS?) on the use of perjorative terms like pseudoscience, as it is featured in the lead of Psychoanalysis and probably dozens of other articles. From WP:LABEL, they are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." WykiP ( talk) 11:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the position to not use the PS category for psychoanalysis, but that decision is based on the PS Arbcom. Otherwise psychoanalysis is often described/labeled/characterized as pseudoscience, but that doesn't override the Arbcom decision for using the PS "category" on the article. The Arbcom decision still allows ("requires"... as always ) us to follow the sources, and thus psychoanalysis is listed at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. We do document that it is often characterized as pseudoscience, which is not the same as categorizing or classifying it as an absolute pseudoscience. We just document that RS have done so. That doesn't settle the issue at all. Whether it is or is not is another matter entirely. We just follow the sources.
Here is the box used to notify of the PS Arcom decision:
Note the first two of the four groupings allow for using the PS Category, but psychoanalysis falls in the third grouping ("questionable science") and we must not use the Category for it. It is even mentioned as an example! We can (and must) still document that some RS (of many types, including scientific skeptics) do call it a pseudoscience. Some of those RS are very notable and controversial, but we still use them, even if we don't like them. That's the Wikipedian way.
BTW, attempts to defend pseudoscientific subjects and fight against the use of the term pseudoscience have been such a problem that the Arbcom has special "discretionary sanctions" which can be applied to such editors:
In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
So....beware. Editors have been banned or blocked very quickly, and any admin can do it.
As far as pejorative terms, Wikipedia is uncensored and we don't care a flying hoot whether a term is pejorative or not, the only exception being in BLPs. There we are a bit more careful, but even then, if RS use a pejorative term, we use it too, but not in Wikipedia's voice. We use the source's voice, and when doing so we do not censor the source. Editorializing and editorial censorship are very unwikipedian. We must present things in the same manner and spirit as the sources. If a source presents a subject with a bite or punch to it, we try to preserve the source's tone and convey it the way the RS does. Doing otherwise violates proper use of the source and actually misrepresents it. Editors aren't allowed to do that. The same obviously applies if a source is favorable.
We are obviously not required to use pejorative terms when they are unnecessary, but we should not avoid them when they are the proper term to use. We don't exclude any words in the dictionary from coverage here, nor the concepts and controversies associated with them. The deciding factor is how RS use them. There is no question that the word "pseudoscience" is often used in a decidedly pejorative manner. That is something we should document and not shy away from.
This really freaks out believers in those ideas and practices to which the term is applied, and understandably so, but that is of no concern to us. Using the word in the lede at Homeopathy has probably been the biggest battle of this type. Every true believer and quack has tried to get it deleted, but because it is one of the most notable examples of grossly pseudoscientific piffle, and myriad RS describe it as pseudoscience, we document that fact and don't hide it. (It appears that the quacks have succeeded at getting it deleted from the lede at present, but the article is still in the category, which is proper.)
We cannot whitewash Wikipedia articles out of concern for the feelings of such people. We are not allowed to censor reality to appease the feelings of readers or believers in pseudoscience. We must objectively document "the sum total of human knowledge," which is the primary goal of Wikipedia. All existing encyclopedias have been censored, but this is a totally different encyclopedia. Everything notable gets covered here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the arbcom is a instance of wikipedia "to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" The don't have the competence to resolve such contentual questions. Thats what they have done. They decided user banns. I've read the request for arabitration but I can find only sanctions of users. A large phrase is crossed out. I can't find any repercussions to ore discussion here. -- WSC ® 09:35, 3 April 2013 (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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
A controversial move/edit was made to 1971 Bangladesh genocide was made on 28 February 2013 and I can't find any discussion in WP to substantiate that there was a consensus. An earlier discussion on the talk page seemed to produce no consensus. I want to know what the procedure was behind this move? See difference [1]
What is the most neutral title? Prior to this diff, the article was called "1971 Bangladesh atrocities" but now it's called "1971 Bangladesh genocide". Perhaps a more neutral term would be "1971 Bangladesh war crimes"? Until this issue is resolved, I've questioned the neutrality of the article and posted a template on the front page. Crtew ( talk) 23:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Since this was the original title of the article, I suggest a requested move discussion is more appropriate for figuring out whether genocide, atrocities, or war crimes are better titles. (This is also discussed here.)-- regentspark ( comment) 13:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Checking Questia -- "genocide" and "crime" are quite infrequently applied to the civilian deaths during the Bangladesh independence war. The article can contain the terms ascribed to those using them, but the title should be as absolutely neutral in tenor as possible. I suggest
Civilian deaths during the 1971 Bangladesh independence war. Similar results for Highbeam, with "genocide" being very far down the list, and "war crime" also fairly rare. See also
[2]. I suggest this Columbia University Press book is likely RS for asseeting, in fact, that "genocide" etc. are used by " ' the 'liberation literature' of Bangladesh ... in blissful disregard of the need to provide substantiation." This is a farirly strong statement in a reliable source, and suggests that Wikipedia ought not use such terms in any title.
Collect (
talk) 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a content dispute at Book of Leviticus summarized in this talk page discussion, that has arrived at an impasse, largely due to the small number of participants. The dispute is about adding a small amount of content to the article mentioning that the Book of Leviticus lays out proscriptions against homosexuality, and to a lesser extent, does so while permitting slavery. The content in question can be seen here here where it was removed by User:PiCo. The content needs some wordsmithing and better sources, but that's the gist of it.
The discussion began with objections to the content being added to the lede ( first revert here), but now it seems there are objections to having in the article at all. Although I think the talk page discussion is self-explanatory, I think there are two schools of thought at opposition.
and, conversely
Of course, I will let the other involved editors speak for themselves. Any help with this would be appreciated. - Mr X 02:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
COMMENTS
User:MaryKlida who works for Cobo Convention Center as Marketing and Communications Manger is removing factual information. Factual information concerning the death of George Overman Jr at Cobo Center and later lawsuit is based on newspaper articles and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Text in question: On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. [4] [5] George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall. [6] Codepro ( talk) 03:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
"reduce undue weight. That a lawsuit involved the center may be relevant, but the history of the people involved not so much..." So why does User:Fluffernutter still consider it an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious" 4 references were used. 2 of the references are linked to google newspaper archives, 1 reference is linked to google books, and 1 reference is linked to www.detroityes.com because it contained a comment from a user regarding the death of George Overman Jr. www.detroityes.com reference can be removed because it no longer relevant based on changes User:Fluffernutter made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
User:MaryKlida stated in comment "...Post also disrupts timeline of history section..." Post has been moved up in the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that citation of a lawsuit against the city of Detroit belongs on their Wiki page, not Cobo Center's. Also, anyone can file a lawsuit, and the citation of a 45 year old lawsuit is only historically relevant with information about the verdict and outcome, which is not included. I would submit, therefore, that the post is not relevant to the history of the city or the center. The City of Detroit has had countless lawsuits. They are all not relevant to its history in an encyclopedia. I ask for a Wiki administrator to clarify Wiki policy on this.
(cite: Today, Cobo Center is owned (under a 30-year capital lease) and operated by the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority (DRCFA))
In addition, as MacPro was identifying your original links as potentially malicious, I would make sure that they are not, for your own security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 ( talk) 18:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
User:MaryKlida stated on her talk page "...There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to 'crime in detroit' websites or the links themselves are malicious. I clean up the best I can.." Instead of removing the reference that she mentions, she decided to remove the entire post. Codepro ( talk) 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that Codepro has again added copy relating to the death (15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died). As he was instructed prior to remove this reference about the death, I would ask that it is again removed by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 ( talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Also see that Codepro has entered the previous links as articles on the Cobo Center page. Request that they be removed, and placed on the City of Detroit page if determined that they are historically relevant. All refer to an ongoing scandal with the city, not the center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.217.122 ( talk) 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Posts from User:MaryKlida on Cobo Center do not include references and are potentially biased since she works as Marketing and Communications Manger for Cobo Convention Center Codepro ( talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that you have added numerous links and tags to the article. I ask that you cease and desist until we can have this issue mediated. Thank you.
An editor recently attempted to open up as case at WP:DRN naming this noticeboard as the locus of the dispute. I closed the case; as it clearly states at the top of the DRN page, DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Forgive my breach of protocol. I understood Mediation and Arbitration as other forms of dispute resolution, not noticeboard discussions. As you have cleared up, if noticeboards are considered to be a dispute resolution forum, are we restricted to discussing neutral point of view in this forum? Are there time limits to the discussion if not resolved? Can we request that other, more experienced Wikipedia editors give input? If so, how? We don't seem to be getting much of anywhere in this forum. I would appreciate any and all assistance. -- MaryKlida ( talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Codepro, give the responses of Paul Barlow and Guy Macon, I would ask that you consider voluntarily removing the warnings on the Cobo Center page and your info about the Overman incident.
I have been working to provide reference material for the statements that you noted needed citation, and removed others that you might find offensive. Other than that, all I can do is assure you that I do strive to maintain a neutral point of view. On the other hand, your insistence on including the one sided and partial information on this incident leaves your neutrality in question, and you have not yet responded to this. Given your response, I will determine if a request for mediation is appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryKlida ( talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor - I saw this issue at the DRN noticeboard. The material is not appropriate for the Cobo Center article, unless there is some specific emphasis placed on the incident by the sources. For instance:
Barring sources which demonstrate some strong nexus to the center, this looks like a run-of-the mill crime that happened near the Cobo Center. There must be hundreds of crimes that happen near major facilities, but it is not encyclopedic to list them. And it is certainly not neutral to select a single murder case and insert it in the article. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
On a procedural note: user CodePro requested that the [second] DRN case on this topic be closed, because there was an on-going discussion here at NPOVN (which makes sense: we can't have two parallel discussions going at once). The DRN case has been closed. Another DRN or RFC could be created in the future, if necessary. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
There has been substantial edit warring at Cleo Rocos and heated discussion at the associated talk page, with some claiming it violates NPOV to say a subject is "best known for" something, and some think it's okay. Reading the recent obituary of Richard Briers on BBC News here, I notice they use the phrase "Actor Richard Briers, best known for his role in TV's The Good Life...." To hopefully close the lid on this feud once and for all, I'm going to bring it here for a wider audience to see what everyone else's opinion is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This has spilled out into attempts to push a POV in places like Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Cleo Rocos. [3] [4]
BTW, I would like to see someone dispute the fact that Guy Fawkes is best known for the Gunpowder Plot. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq I feel this article has multiple violations of the NPOV policy. Several headings like "manufactured evidence" and "A letter concocted by the CIA" are obviously one-sided. Most claims are missing sources. The "Government statements that set the stage for war" section seems to have just been copied and pasted from outside Wikipedia. The article also has many grammatical errors. There seems to be little sourced and neutral information in the article, I would propose deletion in its entirety but could not find a criteria that it met. Judging from the Talk page, it's had NPOV problems brought up before and has had no responses to the latest discussion of NPOV on the Talk page, which was made in 2010. The proposer of discussing the NPOV issues of the article received no responses and is an IP address that hasn't had Wikipedia activity in nearly 3 years. -- Padenton ( talk) 07:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Edited: -- Padenton ( talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
We are approaching the early screening and release dates for the second of Eric Merola's homages to the Burzynski Clinic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - as ever, in lieu of published peer-reviewed and replicated scientific evidence, we have advertorial and attacks on critics. There's a whole section devoted to teh evil skeptics, who it seems came into being solely to suppress Burzynski's miracle cancer cure and who allegedly harass the patients Burzynski uses as a human shield against criticism. All bollocks, of course, but expect the usual flood of clueless newbies zealous to "correct" our bias towards the consensus view. Guy ( Help!) 14:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Anti-union organizations in the United States appears at first glance to be quite POV in nature, to make unsourced statements about groups which might not be NPOV, and to use colourful language to make its points. (The brief nod to union rights didn't last. In the late 1970s the NAM "was so confident in the appeal of its anti-union position that it no longer bothered to hide behind the euphemisms.") I think a few eyes on this "article" would help in making it into a real article instead of a set of what appear to be polemics. Collect ( talk) 14:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Requesting independent editors review the recent removal of content from the lede of Obsession. A new editor has stripped the material out three times; I reverted twice, hence I'm involved and would prefer others take a look. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. As many of you know, the Goldman Band ceased operations in 2005. The article on the subject has some issues, especially with regards to reliable sourcing, verifiability, and what I believe to be its neutrality. Specifically, I am concerned about the statement, "There is ongoing debate as to the real cause of the organization's demise, with the Board of Directors on one side and a group of long-time band members and their union reps on the other," and some time ago, I tagged it as it did not include a citation. The demise has been disputed on the talk page and on the article ( [5], [6], [7], [8]), but no proper discussion on the talk page was going on there. Today, I added the NY Times source, which details the Band's demise. Another reliable source can be found here, which details how the band got shut down. It would be good if this article could have some attention from neutral editors. Your input on this would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There are dozens of articles referring to both real and fictitious individuals in substance abuse recovery as having "cleaned themselves up". A few examples are included below. Though it is in common usage, this phrase has a pejorative connotation, implying that the opposite of a sober individual is a dirty one. This does not reflect the nature of substance dependence as a lifelong disease which can include an ongoing cycle of recovery and relapse as described in the Substance Dependence entry. These references should be re-written more literally to describe these individuals as having "stopped using drugs/alcohol".
"Lil' Fly (1994–1995) - Was booted off the label by Paul & Juicy because of a drug habit, He cleaned himself up and changed his alias to Playa Fly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotize_Minds
"Having lost everything (save for the PPAD club), as well as all his money, Noah descended into a drunken depression that led to reckless driving charges and other acts which almost cost him Donna's love, before he cleaned himself up and focused on running the PPAD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_characters
"His life was characterized by alcohol and drug abuse, but in 1981 an American Indian, Lewis Sawaquat, introduced him to his Indian heritage and he cleaned himself up." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Plamondon
"But, after cleaning himself up in 2008, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis became a collaborative and creative unit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macklemore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustfluence ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to have opinions coming from uninvolved editors about the merging of the articles Flag of Western Sahara and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as well as Coat of arms of Western Sahara and Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
For information, that same issue was previously discussed through:
Following this first process, a decision was made to have an "elaborated disambiguation page" for each article related to Western Sahara, each one giving links to the topic related to both SADR and Morocco, as it can be seen on the 22 jan. 2012 version of Flag of Western Sahara (note : history of Coat of Arms of Western Sahara broken after a controversial merging, but it was looking like that).
However, after a merger proposal to which 3 people participated:
Since we didn't get a consensus on the respective talk pages I ask uninvolved users about their opinion regarding this issue:
Reminder: Western Sahara is a disputed territory, claimed by:
Regards,
--
Omar-toons (
talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminder: This discussion is about the NPOV policy, not the merging itself, and how can these articles fulfill it:
Regards. -- Omar-toons ( talk) 05:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Religious articles often have problems with pov editing for obvious reasons, but the latest version of this article is worse than most. For instance:"the idea that the view of Mosaic authorship began only in the era of the 2nd Temple is difficult to conceive of ... It is completely implausible that Ezra, who was the spiritual leader of the Jewish people, would not have known... It is almost inconceivable that a complete nation should without a basis come to believe this about any book, let alone a book that was published only several centuries earlier and whose authorship at the time was known to all. It has never been contemplated about any other book whose author/s' were known at the time of publication that it has been falsely held by the nation in which that book was published that the author was somebody completely different, let alone that that author wrote it 1500 years earlier." That's the worst of it, other examples aren't as blatant. Dougweller ( talk) 10:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Legendary creature#Mythical creatures such as deities, i.e. gods & God for the discussion/argument over this. I found this at ANI but I think the issue needs to be discussed here first. Some editors object because they find this offensive. Dougweller ( talk) 06:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't "Legendary creature" be a category instead of an article? Nobody talks about "legendary creature" in general, nobody I know, anyway. This article is nothing but POV edit warring bait. I vote to delete it and save those dwindling hours of our lives for something more constructive than trying to hash out an unhashable pseudo-topic. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
At Secular Islam Summit, we have an editor restoring a stale neutrality tag without starting or continuing any discussion. Given that we know neutrality tags are to be used to identify actionable issues, and not as permanent badges of shame when a user has failed to convince the community that they are right, perhaps we could get some uninvolved input as to whether there are issues here. As far as I can see, the last "neutrality" issue identified (and unresolved, since if you'll look here, you'll see that we resolved the last issue under discussion, as well as all or most of the previous ones further up) was that we supposedly can't identify a public figure as a former Muslim when they're open about it and when it's in the source, because in completely different regions of this wide world, people are killed for not being Muslims. I honestly have no goddamn clue what Kwami is trying to do here other than reverting me out of spite (cf. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive190#User:Kwamikagami_reported_by_User:Roscelese_.28Result:_24_hours.29), but maybe this board can throw some light. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Except that Roscelese knows exactly what the problem is, because we've been here over and over again. Every few months she comes back and attempts to reimpose her anti-Muslim POV, and gets indignant that people *still* object to it. — kwami ( talk) 07:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello.
Turkey and Turkish-related article on the english language wikipedia have been almost completely taken over by Greek and armenian ultra-nationalists who have turned them into anti-Turkish propaganda pieces while promoting their own nationalist agenda. There are no editors to counter these people and make the content neutral. Thats why I ask you to please come and help neutralize these articles, namely Turkey (currently under attack), Turkification, Turkish nationalism, Template:Turkish nationalism, Geographical name changes in Turkey, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, Racism and discrimination in Turkey, Animal name changes in Turkey.
Some of these were hijacked, others created specifically for slander by Turkophobes which should be deleted. thank you 217.150.82.12 ( talk) 09:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
McKhan ( talk · contribs), who has a habit of pushing POV because he hates this group(based on talk page archives) has inserted a POV academic to put the group in bad light
Article name: Al-Ahbash
link to the talk page discussion [9]
diff to content [10]
The academic quoted ( Tariq Ramadan) is not neutral mainly because he has family ties with the Muslim Brotherhood whom are opponents to this group Al-Ahbash also in the quote ramadan makes a vicious attack by saying ahbash labels the ulama as unbelievers which can't even be verified by any other RS. whats more deceiving is that the article currently paints Ramadan as an orthodox sunni when in his quote he is attacking the whole sufi establishment by mentioning "praying to the dead".. so i don't see how its neutral & based on the user mckhan's previous sockpuppeting behaviour i believe its editing in bad faith. It should be replaced by something NPOV Baboon43 ( talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I could use a second opinion at Talk:Misandry in discussing the definition of the topic. I added text and sources but another editor is removing them. What is the neutral path? Binksternet ( talk) 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Kevyn Orr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have called attention to this article but have not yet received a response. I inserted a quote from the World Socialist Web Site in which they referred to Mr. Orr as a "ruthless defender of corporate interest and a bitter enemy of working people." As there are many positive opinions quoted in reference to Mr. Orr I believe this quote helps balance the article. User Terrance7 has repeatedly edited out this content for different reasons each time. First it was "ranting language, unencyclopedic" the next time it was "libelous" and more recently "an unreliable source." I feel that his editing is biased. Your opinions? This article is getting a lot of hits due to the situation in Detroit being of international interest and I would like to see the dispute resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevyn_Orr Truman Starr ( talk) 17:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem to insinuate that I am merely looking to find negative opinion of Mr. Orr. This is not the case. A google search on Mr. Orr will quickly bring up the quoted article as the International Committee of the Fourth International is a well respected and internationally recognized organization. As Mr. Orr has become the Emergency Manager to one of the homes of industrialization in America, with deep roots in the labor movement, their opinion is pertinent to the article and the censorship of their opinion detracts from the weight of the article. Perhaps the labor movement does not appeal to you personally and you find the opinion of leftists to be inconsequential despite the fact that non-leftists have often quoted this website. I find your tone to be condescending. I certainly don't need you to explain why you think that any negative quotes are a detriment to this article. You have shown obvious bias in your editing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.26.255 ( talk) 03:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits to Carnival Cruise Lines by Noremac617 ( talk · contribs) have been removing or toning down well-sourced negative info about recent problems with Carnival ships. (Carnival has been having many serious problems lately, and there's substantial news coverage.) This looks like a WP:SPA situation - few edits on any other topic. No comments on Talk, edit summaries are all default values. Please take a look. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to which line is better
Parties | Choice | Rationale given |
---|---|---|
Mrt3366 | "Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory under Pakistani control." |
Many, |
Mar4d, Darkness Shines | "Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan." | Mar4d said, "Gilgit-Baltistan is a region of Pakistan. It is a federally autonomous region and the government of Pakistan exercises de facto jurisdiction over Gilgit-Baltistan." (his emphases) |
—My proposal sounds (to me at least) a lot more neutral and objectively accurate than the current lead section.
I genuinely don't feel such a basic change merits an edit war [21].
Now, to omit the Indian POV altogether and to say that it's a ″territory of Pakistan″ when there is a long-standing international dispute over that very territory, is undue. That's all. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 13:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I am open towards proposals for minor changes in the wording. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"I don't see where it's a "Pakistani POV" at all"- you still don't see it as Pakistani POV? Besides, Tibet is not claimed by another country as its own. Maybe you don't want to see it as a Pakistani POV but some of the more neutral sources, the tertiary sources describe Gilgit-Baltistan not as a territory of Pakistan but as being under Pakistani control. Are they not reliable? That's the difference. Don't divert issue here. [22], [23], [24], etc. Britannica describes it as "Baltistan, geographic region of Gilgit-Baltistan, in the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region".
"The reality of the situation is that one of Pakistan's administrative territories is Gilgit–Baltistan."- That's only partial reality. There is more to it than that (which I have talked about already above). And not mentioning the other side of the dispute is censorship and not neutral. Kindly again read what I wrote. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"It is only disputed by India."
- what does that supposed to mean? Of course it's India that disputes it. So? Does it not merit a mention? "(
United Nations) for instance is neutral on the matter"
- yes of course the UN is neutral and that is why even World Bank declined to provide loan for the construction of Diamir-Bhasha dam because of its disputed status. That is all the more reason to provide the reader with the information about the conflict. We ought to be neutral too. —
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 11:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Chitkara, M. G. (2003).
Combating terrorism. New Delhi: APH Publ. Corp. p. 288.
ISBN
8176484156.
",
[27],
Google scholars,
[28], there are numerous other sources.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 11:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)P.S. I would like to point to constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir in India based on that we may also modify the language further. Again these are not exactly germane to our current topic. "Jammu and Kashmir" should be discussed elsewhere. Kindly don't digress from our current topic. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"What status India gives to Jammu and Kashmir does not negate the international designation of the region" - it matters a lot as far as Indian POV is concerned, don't say it doesn't matter. But I never said I was opposed to J&K changes, did I? Why the heck do you want to create unnecessary fuss about that here? No body is opposed to it here. That's why I am wondering why not incorporate a similar and much relevant change in gilgit baltistan article? What is the matter with you? J&K is not directly relevant here. And we have reached some sort of consensus ( which doesn't have to be unanimous). Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"the territorial status of GB deserves ideally no more than one sentence in the lead and that too in the second or third paragraph." — do you really believe that the thing that makes GB-sector (of Kashmir) a matter of Global concern doesn't merit more than one line in the article?! Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Mr. T's arguments are really strange, especially considering the apparent double standard of the lead of Jammu and Kashmir, which unproblematically refers to it as a "state of India". Also, he uses the term "military occupation" incorrectly, since there is an autonomous civilian administration in GB.
Also, make no mistake, to tar GB with the "Kashmir" brush, whether in the lead or not, is to tacitly accept some Indian POV. Pakistan only designates part of the disputed territory, Azad Kashmir (to be reunited with "Jammu and Kashmir") as "Kashmir". The indigenous Shias and Baltis of GB don't like to be under Kashmiri control, and successfully fought for devolution.
India also claims that certain territory of China is part of "Kashmir", although neither China or Pakistan accept this. The point is that while the world may recognize that there is a "Kashmir dispute", there is far less agreement on the scope of this dispute, and whether it applies to peripheral areas like GB, whose self-determination is denied by Indian claims. This controversy is why mention of GB's disputed status (as opposed to Azad Kashmir's status) should come second, not first. Shrigley ( talk) 17:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Qwyrxian and Shrigley. Irrelevant to what India, the UN, or others think, the territory is fully controlled by Pakistan, who claim it, and has been for quite a while. The reality is that it is part of Pakistan, and the wording shouldn't be subject to whatever individual editors think about the implications of eternal legal right or truth or some such. There's more to this territory than just a dispute. CMD ( talk) 13:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"Gilgit Baltistan (formerly known as the Northern Areas) of Pakistan, is a self-governed region in the north of Pakistan. It is governed through a representative government and an independent judiciary." Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
″The region of Gilgit-Baltistan is the Pakistani-administered
[or replace administered with better word if you can]
territory/sector of the Kashmir region that is subject to a long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan.″
@Vecrumba: You're again right. "De facto" is an euphemism for "no indisputable evidence exists" or something like "not ordained by law". Hence we cannot use "de facto" anything to describe the official status of a place; either it's disputed or it's not. In this case the former is true. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Jesus I get tired of POV editors complaining about "censorship" on Wikipedia just because everything is not worded just exactly the way they want it to be. Nobody's censoring anything. As I have said before, the material can be covered later in the lead. Everything doesn't have to be jam-packed in the first graf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Reedy ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 April 2013
Is it neutral to show the Portal:India on the see-also section of Gilgit-Baltistan (see the ugly edit war in that article recently)? GB is not administered by India neither does it belong to India per WP:NPOV, yet a bunch of nationalist Indians are eager and over-the-top zealous to add Indian POV. Even Mrt3366 has started dancing to the tune; it's amazing how he opposes GB being called a territory of Pakistan (when it is) because it's Pakistani POV according to him and yet he has no qualms about adding Indian POV to the article? Talk about double standards? There is no moral equivalence between Pakistani POV and Indian POV in the case of Gilgit-Baltistan, because it is administered by the former and not the latter - hence, it is the Pakistani POV that should prevail, whether anyone likes it or not.
One of the POV-warriors who's been part of that edit war ( User:Zeeyanwiki) was enthusiastically opposing my removal of Portal:India from the article on the talk page, accusing me of "aggression" and treating Wikipedia as my "home property" and ironically was the first editor to remove Portal:Pakistan from the see-also section of Jammu and Kashmir which I added as counter-POV. What to say of this POV-pushing by nationalists? I am aware that there are sanctions imposed on the Afghanistan, Pakistan and India topic area. In my opinion, single-sided POV-pushing like this should be rewarded by instant blocks. Mar4d ( talk) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Pizzicato_(software): I added templates for neutrality and primary sources and a user, whose username indicates association with the article, has repeatedly removed them. I attempted discussion on the talk page and have been ignored so far. I also warned the individual about edit wars and am now stepping back to allow WP moderators to deal with it. I'm pretty new myself, so I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this notification. If not, please educate me! Plays88keys ( talk) 20:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems to have endemic POV issues - and an editor now has been trying to add specific corporations as being part of it, although the sources used make no claim about them being part of a "prison-industrial complex" and thier articles made no such claim until he added it to their articles. I suggested that he needed consensus to add such material per WP:BRD, but was rebuffed, alas. More eyes would be useful to assure adherence to policies and guidelines, and maybe even get the POV reduced a tad. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Several articles were created [29] by an editor User:BengaliHindu where some articles like 2013 Canning riots didn't follow a neutral point of view. I tried to clean-up by citing from reliable sources but this was reverted by the user & some other ip. The difference is here [30]. May be i'm wrong but it may also possible that such articles were created per Islamophobia. I believe Wikipedia should be free from personal feelings or views and articles on sensitive topics need extra care to maintain a NPOV. Best Regards, Mrwikidor ←track 17:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems an odd sort of article - it uses an acronym, and lists a slew of cases, but the sources do not use the acronym nor the term Strategic lawsuit against public participation. I wonder if this is a neologism-push where OR and SYNTH is used to connect disparate cases to promote a legal theory. The states described as having "anti-SLAPP legislation" appear to have laws not referring to this concept at all, but only to aspects which have always been problematic in law. The legal cases cited for other nations also appear not to involve use of this term or any similar term. Opinions thereon should surely be of value. Collect ( talk) 00:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
The article Khalsa has this sentence in the intro:
I had removed it earlier, but Vickle1777 (now blocked as a sockmaster) and Jujhar.pannu kept adding it back. I discussed this and several other problems at Talk:Khalsa. However, Jujhar.pannu insists that this statement should be allowed in the intro since it's supported by a reference. No luck at WP:THIRD, so dropping a note here. utcursch | talk 00:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the context of the complete argument I would like to add what I originally wrote, "The first part is basically saying the Khalsa is the ultimate end point of devoted Sikhs which is imporant because people of little knowledge may not be familiar with the context, the next part is a quote and quotes can say whatever they want as long as they are referenced and relevent to the topic. Quotes may only be removed with benift if something better is used in its point. If the user feels the word pinnacle to be subjective I would be alright if the the first statement is changed to - Once a Sikh becomes baptized he is called a Khalsa." Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 08:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The other editors persistently keep telling me I'm trying to push my POV into this article. My talk page proposals either get ignored or they are used to call me a pov pusher. To give an example:
There are hundreds of researchers involved. As of 2008 we have peer reviewed cold fusion complete with replications. Most of the article is sourced on Pons and Fleischmann, who are just 2 of them. You don't notice it at first sight but for example reference numbers: 19, 41, 44, 61, 68, 100, 130, 133, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156 and 157 all point at a single book published in 1991.
Because the elaborate Pons and Fleischmann coverage is basically good content, I propose to create a separate article about the initial P&F press release. With over 300 reliable sources there cant be any question about notability. When creating such article it should always reflect the same scientific consensus as the main article. I know this perfectly well, I'm an ip editor not allowed to edit the article and there is a huge cold fusion police force watching the article like a hawk.
This is not a question if the article should be split but if I have the right to propose it.
The responses:
As the first response this is fair enough. Between these POV acusations I keep explaining Article spinouts:""Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."
It is suggest I'm whitewashing something without edit privileges.
1989 is not recent.
I have no idea what this means.
It may seem that way at first sight but the sources are used to describe things that happened 20 years after their publication without much attribution. It is great for P&F coverage but this is the main article about a science topic.
Between the POV acusations I keep explaining the splitting guidelines.
Fair enough, even said please. But I will get back to this one.
This doesn't seem an important argument for splitting off the excessive coverage. It doesn't even go there? Is it really true that I have to address this argument or else I'm pushing my pov?
This is the whole text in our article dedicated to peer reviewed cold fusion:
I think it is not enough. Am I entitled to such opinion? Am I allowed to propose such split? Because apparently I'm not, the proposal is shut down after 1 day.
I've tried asking 2 other editors for their opinion, neither showed up but I now stand accused of canvassing: [37] and this is now a talk page topic? [38]
This is just one example out of many. I've never managed to produce acceptable content for this article. I've suggested many very sensible improvements. Non of which have ever been accepted. I've seen many new and experienced editors get screamed down and/or banned by these editors.
I'm going to leave for a while now. I'm writing this in case there is anyone who still cares about content. This is the only reason.
bye
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 06:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have any ideas about what could or should be done about these articles List of Christian martyrs and List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian? The first one, List of Christian martyrs, tries to list notable Christian martyrs from all periods and is divided into sections. In the first section "Apostolic Age—1st century", 16 names are listed, of which the death of one, James the Just, is corroborated in a work of secular history, Josephus, and two, James the Great and Stephen, have their deaths described in the New Testament in the book of Acts (although whether they can really be called Christians is highly debatable, there was not a clearly defined Christian identity at that early time, they were a sort of sect of Jews.) The martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are early Christian traditions, though uncorroborated by any independent historical evidence. The rest are made up fabrications from hundreds of years later although this article just flatly states things like "Saint Matthias was stoned and beheaded" and "Saint Luke the Evangelist was hanged" even though if you click on the link "Saint Luke the Evangelist" it takes you to the WP article where it is stated that "Luke died at age 84 in Boeotia"! (when the truth is that no one has the faintest idea when or how he died). In the next section of that article "Age of Martyrdom—2nd to 4th centuries" 17 martyrs or groups of martyrs are listed, again saying things like "Saint Lucy/Lucia, martyred in Syracuse for refusing to marry a pagan suitor" with no indication that this is anything other than undisputed historical fact, when out of those seventeen entries there are seven that have some possible historical facts behind them, the rest,as Professor of Early Christianity Candida Moss has written in a recent book 'The Myth of Persecution were "fabricated out of thin air". The article goes on into more recent times and lists other figures who are undoubtedly historical. It is not right to mix fact and fiction in this way, I have left other remarks on the article talk page. The second article List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian is if anything a bit worse as it lists some seventy names and the WP article Diocletianic Persecution says from all the many stories of martyrs at that time "only those of Agnes, Sebastian, Felix and Adauctus, and Marcellinus and Peter are even remotely historical" so that's six out of some seventy or so that may have some truth to them, although even those are questionable and have been highly embellished, but the "list" article not only states flatly that all these saints were killed at that time but even gives exact dates and places for their supposed martyrdoms, for instance "Eulalia of Barcelona (February 12, 303, Barcelona)" - their saint's day being assumed as the day they were killed, the year I can only imagine that whoever created this article ( by a google search according to the talk page) just made it up. Really these articles are not just presenting fiction as fact, they are lies. I have tagged them both for accuracy and neutrality and left messages on the article talk pages, but I don't know what steps to take - try to move them to List of (legendary) Christian martyrs mixed in with real ones and List of Christians supposedly killed during the reign of Diocletian, according to ridiculous old made up stories, except for three or four that might have some truth to them, who knows? Nominate them for deletion? Go through and mark every one as invention except for the tiny handful that may have a kernel of truth? And then I suppose you would have to have a source for every one saying that there is not any truth to that story, and who knows how long that would take. But I do feel it is just intolerable for WP to be presenting these old fabrications as truth. Can anyone suggest anything? Smeat75 ( talk) 04:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Algeria#Listing_French_name_in_lead_in_Algeria_article there is a debate over whether French names should be listed in articles about Algeria (for instance, "Algèrie" for Algeria and "Alger" for Algiers).
In Languages of Algeria I did extensive work on chronicling the language situation. On one hand Modern Standard Arabic (which is different from spoken Algerian Arabic) is official and French is not official, and in the past the Algerian government attempted to eradicate French from use in society by enacting government policies that would remove French. Unlike Tunisia and Morocco Algeria is not a part of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
On the other hand, as shown by the CIA World Factbook and other sources, French is the lingua franca of Algerian society and is still extensively used in the business and technology sectors in society. Senat.fr says that Algeria has the second largest French-speaking community in the world. Recently the Algerian government has reintroduced French into the education system. While some Algerian government agencies are Arabized (they only use MSA Arabic) others are not (the agencies make documents in French, and provide MSA Arabic translations). The documents submitted to United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names and the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names from the Algerian government used French, and the government used French in almost all of its conferences.
There is an undercurrent of divisions in society. The sources I used say that bilingual Arabic-French is promoted by upper class and secular elements of Algerian society, while Arabic only was often promoted by Islamists. Also, the elites in Algeria at one time had their own kids learn French while others learned Arabic, making an "elite closure" that only gave the best jobs to those who spoke French.
Anyway, in terms of POV, knowing that there is a conflict over how important French should be in society, what is the NPOV solution? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Narendra Modi is a controversial Indian politician running for the Hindu Nationalist BJP party -considered by some to be a likely candidate for the next Indian Primeminister. The lead of the article currently doesn't mention the political stances of either MOdi or the party he is a leader of, and it only gives the Hindi names of the parties - without supplying even the English translation nor the political platform. When I tried to insert mention of his politics, as neutrally worded as I could, it was removed without explanation. And the article now again does not mention anything about his politics. I think it might be worth it to keep some eyes on the article as it seems it may become a likely problem area with the upcoming Indian elections. It is nwt claimed on the talk page that it is undue weight to mention his political stance or to describe the political platform of his party in the lead. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This article has had a low-level POV problem for years, with negative views on her minimised. However, after an 800-strong party in Glasgow in celebration of her death], and another in Brixton, amongst others, and even some MPs speaking out in celebration of her death. ( [39]). This is is not normal, but all criticism of her is being systematically removed. The miners hated her, and still hate her. [40], [41].
At the moment, the artocle contains meaningless platitudes by Cameron and Milliband, and doesn't mention the controversy.
The simple fact is, Thatcher is widely hated. Not by everyone, of course. But by presenting positive views and censoring the negative, we hide the controversy of one of the most divisive and controversial PMs of British history. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 22:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with JohnKAnderson. "That's what blogs are for" should sum up my opinion on this. Too many people try to use Wikipedia to further their personal agenda rather than having anything substantial and encyclopedic to contribute. No offense to the folks above but this has been my general observation on this project. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 04:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have the content background to start a meaningful discussion on the talk page, but as a passer-by looking for information hoo boy is Steinberger (regarding the instrument manufacturer of the same name) far off NPOV once it gets to "history and production". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.105.44 ( talk) 02:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Steven Crowder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In Steven Crowder's article, the alleged assault against him was included, and he attempted to press charges against the other party.
Despite video of the incident, and the Union Spokesman himself condemning the violence and the acknowledged trampling of a tent by union protestors that belonged to a group Steven Crowder is affiliated with, the Prosecutor dropped all charges against union members, and refused to charge the ones involved in this alleged assault.
The dispute is that some think it is sufficient to say only that the charges were dropped, which leaves the impression they charges were completely without merit (that's usually the reason charges are dropped against the will of the complainant). Others believe that mentioning that the prosecutor was endorsed by the unions provides critical context, as well as treating him with the same standards as all the other players by being transparent with his affiliations.
However, it is misleading to omit the information that he is endorsed by them, which he displays prominently in his campaign material. Including it lets the reader decide, with complete, relevant information and full context on both parties' affiliations.
There have been multiple attempts to resolve this on the "talk" page by rewording, deleting the actual name of the union and using the generic noun, rearranging words within the sentence, separating the sentences completely to further any possibility of a suggestion of cause and effect, with no counter-compromises being offered nor any discussions of the compromises proposed as is suggested in the guidelines for resolution.
Thank you, JohnKAndersen ( talk) 05:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
It's done more in the interest of full disclosure and transparency. Many would find nothing wrong with his endorsements. Fine. They can draw their own conclusions, I do not want to make them for them. But leaving as it is implies the charges were frivolous (there were documented physical injuries). Additionally, I don't think the Prosecutor's home page where he lists his endorsements, and the union page that proudly endorses him, is "digging up tangentially related facts". And it certainly can't be considered irrelevant. Selective omission to steer the reader to a particular conclusion is not NPOV, providing a readily (actually the primary biographical fact, often before his party affiliation) simple, provable fact from reliable sources is harmless, where selectively omitting a fact that is so clearly part of the story leaves a gaping hole in the article's integrity, not to mention POV issues.From the guidelines, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority AND significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." JohnKAndersen ( talk) 10:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
Meanwhile another editor has dropped in from time to time, made proclamations, edited arbitrarily while we were working on consensus, then announced they are done and leaving with no compromising. To make it perfectly clear, once again, I am NOT suggesting that there should be a link made between the Prosecutor and the unions charges being dropped and/or not brought. Simply as part of contextual info of a major public figure in this event, including that he is endorsed, since this entire article is ABOUT the union protests, just as the alleged assaulter had his union affiliation immediately pointed out, Crowder's conservative affiliations pointed out, I think it's worth merely mentioning the person's affiliations who at this point is attempting to end the issue. Additionally, his political affiliations, being an elected official, should never be hidden. At least in the normally used form of "(D)".
I do not understand a clear and concerted effort to to include every negative statement about Crowder, even if they are conjectural, but refusal to include relevant, provable, biographical facts about the person who refused to press charges and who conjectured about Croweder's intentions. It is NECK DEEP in POV; presenting only one side of the case rather than the balanced approach that is expected by an encylopedic source and the consensus procedure. The reliable sources issue is specious as it is on both the Prosecutor's website and the union's website, pointed on in numerous articles, etc. As far as what his opinion about the video (opinions I thought were to be excluded? We can't include the other side's opinions? Crowder's quotes about the union and why he is pressing charges and about the Prosecutor? To truly make it "facts only", saying "he refused to press charges" would keep it "facts only", since the rest of it is HIS interpretation, dripping with sarcasm, and his opinion alone. That carries absolute zero weight in court, just keeps it out of court for now; he would not be a witness to offer his subjective point of view.
So we're back to just facts. The problem on the talk page has been an extreme lack of compromise and assumption of good faith that is clearly spelled out in the guidelines about coming to consensus, for instance, offering different ideas that INCLUDE everyone's input and that everyone can agree with. As it is, it is worded to imply that the charges were without merit (in one man's totally objective opinion we are led to believe). THAT'S why including his affiliation, just like everyone else's in the article is noted, would balance and give sufficient information for a reader to decide on their own which scenario is more likely. Without it, misleading by omission results.
There were other details from reliable sources about people being injured in the tent collapse admittedly caused by the union protesters, among other details. One by one these were deleted to imply they caused no violence, even by their own admissions, which puts more weight to the Prosecutor's decision. "No one was hurt, not laws broken,right?" Wrong. They even pleaded guilty to FELONIES. There also were death threats, racial epithets, etc. All deleted to remove context of what led to the altercation (and the charges) that involved Crowder defending the tent that contained heating stoves, a food vendor with cooking appliances, women and elderly volunteers; all deleted to imply that the charges against the protesters had no merit. Going by the video alone and ignoring all the eye-witnesses, even from union members supporting Crowder's version of events not considered (or ignored). I think with the context of the protest in regard to Crowder. For anyone to make an informed opinion about this subject, I STRONGLY encourage you to watch the UNEDITED version on the article which supports the threats, intimidation, people crawling out from a collapsed tent, etc (sometimes from multiple angles). As always, I'm open for compromise to include everyone's input; the edits made now destroy the painstaking progress made over weeks and months (the polar opposite of consensus). JohnKAndersen ( talk) 03:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
"On Dec. 6 — the first of the two days of major protests — eight people were arrested and charged with felonies in Ingham County’s 54A District Court, because they attempted to rush the Senate floor. All of them pleaded GUILTY in February to a misdemeanor charge and are scheduled to be sentenced in September."
"The three individuals arrested during the massive right-to-work protests at the Capitol on Dec. 11 won’t face criminal charges, Ingham County prosecutors have decided."
"After being made aware of the miscommunication and reviewing the criminal statute this past week, (Dunnings' Chief Asst DA) McCormick said prosecutors couldn’t find a crime that fit this particularly case...“We’re denying all the charges,” she said today."
"The determination means that ALL FORMAL CHARGES formal criminal charges stemming from (all of) the right-to-work demonstrations in December have been resolved." (Emphasis added)
That is just one reliable source of the Prosecutor's office dismissing ALL charges by ALL union members at this protest, even those that had been arrested and charged with felonies. This article includes about a dozen, even some who had pleaded guilty, but there are other RS articles with additional detail. (Btw, the legislators in the article ARE identified by party affiliation.) This should satisfy "second sources" of incidents and connections to the union from the Prosecutor.
And I'm not even suggesting including this information in the article...ONLY that he is simply endorsed by the local unions. So, does there need to be a whole new section included that shows this entire history in order to include that simple affiliation?
I'm sorry, but the two of you don't seem to be reading what is being written. If you want to mention that Dunning has been supported or endorsed by unions, in any article other than one about Dunning himself, you need to show a source that mentions Dunning's union connections in that context. We don't need sources about Dunning dismissing charges against union members, and we don't need sources about Dunning being supported by unions - rather, we need one single source that mentions the union association in connection with the dismissals. Anything else is original synthesis at worst, and utterly irrelevant at best. The neutral point of view is not about "presenting both sides", or coming to a compromise every time editors disagree with each other. The neutral point of view is entirely about sticking to what reliable sources have mentioned, in context. When you invent a new side to a story, you are violating the neutral point of view. The only "sides" we care about, the only points of view that make it into an article, are the ones discussed in reliable sources. Someguy1221 ( talk) 06:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, if we want to suggest, even with a nudge and a wink, that a public official has discharged their duties in any way that is less than proper, we need, as a bare minimum, strong and unambiguous sourcing that makes the same allegation. That would include a situation where a judge/proseuctor is alleged to have dealt with a case based on anything other than his understanding of the facts and the law. There's really no wriggle room on this one. Formerip ( talk) 12:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've carefully avoided reading this article to see which union you are talking about, since my own affiliations are a matter of public record. The point is that your belief that the endorsement of this politician (which is not the same as an affiliation with that union) by a union is relevant to the article, is original research and synthesis, and has no place here, per WP:NOR (not to mention our constraints on BLPs). -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, it seems as if we have come to an equitable compromise and the page is all the better, and more accurate, for it. The NAME of the union was never an intended addition. There were several "opinion", POV statements made about the main subject, Crowder, that made it seem like it was appropriate to include information that didn't leave the reader with a very slanted view. Now that those have been removed, and "just the facts" type statements made, alternate NPOV quotes replacing opinion-tainted ones, there is much less feeling to give "the other side" in order to balance. So even though the Prosecutor who has a log history of union "issues" as you see in the links above, affiliations to them are NOT included, but anyone going to his website or reading the he released even those who had pleaded guilty can draw their own conclusions which are quite clear. This idea that overpowering and incontrovertible evidence is irrelevant is naive. Just because he isn't video-taped taking a bag with a $ sign on it doesn't mean that certain repeated, targeted, specific actions are irrelevant. People have been convicted of murder with less evidence than some editors require when they are either A)Biased or B)Stubborn and refuse to admit they MIGHT be wrong purely out of spite or pride, even when they agree in "talk" sections. In any case, the page now is much approved, thank everyone very much that offered constructive input, and I feel the two most involved editors have reached consensus....hallelujah! JohnKAndersen ( talk) 03:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
Please review these deletions. I do not believe they are neutral. Thank you. EllenCT ( talk) 09:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an issue as to whether putting psychoanalysis in the pseudoscience category would be an issue of NPOV. As far as I can tell, if reliable sources criticize an article for being pseudoscience it should be listed. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 09:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I took a stroll through Category:Pseudoscience, and what I notice is that literally every article I saw is on a subject that is widely recognized as pseudoscience. For the purpose of consistency with how the category is used, it seems that a small if significant accusation that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience should not necessarily place it in that category. To quote from the category itself, "This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth). The pejorative term itself is contested by various groups for various reasons." Again, I don't think psychoanalysis fits the bill here. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
My statement is here. I think this category is highly POV. Not only in this article. It displays a narrow unterstanding of philosophy of science. CartoonDiablo is a user I can't take seriously anymore. He fights the psychoanalysis by using dreadful arguments and reveals a minor understanding of scientiffic fields and the wikipedia. I think, he should banned for this an other POV-wars. -- WSC ® 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Scientific sources that considered the field pseudoscience:
Scientific sources that considered Freudian theory pseudoscience but that it was useful in appropriating concepts for modern usage.
CartoonDiablo ( talk) 19:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We have an Arbcom decision that has already decided this matter, so this thread needs to be closed. If you question that, then discuss it in the appropriate section below. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Just so you all know where I am coming from: My personal opinion on psychoanalysis is that it is clearly a pseudoscience, though for historical and sociological reasons it is not generally recognised as such. At this point it is not clear what will happen. There are some encouraging signs that it might mature into a proper science, but it is certainly possible that it will be generally seen as a pseudoscience before that happens.
But here is my analysis as to the pseudoscience category and the psychoanalysis article:
Conclusion: Though the criticism of psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience is highly notable and relevant, according to long-standing principles which were developed with an eye to this special case, this is not sufficient to put its article into the pseudoscience category. Hans Adler 12:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
When all is said and done -- nothing that is not "empirically provable" is "science." Religion is "not science". Numerology is "not science". Economics is "not science." Philosophy is "not science" and virtually anything to do with how or why people act as they do is "not science." Labelling any such as "pseudo-science" is, moreover, of no real value to anyone. Why not restrict the term and label to such things as someone might reasonably expect to be "hard science" which is empirically disproven as being of value? Thus stopping a huge amount of useless discussion and drama on Wikipedia. (BTW, since no one really claims Astrology to be "science" the label "pseudoscience" is pretty useless, folks.) Collect ( talk) 21:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Where to start? Maybe the removal of the category and list article, as suggested?
"Pseudoscience" is a declaration and list-gathering editing style on a slippery slope that has slid too far without preserving Wikipedia's voice. Eturk001 ( talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the general case of whether or not there should be a category of pseudoscience makes the individual case moot.
So, because it's not clear to the causal Wikipedia reader what pseudoscience means and because we cannot include that definition on the same page as the article on the pseudoscience, it should be removed. The category being perjorative makes this very important. Can someone PM me when this is being considered please.
Secondly, from personal experience of hanging around skeptics (one being Derren Brown, to namedrop), criticising woo woo stuff can become a pastime, even a profitable one. I'd cite Dawkins as a well-known example (I prefer Randi who prefers to let science do the talking). Whether or not this attempt to classify psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience is motivated by an anti-psychoanalysis POV, I suspect there is a widespread vested interest in abusing this term. We all know that Wikipedia is subject to edit wars when there is any vested interest. To allow this categorisation to continue would be to waste thousands of hours of Wikipedians' time.
For some of the same reasons, I want to add that we need clear guidelines on relevant pages (perhaps WP:MEDRS?) on the use of perjorative terms like pseudoscience, as it is featured in the lead of Psychoanalysis and probably dozens of other articles. From WP:LABEL, they are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." WykiP ( talk) 11:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the position to not use the PS category for psychoanalysis, but that decision is based on the PS Arbcom. Otherwise psychoanalysis is often described/labeled/characterized as pseudoscience, but that doesn't override the Arbcom decision for using the PS "category" on the article. The Arbcom decision still allows ("requires"... as always ) us to follow the sources, and thus psychoanalysis is listed at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. We do document that it is often characterized as pseudoscience, which is not the same as categorizing or classifying it as an absolute pseudoscience. We just document that RS have done so. That doesn't settle the issue at all. Whether it is or is not is another matter entirely. We just follow the sources.
Here is the box used to notify of the PS Arcom decision:
Note the first two of the four groupings allow for using the PS Category, but psychoanalysis falls in the third grouping ("questionable science") and we must not use the Category for it. It is even mentioned as an example! We can (and must) still document that some RS (of many types, including scientific skeptics) do call it a pseudoscience. Some of those RS are very notable and controversial, but we still use them, even if we don't like them. That's the Wikipedian way.
BTW, attempts to defend pseudoscientific subjects and fight against the use of the term pseudoscience have been such a problem that the Arbcom has special "discretionary sanctions" which can be applied to such editors:
In July 2008 the Arbitration committee issued a further ruling in the case reported above: Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
So....beware. Editors have been banned or blocked very quickly, and any admin can do it.
As far as pejorative terms, Wikipedia is uncensored and we don't care a flying hoot whether a term is pejorative or not, the only exception being in BLPs. There we are a bit more careful, but even then, if RS use a pejorative term, we use it too, but not in Wikipedia's voice. We use the source's voice, and when doing so we do not censor the source. Editorializing and editorial censorship are very unwikipedian. We must present things in the same manner and spirit as the sources. If a source presents a subject with a bite or punch to it, we try to preserve the source's tone and convey it the way the RS does. Doing otherwise violates proper use of the source and actually misrepresents it. Editors aren't allowed to do that. The same obviously applies if a source is favorable.
We are obviously not required to use pejorative terms when they are unnecessary, but we should not avoid them when they are the proper term to use. We don't exclude any words in the dictionary from coverage here, nor the concepts and controversies associated with them. The deciding factor is how RS use them. There is no question that the word "pseudoscience" is often used in a decidedly pejorative manner. That is something we should document and not shy away from.
This really freaks out believers in those ideas and practices to which the term is applied, and understandably so, but that is of no concern to us. Using the word in the lede at Homeopathy has probably been the biggest battle of this type. Every true believer and quack has tried to get it deleted, but because it is one of the most notable examples of grossly pseudoscientific piffle, and myriad RS describe it as pseudoscience, we document that fact and don't hide it. (It appears that the quacks have succeeded at getting it deleted from the lede at present, but the article is still in the category, which is proper.)
We cannot whitewash Wikipedia articles out of concern for the feelings of such people. We are not allowed to censor reality to appease the feelings of readers or believers in pseudoscience. We must objectively document "the sum total of human knowledge," which is the primary goal of Wikipedia. All existing encyclopedias have been censored, but this is a totally different encyclopedia. Everything notable gets covered here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the arbcom is a instance of wikipedia "to act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" The don't have the competence to resolve such contentual questions. Thats what they have done. They decided user banns. I've read the request for arabitration but I can find only sanctions of users. A large phrase is crossed out. I can't find any repercussions to ore discussion here. -- WSC ® 09:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)