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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
The section British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs was deleted by user:pluto2012. In my opinion , this deletion is offending these 2 rules:
Although user:pluto2012 was asked for specifics few times, he didn't provide any error or biased detail, and instead he repeats that in general this section is one sided, without any proof. Even if it was correct, he should have amended a supposedly balancing note, and not completely removing it.
The user:pluto2012 repeatedly tells me that I am not capable, which is a considered_to_be_a_personal_attack:
for Pluto2012, this is not the first time to be involved in editing wars. Under his previous nickname ceedjee , I assume he that he got sanctioned because of such wars.
I will appreciate it, if the section deletion will be reversed, and the user pluto2012, would receive a warning.
Ykantor ( talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
N.B if one is interested, here are more citations that proves the section to be correct and objective. Ykantor ( talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Ive removed a couple of posts here that have absolutely nothing to do with the content of an article. There is more in the first comment. As to the question, I largely agree with Itsmejudith's comment on the talk page, that being The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Accusations of vandalism should be preceded by the person first reading WP:VANDALISM, and accusations of edit-warring shouldnt be made by a user restoring material over the objections of the majority of the talk page participants. Other than that, keep the discussion here on topic please, that topic being if the material violates NPOV. nableezy - 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello again!
Previously we discussed Algeria in Archive 39, and the conclusion was that if a language is "important" it should be included in the infobox/lead. Summary: In Algeria there are more secular/liberal groups who approve of Arabic-French bilingualism in society while more Arabist and Islamist figures approve of Arabic-only usage in society. The government officially declares itself to be Arabic only (with Berber as a national language), and it had not joined the Francophonie (association of French speaking countries). However French is still in use as the primary language in non-Arabized government ministries (the government has been unable to completely phase out French and it has since stopped trying to completely eliminate it). The total count of French speakers (33% of the population can read and write in French as of 2008) gives Algeria the second largest French-speaking population in the world. There is a full account (to which I have contributed) at Languages of Algeria.
Based on Archive #39 I concluded that the NPOV solution was to include French, and no further posts came after my announcement on the WikiProject page, so it signaled consent.
I asked him to re-read Archive 39 and to explain how excluding French would satisfy the NPOV requirement. I would like for him to come on here and try to reconcile his position with the NPOV requirement.
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point this article out, as it is horribly non-neutral, as two editors who have edited this article almost exclusively have taken to adding an absurd amount of negative information about the subject. Grsz 11 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have some major NPOV and sourcing issues, and could use some more eyes on it to make sure it does not stray into BLP violation territory. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
No substance, Paul B. Please elaborate and cite sources if you disagree with the article. Newuser2111 ( talk) 18:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no POV pushing. Please provide specific examples. Forced Adoption is taking place in the UK and the citations reflect that. Stop removing whole sections of the article without justifying the reasoning behind this in the talk page. I am willing to discuss edits to the page but do not just remove sections you disagree with. Newuser2111 ( talk) 18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
An RFC has been created for the resolution of the inappropriate removal of detailed, long-term content on a Rail Project page covering the interlocking at Brighton Park.
Brighton_Park_crossing Damotclese ( talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
We need to have a couple of editors taking a close look at this: The Timeline of the Syrian civil war, namely the Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013) but also others, seem to have a major neutrality issue. Most of the information given is directly taken from the mouth of the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCC) and that of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). These two organizations, however, are aligned to the Syrian opposition, rendering this timeline to barely more than a rebel newsfeed turned to a Wikipedia article. Casuality figures, for example, are copied over from LCC which calls Syrian opposition combatants routinely "martyrs", then "martyrs" is changed to something more neutral like opposition fighters and voilà the information appears wikified, objectified. I am aware that independent, neutral information on the ground is hard to get by, but right now whole timelines seem to be relying largely on rebel propaganda outlets. IMO to the extent that they may be beyond repair and should be deleted and reworked from scratch. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A daily death toll is fine. It is perfectly acceptable to add the Syrian government's daily death toll too. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the latest part of the timeline, you will see sentences like "The LCC reported XX people killed by the Syrian army". However, the source does not say that these people were killed by the army. I have removed tons of such propaganda from previous pages, but the most active author, Sopher99, still keeps adding this bullshit. Anyone needs more evidence that the page serves propaganda purposes? -- Emesik ( talk) 16:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone might want to check on this article. Particularly the lead section. 96.55.20.179 ( talk) 05:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I have begun an RfC on the question of whether it is bias to describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. Please comment at Talk:Elizabeth II#Infobox. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I just by chance ran across the Fregoli delusion article because I heard it mentioned elsewhere. And I ran across the explanatory picture shown in the article, which was added in this edit by User:Quasar45. Normally, I would go and talk with the editor about it, but this edit in May was the only one they've made since (and the previous edit to it was two months prior).
Now...is it just me or does it seem like this is trying to push a political point? I mean, I think most of us have seen this picture around, but its exact context is people comparing Barack Obama with George W. Bush and trying to make a political point on their policies. It doesn't seem very appropriate or neutral to include in an article unrelated to the political subject, even if it is a potential representation of Fregoli delusion.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use, say, that one image made a while back that was an approximation of a person that had the average features of everyone on Earth? Silver seren C 22:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Concerns for an early Mars sample return ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was split/forked from Mars sample return mission. I am unconvinced whether it is feasible to write a neutral article about this topic (similar to a "Criticism of..." article), as so far it seems to focus on negative concerns about said mission without much balance (I get the impression that the overall scientific community is more enthusiastic about a Mars SRM than this article implies). Involved parties notified of discussion. VQuakr ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
RECOMMENDATION 10:
Considering the global nature of the issue, consequences resulting from an unintended release could be borne by a larger set of countries than those involved in the programme. It is recommended that mechanisms dedicated to ethical and social issues of the risks and benefits raised by an MSR are set up at the international level
and are open to representatives of all countries.
Moreover, the discovery of independent viral growth outside a host cell, under acidic hyperthermophilic conditions, indicates that viruses are more complex biologically than the scientific community has previously assumed.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12576&page=32
Okay - so I tried the following on the notability noticeboard and they recommended that I try the reliable sources noticeboard and they said sent me here with the following!
Both quotes make up the entirety of the Anti-pornography movement section of the article on Pornography in the United States. Although to me it reads like a "Criticism of the anti-pornography movement".
A couple of months ago I posted a couple of message templates looking for an expert on "non-violence" to advise on two citations in an article on
Pornography in the United States (the Anti-pornography movement section). I also started two discussion threads
here and
here.
Thinking about it since, the matter is probably more of a reliable sources issue concerning:
Content (refs 45 and 46) (b) Another matter, which frequently circulates in American anti-pornography movement is a close bond of pornography with rape. According to a 2006 paper, Porn Up, Rape Down, by Northwestern University Law Professor Anthony D’amato, "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85 per cent in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults".Recognizing that the Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence, D'amato concludes that "the reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence". D'amato suggests there are two predominant reasons why an increase in the availability of pornography has led to a reduction in rape. First, using pornographic material provides an easy avenue for the sexually desirous to "get it out of their system". Second, D'amato points to the so-called "Victorian effect". It dates back to the British Victorian era where people covered up their bodies with an immense amount of clothing, generating a greater mystery as to what they looked like naked. D'amato suggests that the free availability of pornography since the 1970s, and the recent bombardment of internet pornography, has de-mystified sex, thus satisfying the sexually curious.[46] I would be grateful if other editors would take a look. |
-- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help)This article is missing information about the anti-pornography movement in the United States. |
I have serious concerns about the NPOV of this page and think it needs to be merged with something else such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonization
There is a problem with one editor attempting to dominate the page with a certain ethnic POV about some great injustice done to those who spoke a Ruthenian language and where not at least bilingual Polish speakers. He is promoting a POV that Poland had some moral or legal obligation to continue the Hapsburg model of education that left the Hapsburg empire trailing Germany industrially. He refuses to acknowledge that Poland's policy of one national language was in the national interest of modernization and industrialization, that it opened educational opportunities to minorities in all Polish universities and polytechnical schools nationwide, and that Poles who had been educated in German, or Russian were also adversely affected by this policy.
Although the page is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland, he wants to discuss how other former Hapsburg nationals educated their Ruthenian populations, while ignoring the affects of the single language educational policy in Poland effected other ethnic groups in the Second Polish Republic. If we are to start comparing Poland's educational system linguistically with regard to the rest of Europe, it would need to include Germany where the Pomerianan language is now extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 ( talk) 14:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The work cited by Radziejowski was first published in Communist Poland in 1976 before making its way West into an English translation in 1983: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0920862241/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155 (The translation is not a revised edition, nor is a translation of book from a foreign language by university press an endorsement that the content is accurate.) The comment is only used as introductory or background information, and is simply repeating Communist era propaganda against the Second Polish Republic. Nothing published under communism can be considered a reliable source unless it is independently confirmed. The fall of communism has allowed modern historians to reexamine the history of the era. Some here don't want to move away from the official Communist version of history.
According to the quote from Faustian, life was better for Ukrainians in the Soviet Union than it was in the Second Polish Republic. Now better is a subjective term, but considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor occurred in the Ukrainian S.S.R., it defies belief from anyone other than a communist apologist. So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported? You will note the response, or lack thereof, from the editor presently holding the page hostage to his POV.
Jan Gross also disagrees and note that Poles saw "in the marketplace how these Soviet people ate eggs, shell and all, horseradish, beets, and other produce. Country women rolled with laughter" Jan Gross, Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia (2002), pg. 46 We have other contemporary accounts: "All witnesses are unanimous in stating that the Bolshevik troops on entering this part of Poland (which was generally regarded as a poor and backward region) were seized with admiration for the extraordinary wealth and abundance of the country into which they marched. … The women," writes an eye-witness, " wore rags wrapped round their feet or felt slippers, instead of shoes: they brought all their family belongings in one battered suitcase, and sometimes even an iron bedstead. Bedding was not known to them and the luxury of fresh linen was never dreamed of in the Soviet Republic, even by dignitaries and important women commissars. The pick of the Soviets sent out for display to this bourgeois country were ignorant of the simplest arrangements of everyday life. Accustomed to being herded together, they did not understand the superfluous habit of enjoying individual lodgings: bathrooms and kitchens they considered as uncanny inventions, and their way of feeding and housekeeping could - by its extreme misery and primitivity - only make one think of the simplicity of requirements attributed to cave-dwellers." The Soviet Occupation of Poland , Free Europe Pamphlet #3, (1940) edited by Casimir Smogorzewski. http://felsztyn.tripod.com/id15.html
Please note that the term Ruthenian applies to a family of languages which includes Belarussian, Ukrainian, and Rusyn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_language Also note that only Ukrainian Nationalists refuse to recognize Rusyn as a separate language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyn_language
Now what Faustian refers to as “blatant falsification of a source” was in fact moderating POV from a clearly unreliable and dated source. He simply refuses to work collaboratively with others who attempt to edit the page and resorts to labeling anyone with a differing perspective “disruptive”. However, another editor posted the following reply about Ukrainian language instruction in Czechoslovakia “Acc. to Magocsi: "even by the end of the 1930s the general environment in the province [ Carpathian Ruthenia ] was not pro-Ukrainian. This was evident in the results of a kind of referendum carried out in 1937 by the Czechoslovak government among local parents, who were asked which language they wanted for instruction in schools. A majority of schools (73 percent) voted against having their children taught in Ukrainian. The height of Ukrainian propaganda in Subcarpathia was reached in late 1938-early 1939, during the period of autonomous Carpatho-Ukraine. The subsequent period of Hungarian rule revealed, however, that the Ukrainian idea penetrated only a small percentage of young people. In general, Rusyn society remained indifferent to Ukrainian propaganda in 1938-1939, and if anything, felt nostalgia for the previous era of Czechoslovak rule. (...) In 1946 all Rusyns were by force recorded by the Soviet administrative organs as Ukrainian." (Encyclopedia of Rusyn history and culture. 2005. p. 512). Rusyns are recognized as a national/ethnic minority and have separate linguistic status in all the east European states in which they live, except Ukraine - Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, BiH (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Dispute Again you will note the contentious response from Faustian, and how the entire page is being dominated by Faustian, with the concurrence of exactly one other user name, whose purpose appears to be to appear whenever Faustian has one of his many disagreements with other editors to side with Faustian. This page simply lacks anything approaching a NPOV.
In conclussion, using Soviet era Communist propaganda from a 1976 communist publication is not a NPOV and it is the person who insists on employing it who is being disruptive, petty, and narrow minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 ( talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, someone here is ignorant of the difference between a revised or second edition and a censored text. Polish censors would blank out things that could not be published. Things were published with blank white space to show that something had been censored. All that has been stated is that that the original text was published in the West in 1983 with the censored text now published in an English translation. This is not a second edition of anything. Even if the work was published in the West, this individual never appears to have emigrated from the Soviet Bloc at the time and also would have been under pressure to not stray to far from official Soviet history to keep his job. The work dates to 1976 or earlier, and is also dated. It must be again noted that education is not the focus of the work, and the context of the quote is that all things were better for Ukrainians and Belorussians in the Soviet Union than they were in the Second Polish Republic in the interwar period. Now that is an incredible statement considering the mass starvation in Soviet Ukraine, but hey, the food was confiscated by a government that used Ukrainian as an official language. So things must have been better in the U.S.S.R. even if people had to resort to cannibalism of dead family members to survive. Better really depends on one's POV.
So here is the rest of the quote from Janusz Radziejowski: "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries; in terms of employment and wages, Ukrainians and Belarussians were even worse off than they had been in tsarist Russia...”
For this statement to have been true, for Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities to have been worse than in neighboring countries in terms of employment and wages, this would mean that Ukrainians and Belarussians in the Second Polish Republic would have been worse off than those it the Soviet Union. So I have asked Faustian this question: “So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported?”
He has not answered that question. He has given us a link to a discussion about how many died in the Holodomor, from which we may assume that he is now acknowledging that it did occur. Therefore, we must demand that he provide us evidence of a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported. We are waiting...
Lastly, even a respected academic is limited by the information which is available to him. When all that is available to him is official government propaganda, the conclusions which he tdraws from that information are unreliable. This should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, but those who have an agenda refuse to consider common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 ( talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Garbage in, Garbage out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 ( talk) 18:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
A fair comparison of life for Ruthenians in the interwar period in Poland vs. the U.S.S.R. would note that those in the U.S.S.R. had been systematically starved, while in Poland there was relative prosperity, and not the propaganda that has been presented here by you and your Communist era historian without any credible source. They did have options to choose which country in which they wanted to live under the Treaty of Riga and St. Germain. Somehow life in the U.S.S.R. could hardly be considered better by any serious person. But using your sole metric of recognition of Ukrainian as an official language, the thousands of deaths in the Holodomor are irrelevant for comparison. That is your point of view, but most people would consider its effect of those deaths and the effects of malnutrition and psychological effects of cannibalism on the survivors.
Furthermore, it is well noted that the closest thing to a referendum on Soviet rule in the Kresy (Eastern Poland) was when men attempted to vote with their feet and join the Polish army of General Anders. The Soviets refused to permit many who were not ethnic Poles from leaving the U.S.S.R. (Harvey Sarner, Anders and the Soldiers of the Second Polish Corps (1998) pg. 95, 101) So much for how bad things were in the Second Polish Republic. Your myth is busted and so is the communist era propaganda. Of course, Ukrainian nationalists have different heroes: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52209227
The following refutes your claims which you are using to further disrupt participation on this board: “Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry Continue the harassment at your own risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.33.133 ( talk) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Requesting help for RfC at Talk:Race and genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin's argument. Topic has been in dispute for months, please help us resolve it. Thank you. BlackHades ( talk) 12:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we could get a few more sets of eyes on the article about Jim Flaherty (Canada's Finance Minister). Starting almost 2 months ago, huge blocks of uncritical (and sometimes downright fawning) text have been added by a new single purpose account. I see violations of NPOV, OR, undue weight, and reliable sources policies all over the article in its current state. I have tried removing some of this content with thorough explanations on the talk page, but the user does not seem interested in discussion.
Among the specific problems:
There's more, but I don't need to go on forever here; I'll let the article speak for itself.
I'm tempted to revert much of Jmfmo's text as promotional and poorly sourced, to be honest, but I think maybe it would be good if there were more users than just me and Jmfmo paying attention. I'd like to have uninvolved editors check my edits for neutrality, too. I'm curious what others think of the state of the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 22:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor insists on the following language in the lead of the above-named article:
Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) is an American anti-Islam/anti-Muslim organization [1] [2] [3] led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.
- ^ Stephanie Rice (July 28, 2010). "'Anti-Islamic' bus ads appear in major cities". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 31, 2012.
- ^ Carpenter, Mackenzie (September 9, 2010). "Muslim center here copes with increased Islam-bashing". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
- ^ "Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA)". Extremism. Anti-Defamation League. September 14, 2010. Retrieved February 25, 2011.
There are at least two problems with this.
As we can see here, the sources are merely quoting the organization's critics; the are not applying the word "Islamophic" in their own voices. Therefore, in Wikipedia we must attribute the use of the word to whoever originally said it... assuming that such language even belongs in the lead at all, which is highly questionable. Federales 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That might be true, if there were any such scholars. Nobody has presented any such source at this point. Federales ( talk) 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Back to the original NPOV call - the issues were, to summarize, that 1A) using "anti-Islamic" was to introduce a racial-political slur. I argue it would introduce calling a spade what the sources say is a spade; 1B) that piping "anti-Islamic" to "Islamaphobic" violates SURPRISE. If that's REALLY true, my recommendation is to use "Islamaphobic" to pipe to "Islamaphobic", it seems a fair representation. 2) That calling this particular spade what sources say is a spade would use Wikipedia's editorial voice unfairly. This is an organization called a "hate group" by the SPLC and ADL and that went to court for the right to run anti-Islam ads on the subway. It doesn't feel so subtle as all that. EBY ( talk) 04:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV has been in dispute for a long time now. Some Relevant discussions on the subject are:
Archived Discussions
Still Active Discussions
Recently open Discussion to resolve the two NPOV tags on the page
I am posting here because I would like to finally gain consensus over any WP:POV issues. First, I would ask for editors to review the whole article for any WP:POV issues. Second, I would like to gain consensus to remove the two WP:POV tags. Things are at a standstill on the talk page. If editors would give their input to the recent open discussions, it would be helpful. Thank you. Casprings ( talk) 23:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
This substantial new article (created June 16) contains many references and quite a bit of useful material, but it is essentially an essay aiming to convince the reader that "hookups" are a bad thing. The article needs a major pov-cleansing. I would be willing to do some work on it if there are other editors who are willing to get involved, but I don't want to get into a one-on-one dispute with the article creator. (I have also raised the problem on the article's talk page.) Looie496 ( talk) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
North American Union ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi all,
There is a slight disagreement over at
List of Iranian news agencies. I feel that some items should not be added to the list because they're not Iranian and not news agencies, giving the impression that they're just an excuse to link to something controversial. The other editor, of course, disagrees and feels that they're valid additions. Other suggestions would be welcomed.
bobrayner (
talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Modelzone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should the following paragraph be kept or deleted from the lede section of the above article?
According to an analysis of the 2000 census data by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles section of Toluca Lake is an affluent, 71.9% white, domestically stable, older-aged, low-density neighborhood of the city.
The discussion is at Talk:Toluca_Lake,_Los_Angeles#.3D_ARE_YOU_KIDDING_ME.3F_.3D. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the article 2013 St. Louis Cardinals season is not written from a NPOV. For example, the sections "Spring Training" and "Regular Season" just contain small milestones and notes about the team, a section that is NOT on the season pages of other MLB franchises. Not only that, but the sections seem rather biased and many praise the achievements of the Cardinals. I feel this section is unnecessary and not neutral. I'd like to hear what others think. Mpejkrm ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Reebok_insider_trading_case could use some additional eyes. I closed a recent move request there, which shifted the title from being a biography to being about a criminal case. In the ensuing article cleanup efforts, two of the protagonists from the move request are making various accusations of POV pushing. Would welcome additional eyes on this, as it's not obvious what is the most neutral, correct, and complete set of info to include in the article.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said there are no doubts about the facts of the case. Please read any of the multitude of reliable sources and jump right in editing. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the current revision of the article by Factchecker is perfectly good: [ [11]]. The way I read the sources, Pajcin was a rogue Croatian trader who got some help from his friends and family. His aunt and girlfriend let him use their accounts. His Croatian buddies made trades using his info. His high school friend (Smith) gave him grand jury info. His work friend (Plotkin) helped him meet a Merrill banker (Shpigelman) who gave him mergers info and also helped him recruit two warehouse guys (Schuster, Renteria) who gave him Business Week info. In the end, the only info that made any real money was the one Reebok tip from the Merrill guy. Pajcin was arrested and then rolled over on all his buddies and accomplices. Everybody got jail time. The government got the money. As far as insider trading scandals, this is pretty minor. The media coverage was a little all over the place, and it looks like they were mostly reprinting government press releases. The current article cuts to the chase and, to me, looks neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic. Jaytwist ( talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is mostly a plot summary for a movie about Indian socialist freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. The article is extremely biased against the British Empire and attempts to present Singh in a heroic light. The first part that was added earlier is alright although it could be better. The second part though is a problem. It presents inflammatory information such as claiming the bomb Singh and his associates blew up in Parliament was to show that "Bhagat is awakening", the U.K. government maltreated prisoners, a speech that Singh made is "wonderful", many killed or executed freedom fighters are "martyr's" for what they did, and it features a quote that Singh and the other people executed with him supposedly said before being executed. True or not, this is way beyond the bounds of encyclopedic journalism. As well, the page is poorly written. The main user that posted this was IP Address 117.197.25.224 on November 18, 2011 who has never contributed before or since. It is unfeasible to write this on the article talk page because I am sure people won't read it as no one has complained before or even used it except to post templates and copyright notices on a picture used. -- Thebirdlover ( talk) 03:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over the section " Evolutionary psychology defense" which was added by User:Memills. The section consists of a list of books that allegedly contain rebuttals to the criticisms described in the section " Evolutionary psychology#Reception". It is not explained how the critics are wrong and which criticisms are misunderstandings. Instead, it is stated that critics misunderstand evolutionary psychology, period. This was discussed on the article talk page: [12] [13]. I argued that the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" violates WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV because the subsections of the "Reception" section already include specific rebuttals and adding a final blanket rebuttal creates a biased criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure. Two other users, Logic prevails and 121.72.116.250, seemed to agree that the section creates a pro-EP bias.
Btw, the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology has the same problem with excessive "rebuttals": [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I previously opened a request for comments by neutral 3rd parties (see: WP:3). I was hoping that would help to resolve the editing disagreements between myself and Sonicyouth86 ( talk). However, rather than first attempt to work it out there, Sonicyouth86 brings it here. Ok.
First, note the tone of Sonicyouth86 -- highly contentious and confrontive. I ask that Sonicyouth please tone down the rhetoric and ad homenims (as I have already requested repeatedly) -- it is not helpful.
User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· is not unbiased. He has previously shown a self-admitted, strong antipathy toward the field of evolutionary psychology. There is a larger academic debate between the conflicting theoretical paradigms of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology in which he is actively involved.
I stand by the contributions I have made -- they have been made in the interest of accuracy and fairness, as I believe a review will show. I encourage a review of the interchange between myself and Sonicyouth86. (However, a heads up: it is long, drawn out, and highly repetitious.) Memills ( talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Memills is to all intents and purposes a WP:SPA editor on the subject of Evolutionary Psychology and Men's Rights Movement, two topics which appear to be linked philosophically and empirically. I have encountered him on the MRM pages, and have been appalled by the totally unapologetic misuse of sources. Having a POV is one thing, and pushing a point of view is bad enough, but falsifying sources to that end is inexcusable. See this for an example. I am strongly considering a request for arbitration about this editor as the misuse of sources strongly reminds me of the the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance in which an editor was sanctioned for chronic misuse of sources to push a particular point of view. I am unfamiliar with the specific academic and sourcing issues regarding evolutionary psychology. User:Maunus and User:Sonicyouth86, it seems like you may have more expertise in this area. Are there similar patterns of edits which falsify the sources in this area? If so I would be glad to work together to present a case to the Arbitration Committee about this editor. Slp1 ( talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever it is, evolutionary psychology has no particular slant towards the rights of particular groups. I am not quite sure whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues has any legitimacy and whether it should be linked to the article EP as happened here. [27] The other WikiProjects linked on Talk:Evolutionary psychology are what would be expected; however, this addition seems very odd. Mathsci ( talk) 08:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Neutral editor Dailycare ( talk) has responded to my request for a Third Opinion. The response is here. Dailycare ( talk) apparently agrees with me that Sonicyouth86 has misrepresented what the reference sources actually say. Dailycare ( talk) also proposed a compromise solution, which is fine by me. In addition, Leadwind provided a suggestion for compromise on one of the issues here. Memills ( talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we get back to the subject? Is the " Evolutionary psychology defense" which lists books that allegedly contain rebuttals a violation of WP:STRUCTURE (and therefore WP:NPOV) because of the criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure is creates? All criticisms in the article already have "rebuttals" and the section is one more "rebuttal" to unspecified and unmentioned criticisms. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 00:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Having stopped in on the page from time to time, I agree with the assessment that memills WP:OWNS the page. I don't expect this to change without much expensive drama. aprock ( talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the section "Evolutionary psychology defense", which was removed by Dominus vobisdu and restored by Memills, it seems it might not match the sources. Segerstråle's book hardly discusses EP except to explain how it differs from sociobology. It is one of three sources mentioned without specific page numbers to support a sentence concocted by Memills. I have not checked the other two sources (they look as if they're about sociobiology), but the section reads like an essay, the statement of a personal point of view. The statements cannot be verified from the sources at present. The last lengthy quote from a very recent journal blog (11 July) seems WP:UNDUE. As written, this section looks like an attempt to have the last word in a he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said line of reasoning that runs through the article. The relation of the content to the sources is unclear. Mathsci ( talk) 21:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure how to go about this so I though I'd better ask for some help: I have some concerns about the article regarding Hoyts cinemas.
First, let me compare it to articles about other cinema companies in the US and UK; articles for Odeon and AMC, for example; they all clearly outline controversies that surround those companies, such as the lawsuits AMC has been subjected to because of it's ADA access issues. These articles clearly show both positive and negatives aspects of the companies which they are about. The Hoyts article, however, shows only positive things.
Recently, Hoyts was involved in a nation wide scandal when it was discovered that one of their complexes was infested with rodents; I made an edit to the article describing the situation and included two references, including one which linked to a statement by the company itself. Within days, the edit had been reverted and the references removed, by who I don't know.
It appears that someone, or maybe a group of someones, is or are trying to cover up controversial issues involving this company, as well as many other Australian companies. Can something be done about this? If so, what?
-- Klltr ( talk) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Lately there has been more negative press about Small Smiles Dental Centers. Currently the lead mentions the 2010 settlement with the US federal government (At one time it had to pay a settlement to the federal government after accusations of Medicaid fraud, but the chain did not formally admit to wrongdoing), but since new allegations came out in 2013 I would like to mention them in detail in the lead (concerns of quality and doing unnecessary work), and that the accusations are reoccurring, as indicated by reliable sources.
Should I say in the lead "During its history the dental chain has faced accusations of providing unnecessary dental care, improper restraint techniques, and quality of its work"? The improper restraint refers to the use of papoose boards in dentistry for non-emergency patients. The "unnecessary" refers to accusations that the chain is doing dental work that is not necessary.
Thank you WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Prodigalson49 ( talk · contribs) is zealously removing this information, sourced to Ugandan newspapers, about Ezra's various brushes with the law. Interestingly, the user has been editing that article -- and only that article -- for the past three years, and refuses to clarify the nature of his relationship to Ezra. Third opinions, please? Jpatokal ( talk) 08:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor, User:Twobells, has taken to editing the article Danny Nightingale (soldier) to present a POV that there is some sort of official conspiracy being conducted against the recently convicted soldier. This diff and accompanying addition here is the first example. In it the editor commits WP:SYNTH to "prove" Nightingale's allegations of a conspiracy simply because his prosecution continued even after some Mp's questioned it. The key phrase is "a position given credence", an analysis not contained in any of the sources, and not repeated in the media anywhere. I explained this, and how it was a synthesis, to Twobells here.
Eventually, Twobells found an op-ed by Frederick Forsyth which he claims provides the precise analysis requested. He introduced it to the article here with the text: "However, author and journalist Frederick Forsyth considers that undue pressure was placed on Nightingale for reasons unknown, he states that Nightingale was facing 'pretty relentless official persecution'." Reading Forsyth's op-ed reveals no such wording about the sinister "reasons unknown" etc; Forsyth simply states that he finds the whole affair "extremely odd" and offers no explanations, makes no allegations, says nothing of substance. I have again attempted to add balance and have altered this to: "Author Frederick Forsyth, writing in the Daily Express, has called the prosecution of Nightingale "extremely odd" and "a pretty relentless official persecution."" Forsyth simply does not offer any more of use than that!
To maintain balance, I added this to the article: "Nightingale and his supporters claimed that his trial had become "political" and that the authorities were pursuing a vendetta towards Nightingale because he had challenged the military prosecutors. Steven Morris, a journalist for London's The Guardian newspaper, wrote that Nightingale's supporters believed that the prosecution was an attempt by the army and the Ministry of Defence "to slap down the SAS" because it had become "too powerful and autonomous."[8]" Twobell's reverted this text here claiming it was "not neutral far too pov"!
Here Twobells added the phrase: "Blackett went on further to criticise both the public and government for supporting the decorated soldier." Which is blatantly false and not supported by the sources; the judge's exact words were "I trust that those who have been so critical of the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Court Martial process – particularly those who made unfounded and uniformed remarks under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege – now realise how inappropriate and wrong their criticisms were." No mention of "supporting" Nightingale and no mention of the public: Twobells is simply attempting to distort the judge's remarks to imply something he did not say. Determined to press this Judge vs Humble Joe Public angle, Twobells later altered my addition of the direct quotation here...
With this edit twobells says that "Nightingale was unable to make any comment follwing the trial due to threats of further prosecution", ref'd to a video of Mrs Nightingale talking to the press afterwards, clearly a POV edit designed to draw sympathy. I altered it to "Nightingale was banned by the SAS from making further comments to the media. His family said they had no regrets over pursuing the retrial and would "seek legal advice before considering an appeal." This accurately reflected the reported comments here in The Times. Twobells subsequently changed this to more POV: "Meanwhile Nightingale and his family insist they will continue fighting for the truth to come out; however, Nightingale himself was unable to make any comment due to threats of further prosecution if he spoke out".
Clearly, Twobells is a "supporter" of Nightingale and wishes to present Nightingale's case in the best light, from a pro-Nightingale POV. I am neither for nor against Nightingale, and in general my edits - if there is a pattern at all - would show I have an interest in raising awareness of miscarriages of justice. I'm certainly not trying to push a POV on this article. But countering the POV is leaving me vulnerable to charges of edit warring. I raised this on Twobell's talk page - his response was that I was guilty of "one of the worst examples of pov writing I've ever seen on wikipedia" and "an arrogance I have yet to see worse here." The guy is clearly not open to discussing this. Keri ( talk)
Has had the following material repeatedly inserted into the lead:
All of the criticism is fully covered in the body of the article - making up well over half of the entire article as well as 80% of the lead.
I suggest that while the museum is clearly non-scientific, that NPOV requires still that we usebalance in the article, and that the lead is quite unbalanced as presented: I proposed:
As being in full compliance with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT but was reverted. [28] Opinions thereon are welcome. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that Google News is leading (at least in Canada) with coverage of the Sammy Yatim shooting. Nothing wrong with that, but it's become customary for them to link to a relevant Wiki article for hot stories. This time, they've gone with List of cases of police brutality in Canada, and people are already taking the bait.
I'm sure we can see the issue with judging a man before he's had his day in court (no matter how bad the video evidence looks). But do we then tell the Googling world "Sorry, Wikipedia has no information."? Or do we create an article about the shooting, word it more neutrally, and hope Google deems it more relevant? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a neutral article is required, but it will not hold up against the Wikipedia editors unless the story receives wider coverage. 5,000 likes on a related Facebook page and some coverage from national media is still not enough. Once the police make a report and explain their side of the story, or unjust cause is found, it will be difficult to make an opinion-neutral article. Altonbr ( talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
please keep wikipedia news/articles up with the current events regardless of it being be somehow biased (true neutral does not exist) I think is more important to be current with little information of an event than ignoring the issue and look plain insensitive/uninformed, it is a upside that the nature of wikipedia is to be updated with more current information when that information becomes available. I'm sorry to post this in here but I didn't know where to address with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.144.144.236 ( talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In the section titled “Purity of the Teaching” of the Transcendental Meditation movement [29] there is a paragraph regarding Robin Carlson, which ends with the statement that in 1983 Robin Carlson filed a $43 million law suit against MIU alleging interference in conducting his seminars. No further details are given, but the 1986 decision Vincent P. McCARTHY v. The IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY (a case dealing mainly with Carlson’s attorney), details how the case ended and reaffirms the original court’s right to enter the judgment. In the recap, it said that the court entered a consent judgment and order of permanent injunction that dismissed Carlson's petition and enjoined him from interfering with MIU's activities.
Does the sentence as currently written, describing the filing of a lawsuit for tens of millions of dollars with no mention of the outcome, leave the reader with the impression that there was is implied guilt on the part of the defendant MIU? If so, would it be correct to add a sentence from the judgment regarding the resolution of the suit, to reestablish NPOV? Thanks for your input.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 21:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also a second option: As this is mainly about a failed lawsuit with only a marginal relation to the subject matter of the chapter “Purity of the Maharishi's teaching" should that paragraph be there at all? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 03:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The case and transcript are primary sources. If the case was summarily dismissed, and it never really got secondary source coverage, there is good precedent for not including it at all. Thousands of cases get dismissed every day, and do not merit mention in Wikipedia articles. Collect ( talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I just put a NPOV check request tag on Brett Kimberlin but I'm not sure whether it'll get noticed by a bot or it'll just remain there until a user deletes it so I will place a check request here.
Here is the background: Brett Kimberlin is a political blogger/Twitterer who has had heated conflicts with a few conservative bloggers since, about, 2009. For some of the individuals involved, there have been competing harassment lawsuits filed against each other and each "side" has its vocal supporters. In fact, for the individuals personally involved in this dispute, finding evidence of the "evilness" of their opponent is about all they spend their time on. As far as I've seen and read, there is plenty of misconduct going around on all sides of this political disagreement.
That said, Kimberlin committed a serious crime in the 1970s, that is factually true. But the bulk of this article (which I'm not sure even meets Wikipedia Notability standards), is focused on these 30+ year old activities, not the current state of affairs. While I try to assume good faith, I can't help but think that the sole purpose of this article is to create bad press for a party involved in an ongoing lawsuit, so that anyone Googling his name will come across an entry with that focuses on all of his past misdeeds.
I see issues with WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POINT WP:COI and WP:CALM. I should note that while I'm familiar with many of the individuals in the dispute (mainly through following the back-and-forth insults on Twitter), I was surprised that there was even a Wikipedia article on Kimberlin and I've never corresponded with any of the parties personally or written about this political in-fighting. I came across the article, was surprised it was so biased and am just following it up with a request for a review by an impartial editor. Thanks! 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 18:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Just popped in because of my mention in the noticeboard. I've repeatedly said I've got no trouble adding any sourcing that other editors feel comfortable with and personally switched out McCain as sourcing when asked. Here's the relevant part of my latest comment on talk "Goethean reverted a mainstream press account? diff and article link? When did the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette start being a controversial source? " TMLutas ( talk) 13:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the larger WP:COATRACK, Kimberlin's previous actions are certainly the main source of his notability. Him being married is certainly not controvercial - but the source being cited to WP:V his marriage is unreliable, and most importantly in the same blog post cited makes massive BLP violating accusations. I am not a fan of kimberlin, and am personally inclined to believe almost every negative rumor about him - but attack blogs are not reliable sources for wikipedia. I have no objection to the journal gazette source to back the information. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I needed to be the source of new information for this article. All I did was ask for a NPOV check. I don't think it matters whether we are talking about recent edits or older ones, I wanted the article, as a whole, to be reviewed. Like I tried to say (above), I'm neither friend nor foe of Kimberlin but McCain (and a few others) and he are antagonists, both in the political blog world and in court.
I don't know the particulars of who is suing whom and for what, I just know that there are these two opposing camps, each with their own supporters, and the feud (fought in blog posts and Twitter) is very vicious, very personal and has been going on for 2-4 years now.
Frankly, I was surprised not to an edit war going on but it seems like the anti-Kimberlin folks have been more active than the pro-Kimberlin ones.
I'm not asking for facts to be removed, I just think that, as it reads, the primary focus of this article is on crimes that were committed 40+ years ago. It seems unbalanced. It might be the most notable thing that has happened in his life, but I also know that since this living person is involved in court cases, individuals involved in them will Google his name and this is what they'll see. I'm not advocating censorship, just that I think the tone of the article sounds like it was written by someone who either is in opposition to Kimberlin, being sued by him, is one of their supporters or, in general, has an axe to grind.
I posted about it here because I thought there was a formal "review process" done by a volunteer team of uninvolved editors. That doesn't seem to be the case. So, I will post about this on the BLP board and see what folks there think. I do appreciate everyone weighing in, both those who think drastic changes need to be made and those who think it's fine as it is. 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if User:Pluto2012 has deleted a section (based on a false POV claim) instead of re writing it.
according to the rule: do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. he should not have deleted it.
The issue was discussed in the article talkpage. in my opinion, Pluto should un-delete this section. If he thinks it is biased, he may add other well supported opinion.
What is your opinion?
(note: the problem was posted on other noticeboards to no avail) Ykantor ( talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Page:
John Buchan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
There is a dispute on whether the article on
John Buchan, who was appointed Governor-General of Canada in 1935, should say he was appointed by George V on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister or by George V, "king of Canada", on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. The sources merely use the title "King".
The first Canadian Royal Style and Titles Act of 1953 provides the official title of Queen of "the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.]", and there is some usage of the term "Queen of Canada." Before that the official title was the one used under the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which makes no specific mention of Canada. However the most commonly used term is "The Queen."
There is a discussion at Talk:John Buchan#King of Canada.
TFD ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There has been ongoing discussion at Talk:William_M._Branham#NPOV regarding the proper approach to attaining NPOV with respect to the article in its current state. Other relevant discussion related to the NPOV issue are also on the talk page (e.g. see Talk:William M. Branham#Summary section
Because I viewed it as non-NPOV, I added a number of external links about a year ago as an attempt to add a little balance to the article. Unfortunately, I did not have time then to go to the significant effort of a complete rewrite of the article.
As a result of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Exceptional Claims .26 Self Published Sources, all of the external links that were negative to Branham's claims were removed (edit by Rev107)at 03:09, November 18, 2012). At the same time, all of the external links to websites of supporters of Branhamism were retained. Needless to say, when I returned a year later to look at the article, it was still clearly NPOV but now all of the external links were of Branhamite origin.
I am prepared to undertake a complete rewrite of the article based on properly sourced acceptable reference materials (i.e. not self-published websites of any variety) but, I am afraid, based on my few attempts to edit the article, that I am in for a massive edit war, which I would prefer to avoid.
I started to outline my concerns at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Exceptional Claims .26 Self Published Sources but am not sure that it is the correct place to discuss this issue, as the heart of my concern is whether the article is currently NPOV (which I think it is not).
If this should properly be dealt somewhere else, I am happy to have this moved (I am not an expert at things Wikipedian).
Here are some of my concerns:
1. It is clear that Wikipedia should not be used for original research. Presumably that means that an editor should not analyze William M. Branham's published sermons and then make statements in the Wikipedia article based on that analysis. I understand that an editor is supposed to use acceptable reference sources that summarize or comment on the religious leader's published materials but am I right to assume that one should not synthesize self-published sayings into anything either pro, con or even neutral? Isn't that the place of independent reference sources?
2. If an editor can use self-published materials of a religious group that make wild supernatural claims for its leader, why can't one at least post external links to self-published materials on a research website that aims to debunk the supernatural claim using historical research? Personally, I would think that both types of websites should not be used as references and, at best, should be restricted to the external links section.
3. Wikipedia should presumably not be used as an apologetic for a religious group (it is my view that the current article is used in such a fashion) but rather should represent a neutral overview derived from acceptable reference sources, particularly when they are readily available.
4. Rev107 seems to be confusing the article on William M. Branham with the article on Branhamism. A self-published source from a Branhamite website might be valid as a reference for the article on Branhamism but not for the article on Branham himself. The William M. Branham article currently contains self-published references to Branhamite church websites and Branhamite organizations which should only rightly appear, if anywhere, in the article discussing the movement.
In my opinion, the article on William M. Branham does not currently adhere to the NPOV policy. However, before I start a rewrite, I do need some guidance on the article as it currently sits. Taxee ( talk) 04:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor who probably represents the company seems to have turned this article into a quasi-advertisement. I neither enjoy fixing such things, nor am I good at it, so I'm posting here asking for help in fixing it up (for lack of a better place to post). Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
== Chennai Express ==
Talk:Chennai Express is currently being subjected to an incredible barrage of whining by fans of the film's star who insist that the standard Wikipedia source of box office gross information, BoxOfficeIndia, is wrong wrong wrong and Wikipedia is full of haters of their beloved star! I don't know if the problem is socks or meatpuppets or just fans and am not sure whom I should notify about it. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Never mind; this is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Chennai Express already. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
After a recent controversy, this article has completely lost its neutrality. Please check the edit history and the talk page for the discussion and circumstances regarding this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 ( talk) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Article about a Ukranian writer created by User:GlaubePL, who has identified as Polish. Mr. Viatrovych has apparently written stuff that is disliked by people in Poland, and the article was, in its previous state essentially an attack page with serious WP:UNDUE issues. The content in question was removed repeatedly by at least two IPs, until it was reported to OTRS as a BLP violation (which is what I treated it as). Beyond the weight issues, which are solved by entirely removing the material, I have no desire or intention of engaging in a content dispute (since I am not involved per se), so I'd appreciate it if other editors could do a basic POV check to help GlaubePL's understanding of the NPOV policy and how this material might be better presented. He has offered to create a revised version of the "Critique" section removed from the article, which in my opinion is still problematic. Also notifying User:Sieben Zwerge, an SPA that has only edited this article and its talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not mind that Mr. Viatrovych receives criticism on Wikipedia but in the 1 August version of the article the sentence appeared: "V. Viatrovych uses double standards in regards to testimonies of witnesses. He completely rejects memoirs of Polish witnesses to OUN and UPA crimes as allegedly biased". That is not a WP:NPOV sentence... If the sentence would have been "Viatrovych has been accused of using double standards in regards to testimonies of witnesses. He is also accused of completely rejecting memoirs of Polish witnesses to OUN and UPA crimes as allegedly biased". It would look a lot more NPOV.
Furthermore the 1 August version looked like a personal essay, that style of writing is not allowed in Wikipedia. I think that the page was not intended to be an attack page... but the right tone was not found. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks too. I prefer the third version. It's good to go. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
A dispute at Workers' Youth League (Norway) needs your input. I argue that the label "terrorist" is too value-laded and contentious to be used. The other guy disagrees (see edit summaries).
Note that
Beyond clear that he should be described as a terrorist. If anything bin Laden actually has a better defense for not getting the label, since there is no evidence he directly performed any terrorist acts, but was only involved in their planning etc. In any case, gazzilions of reliable sources describe them both as such, in addition to Brevik's conviction which should end all question. That said, that he qualifies for the label does not mean the label is mandatory in all contexts, and the appropriateness or not of the label would need to be decided by consensus - but argument to the contrary can certainly not rely on its inapplicability. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Terrorist is a devalued word. Far too many point scoring politicians and media outlets daily misuse the words terrorist and terrorism for them to have any real value to us in creating a serious, quality encyclopaedia. We should simply describe what a person did, and leave up to our readers to choose a simple and simplistic one word descriptor if they so choose. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
For info, I've proposed a change to the manual of style guidance. Formerip ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I need some extra opinions to the article on Konrad Lorenz where an editor is removing sourced material regarding Lorenz' work during WW2, and reinserting what he claims to be "historical truth" which is nonetheless unsourced and in contradiction to the sources used in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Long time controversial article had achieved some good balance and neutrality imo. Now some editors are coming in and significantly upsetting that balance imo. All negative information about Zimmerman is being whitewashed out of the article. And all positive information about Martin is being removed as well. A few of the recent topics to be issues that are getting rammed through
I believe this article could use additional eyes to make sure it is being dealt with in a WP:NPOV manner. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
At Concerned Women for America, I've made an attempt to address a longstanding advert tag by removing copious amounts of material sourced only to CWFA's self-published promotional material. User:Intermittentgardener has repeatedly reverted while steadfastly refusing to explain any problems that he or she found with my edits. Talkpage discussion can be found here. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Self-description with advocacy groups such as this is a huge problem as it is often designed to misrepresent the actual aims and activities of the organization. Ideally, we should rely totally on reliable independent secondary sources, with primary sources used sparingly to illustrate and supplement what those sources have to say, at most. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not the personal sandbox of editors who spend most of their time removing material that opposes their POV. Imagine the uproar if an editor spent their entire day deleting the pages of liberal organizations on Wikipedia that have similar content. That sword cuts both ways. A much better path is to have an open discourse with the other editors of the article rather than making unilateral edits and wholesale changes without seeking consensus, which is a violation of WP:CON and WP:CIV. If an editor of an article has neutral content that accomplishes the same goals then they should work to improve the article by providing that content, but if their purpose is to simply delete material because they have a personal issue with the organization then that would be an example of POV editing. Lordvolton ( talk) 05:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Folks. We are having a problem converging on a solution and need some outside input. The specific section under discussion is Gospel of the Ebionites#Relationship to other texts. You can link to the talk page discussion section through the tag. The sentence at issue is in the second paragraph and reads as follows:
Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate.
The specific issue is the source that follows it:
refn
— Petersen 1992, p. 262 – "A dissenting position, however, is that of Boismard, who detects two traditions in Epiphanius' quotations from the gospel used by the Ebionites. One is a later, more developed tradition, which is probably a Greek language original; the second is a much more primitive tradition and has a strong imprint of a Semitic language. It is this latter tradition which Boismard equates with the Hebrew (i.e. pre-Greek) recension of Matthew - the document described by Epiphanius." For further details, see Boismard 1966, pp. 321–52 .
The NPOV question concerns how to weight the quotation in this note. Should it be (1) summarized in the main text, (2) left as a note, as it is currently, or (3) reduced to a citation? We have tried WP:DRN and two WP:3Os, but we are seemingly at an impasse. Can you weigh in here (no pun intended)? Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to investigate this properly, but I'll make a brief comment. It sounds to me like it belongs in the main text, though perhaps very briefly. On the other hand, where is the source for the sentence "Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate."? The present tense "remains" implies that still in 2013 there is debate on the subject, but all I see mentioned is a reference in a 1992 article to a theory proposed in 1966. Something more recent is required before "remains a subject of scholarly debate" is acceptable. If that can't be found, it should be reworded as a reference to a theory proposed in 1966. Zero talk 02:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
refn
— Gregory 2008, p. 55 ; Gregory provides a counter-point to Boismard's view: – "The reasons for believing that Matthew was composed in Greek are so compelling that the quest for a Hebrew original is best regarded as a dead end, no matter how romantic its pursuit might seem."
Gregory's quotation represents the majority view. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I rechecked Google Scholar with "Boismard" & "Gospel of the Ebionites" as the search terms. I see Andrew Gregory's 2005 paper (same Gregory as 2008 above). He is discussing Boismard's proto-Luke model, which is off-topic here. I have Verheyden's (2003) book chapter in front of me. There is a brief mention in a footnote on p.192 of a Greek phrase similar to Acts which Boismard regarded as an interpolation. However, there is nothing about a Hebrew Matthew as an underlying source. I don't see the 2008 publication. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
On a personal note, I have never been to this noticeboard before. I am delighted to see that all of you conduct yourselves in such a professional and scholarly manner. I like it! Ignocrates ( talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Editors are invited to participate at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law, a Request for Comments concerning material on countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. One of the main issues for discussion is whether the material in question is written from a neutral point of view. — Psychonaut ( talk) 12:06, 18 August 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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
The section British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs was deleted by user:pluto2012. In my opinion , this deletion is offending these 2 rules:
Although user:pluto2012 was asked for specifics few times, he didn't provide any error or biased detail, and instead he repeats that in general this section is one sided, without any proof. Even if it was correct, he should have amended a supposedly balancing note, and not completely removing it.
The user:pluto2012 repeatedly tells me that I am not capable, which is a considered_to_be_a_personal_attack:
for Pluto2012, this is not the first time to be involved in editing wars. Under his previous nickname ceedjee , I assume he that he got sanctioned because of such wars.
I will appreciate it, if the section deletion will be reversed, and the user pluto2012, would receive a warning.
Ykantor ( talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
N.B if one is interested, here are more citations that proves the section to be correct and objective. Ykantor ( talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Ive removed a couple of posts here that have absolutely nothing to do with the content of an article. There is more in the first comment. As to the question, I largely agree with Itsmejudith's comment on the talk page, that being The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Accusations of vandalism should be preceded by the person first reading WP:VANDALISM, and accusations of edit-warring shouldnt be made by a user restoring material over the objections of the majority of the talk page participants. Other than that, keep the discussion here on topic please, that topic being if the material violates NPOV. nableezy - 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello again!
Previously we discussed Algeria in Archive 39, and the conclusion was that if a language is "important" it should be included in the infobox/lead. Summary: In Algeria there are more secular/liberal groups who approve of Arabic-French bilingualism in society while more Arabist and Islamist figures approve of Arabic-only usage in society. The government officially declares itself to be Arabic only (with Berber as a national language), and it had not joined the Francophonie (association of French speaking countries). However French is still in use as the primary language in non-Arabized government ministries (the government has been unable to completely phase out French and it has since stopped trying to completely eliminate it). The total count of French speakers (33% of the population can read and write in French as of 2008) gives Algeria the second largest French-speaking population in the world. There is a full account (to which I have contributed) at Languages of Algeria.
Based on Archive #39 I concluded that the NPOV solution was to include French, and no further posts came after my announcement on the WikiProject page, so it signaled consent.
I asked him to re-read Archive 39 and to explain how excluding French would satisfy the NPOV requirement. I would like for him to come on here and try to reconcile his position with the NPOV requirement.
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to point this article out, as it is horribly non-neutral, as two editors who have edited this article almost exclusively have taken to adding an absurd amount of negative information about the subject. Grsz 11 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to have some major NPOV and sourcing issues, and could use some more eyes on it to make sure it does not stray into BLP violation territory. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
No substance, Paul B. Please elaborate and cite sources if you disagree with the article. Newuser2111 ( talk) 18:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
There is no POV pushing. Please provide specific examples. Forced Adoption is taking place in the UK and the citations reflect that. Stop removing whole sections of the article without justifying the reasoning behind this in the talk page. I am willing to discuss edits to the page but do not just remove sections you disagree with. Newuser2111 ( talk) 18:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
An RFC has been created for the resolution of the inappropriate removal of detailed, long-term content on a Rail Project page covering the interlocking at Brighton Park.
Brighton_Park_crossing Damotclese ( talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
We need to have a couple of editors taking a close look at this: The Timeline of the Syrian civil war, namely the Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013) but also others, seem to have a major neutrality issue. Most of the information given is directly taken from the mouth of the Local Coordination Committees of Syria (LCC) and that of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). These two organizations, however, are aligned to the Syrian opposition, rendering this timeline to barely more than a rebel newsfeed turned to a Wikipedia article. Casuality figures, for example, are copied over from LCC which calls Syrian opposition combatants routinely "martyrs", then "martyrs" is changed to something more neutral like opposition fighters and voilà the information appears wikified, objectified. I am aware that independent, neutral information on the ground is hard to get by, but right now whole timelines seem to be relying largely on rebel propaganda outlets. IMO to the extent that they may be beyond repair and should be deleted and reworked from scratch. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A daily death toll is fine. It is perfectly acceptable to add the Syrian government's daily death toll too. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the latest part of the timeline, you will see sentences like "The LCC reported XX people killed by the Syrian army". However, the source does not say that these people were killed by the army. I have removed tons of such propaganda from previous pages, but the most active author, Sopher99, still keeps adding this bullshit. Anyone needs more evidence that the page serves propaganda purposes? -- Emesik ( talk) 16:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone might want to check on this article. Particularly the lead section. 96.55.20.179 ( talk) 05:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I have begun an RfC on the question of whether it is bias to describe Elizabeth II as "Queen of the United Kingdom" in the infobox. Please comment at Talk:Elizabeth II#Infobox. DrKiernan ( talk) 17:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I just by chance ran across the Fregoli delusion article because I heard it mentioned elsewhere. And I ran across the explanatory picture shown in the article, which was added in this edit by User:Quasar45. Normally, I would go and talk with the editor about it, but this edit in May was the only one they've made since (and the previous edit to it was two months prior).
Now...is it just me or does it seem like this is trying to push a political point? I mean, I think most of us have seen this picture around, but its exact context is people comparing Barack Obama with George W. Bush and trying to make a political point on their policies. It doesn't seem very appropriate or neutral to include in an article unrelated to the political subject, even if it is a potential representation of Fregoli delusion.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use, say, that one image made a while back that was an approximation of a person that had the average features of everyone on Earth? Silver seren C 22:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Concerns for an early Mars sample return ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was split/forked from Mars sample return mission. I am unconvinced whether it is feasible to write a neutral article about this topic (similar to a "Criticism of..." article), as so far it seems to focus on negative concerns about said mission without much balance (I get the impression that the overall scientific community is more enthusiastic about a Mars SRM than this article implies). Involved parties notified of discussion. VQuakr ( talk) 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
RECOMMENDATION 10:
Considering the global nature of the issue, consequences resulting from an unintended release could be borne by a larger set of countries than those involved in the programme. It is recommended that mechanisms dedicated to ethical and social issues of the risks and benefits raised by an MSR are set up at the international level
and are open to representatives of all countries.
Moreover, the discovery of independent viral growth outside a host cell, under acidic hyperthermophilic conditions, indicates that viruses are more complex biologically than the scientific community has previously assumed.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12576&page=32
Okay - so I tried the following on the notability noticeboard and they recommended that I try the reliable sources noticeboard and they said sent me here with the following!
Both quotes make up the entirety of the Anti-pornography movement section of the article on Pornography in the United States. Although to me it reads like a "Criticism of the anti-pornography movement".
A couple of months ago I posted a couple of message templates looking for an expert on "non-violence" to advise on two citations in an article on
Pornography in the United States (the Anti-pornography movement section). I also started two discussion threads
here and
here.
Thinking about it since, the matter is probably more of a reliable sources issue concerning:
Content (refs 45 and 46) (b) Another matter, which frequently circulates in American anti-pornography movement is a close bond of pornography with rape. According to a 2006 paper, Porn Up, Rape Down, by Northwestern University Law Professor Anthony D’amato, "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85 per cent in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults".Recognizing that the Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence, D'amato concludes that "the reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence". D'amato suggests there are two predominant reasons why an increase in the availability of pornography has led to a reduction in rape. First, using pornographic material provides an easy avenue for the sexually desirous to "get it out of their system". Second, D'amato points to the so-called "Victorian effect". It dates back to the British Victorian era where people covered up their bodies with an immense amount of clothing, generating a greater mystery as to what they looked like naked. D'amato suggests that the free availability of pornography since the 1970s, and the recent bombardment of internet pornography, has de-mystified sex, thus satisfying the sexually curious.[46] I would be grateful if other editors would take a look. |
-- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 18:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help)This article is missing information about the anti-pornography movement in the United States. |
I have serious concerns about the NPOV of this page and think it needs to be merged with something else such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonization
There is a problem with one editor attempting to dominate the page with a certain ethnic POV about some great injustice done to those who spoke a Ruthenian language and where not at least bilingual Polish speakers. He is promoting a POV that Poland had some moral or legal obligation to continue the Hapsburg model of education that left the Hapsburg empire trailing Germany industrially. He refuses to acknowledge that Poland's policy of one national language was in the national interest of modernization and industrialization, that it opened educational opportunities to minorities in all Polish universities and polytechnical schools nationwide, and that Poles who had been educated in German, or Russian were also adversely affected by this policy.
Although the page is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland, he wants to discuss how other former Hapsburg nationals educated their Ruthenian populations, while ignoring the affects of the single language educational policy in Poland effected other ethnic groups in the Second Polish Republic. If we are to start comparing Poland's educational system linguistically with regard to the rest of Europe, it would need to include Germany where the Pomerianan language is now extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 ( talk) 14:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The work cited by Radziejowski was first published in Communist Poland in 1976 before making its way West into an English translation in 1983: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0920862241/ref=dp_proddesc_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155 (The translation is not a revised edition, nor is a translation of book from a foreign language by university press an endorsement that the content is accurate.) The comment is only used as introductory or background information, and is simply repeating Communist era propaganda against the Second Polish Republic. Nothing published under communism can be considered a reliable source unless it is independently confirmed. The fall of communism has allowed modern historians to reexamine the history of the era. Some here don't want to move away from the official Communist version of history.
According to the quote from Faustian, life was better for Ukrainians in the Soviet Union than it was in the Second Polish Republic. Now better is a subjective term, but considering the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor occurred in the Ukrainian S.S.R., it defies belief from anyone other than a communist apologist. So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported? You will note the response, or lack thereof, from the editor presently holding the page hostage to his POV.
Jan Gross also disagrees and note that Poles saw "in the marketplace how these Soviet people ate eggs, shell and all, horseradish, beets, and other produce. Country women rolled with laughter" Jan Gross, Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia (2002), pg. 46 We have other contemporary accounts: "All witnesses are unanimous in stating that the Bolshevik troops on entering this part of Poland (which was generally regarded as a poor and backward region) were seized with admiration for the extraordinary wealth and abundance of the country into which they marched. … The women," writes an eye-witness, " wore rags wrapped round their feet or felt slippers, instead of shoes: they brought all their family belongings in one battered suitcase, and sometimes even an iron bedstead. Bedding was not known to them and the luxury of fresh linen was never dreamed of in the Soviet Republic, even by dignitaries and important women commissars. The pick of the Soviets sent out for display to this bourgeois country were ignorant of the simplest arrangements of everyday life. Accustomed to being herded together, they did not understand the superfluous habit of enjoying individual lodgings: bathrooms and kitchens they considered as uncanny inventions, and their way of feeding and housekeeping could - by its extreme misery and primitivity - only make one think of the simplicity of requirements attributed to cave-dwellers." The Soviet Occupation of Poland , Free Europe Pamphlet #3, (1940) edited by Casimir Smogorzewski. http://felsztyn.tripod.com/id15.html
Please note that the term Ruthenian applies to a family of languages which includes Belarussian, Ukrainian, and Rusyn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_language Also note that only Ukrainian Nationalists refuse to recognize Rusyn as a separate language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyn_language
Now what Faustian refers to as “blatant falsification of a source” was in fact moderating POV from a clearly unreliable and dated source. He simply refuses to work collaboratively with others who attempt to edit the page and resorts to labeling anyone with a differing perspective “disruptive”. However, another editor posted the following reply about Ukrainian language instruction in Czechoslovakia “Acc. to Magocsi: "even by the end of the 1930s the general environment in the province [ Carpathian Ruthenia ] was not pro-Ukrainian. This was evident in the results of a kind of referendum carried out in 1937 by the Czechoslovak government among local parents, who were asked which language they wanted for instruction in schools. A majority of schools (73 percent) voted against having their children taught in Ukrainian. The height of Ukrainian propaganda in Subcarpathia was reached in late 1938-early 1939, during the period of autonomous Carpatho-Ukraine. The subsequent period of Hungarian rule revealed, however, that the Ukrainian idea penetrated only a small percentage of young people. In general, Rusyn society remained indifferent to Ukrainian propaganda in 1938-1939, and if anything, felt nostalgia for the previous era of Czechoslovak rule. (...) In 1946 all Rusyns were by force recorded by the Soviet administrative organs as Ukrainian." (Encyclopedia of Rusyn history and culture. 2005. p. 512). Rusyns are recognized as a national/ethnic minority and have separate linguistic status in all the east European states in which they live, except Ukraine - Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, BiH (European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Dispute Again you will note the contentious response from Faustian, and how the entire page is being dominated by Faustian, with the concurrence of exactly one other user name, whose purpose appears to be to appear whenever Faustian has one of his many disagreements with other editors to side with Faustian. This page simply lacks anything approaching a NPOV.
In conclussion, using Soviet era Communist propaganda from a 1976 communist publication is not a NPOV and it is the person who insists on employing it who is being disruptive, petty, and narrow minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 ( talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, someone here is ignorant of the difference between a revised or second edition and a censored text. Polish censors would blank out things that could not be published. Things were published with blank white space to show that something had been censored. All that has been stated is that that the original text was published in the West in 1983 with the censored text now published in an English translation. This is not a second edition of anything. Even if the work was published in the West, this individual never appears to have emigrated from the Soviet Bloc at the time and also would have been under pressure to not stray to far from official Soviet history to keep his job. The work dates to 1976 or earlier, and is also dated. It must be again noted that education is not the focus of the work, and the context of the quote is that all things were better for Ukrainians and Belorussians in the Soviet Union than they were in the Second Polish Republic in the interwar period. Now that is an incredible statement considering the mass starvation in Soviet Ukraine, but hey, the food was confiscated by a government that used Ukrainian as an official language. So things must have been better in the U.S.S.R. even if people had to resort to cannibalism of dead family members to survive. Better really depends on one's POV.
So here is the rest of the quote from Janusz Radziejowski: "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries; in terms of employment and wages, Ukrainians and Belarussians were even worse off than they had been in tsarist Russia...”
For this statement to have been true, for Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities to have been worse than in neighboring countries in terms of employment and wages, this would mean that Ukrainians and Belarussians in the Second Polish Republic would have been worse off than those it the Soviet Union. So I have asked Faustian this question: “So did the Holodomor not occur, or was there a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported?”
He has not answered that question. He has given us a link to a discussion about how many died in the Holodomor, from which we may assume that he is now acknowledging that it did occur. Therefore, we must demand that he provide us evidence of a greater policy of starvation of Ruthenian peoples in the Second Polish Republic that no one has ever reported. We are waiting...
Lastly, even a respected academic is limited by the information which is available to him. When all that is available to him is official government propaganda, the conclusions which he tdraws from that information are unreliable. This should be obvious to anyone with any common sense, but those who have an agenda refuse to consider common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 ( talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Garbage in, Garbage out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 ( talk) 18:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
A fair comparison of life for Ruthenians in the interwar period in Poland vs. the U.S.S.R. would note that those in the U.S.S.R. had been systematically starved, while in Poland there was relative prosperity, and not the propaganda that has been presented here by you and your Communist era historian without any credible source. They did have options to choose which country in which they wanted to live under the Treaty of Riga and St. Germain. Somehow life in the U.S.S.R. could hardly be considered better by any serious person. But using your sole metric of recognition of Ukrainian as an official language, the thousands of deaths in the Holodomor are irrelevant for comparison. That is your point of view, but most people would consider its effect of those deaths and the effects of malnutrition and psychological effects of cannibalism on the survivors.
Furthermore, it is well noted that the closest thing to a referendum on Soviet rule in the Kresy (Eastern Poland) was when men attempted to vote with their feet and join the Polish army of General Anders. The Soviets refused to permit many who were not ethnic Poles from leaving the U.S.S.R. (Harvey Sarner, Anders and the Soldiers of the Second Polish Corps (1998) pg. 95, 101) So much for how bad things were in the Second Polish Republic. Your myth is busted and so is the communist era propaganda. Of course, Ukrainian nationalists have different heroes: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52209227
The following refutes your claims which you are using to further disrupt participation on this board: “Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry Continue the harassment at your own risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.33.133 ( talk) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Requesting help for RfC at Talk:Race and genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin's argument. Topic has been in dispute for months, please help us resolve it. Thank you. BlackHades ( talk) 12:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we could get a few more sets of eyes on the article about Jim Flaherty (Canada's Finance Minister). Starting almost 2 months ago, huge blocks of uncritical (and sometimes downright fawning) text have been added by a new single purpose account. I see violations of NPOV, OR, undue weight, and reliable sources policies all over the article in its current state. I have tried removing some of this content with thorough explanations on the talk page, but the user does not seem interested in discussion.
Among the specific problems:
There's more, but I don't need to go on forever here; I'll let the article speak for itself.
I'm tempted to revert much of Jmfmo's text as promotional and poorly sourced, to be honest, but I think maybe it would be good if there were more users than just me and Jmfmo paying attention. I'd like to have uninvolved editors check my edits for neutrality, too. I'm curious what others think of the state of the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 22:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor insists on the following language in the lead of the above-named article:
Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) is an American anti-Islam/anti-Muslim organization [1] [2] [3] led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.
- ^ Stephanie Rice (July 28, 2010). "'Anti-Islamic' bus ads appear in major cities". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 31, 2012.
- ^ Carpenter, Mackenzie (September 9, 2010). "Muslim center here copes with increased Islam-bashing". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
- ^ "Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA)". Extremism. Anti-Defamation League. September 14, 2010. Retrieved February 25, 2011.
There are at least two problems with this.
As we can see here, the sources are merely quoting the organization's critics; the are not applying the word "Islamophic" in their own voices. Therefore, in Wikipedia we must attribute the use of the word to whoever originally said it... assuming that such language even belongs in the lead at all, which is highly questionable. Federales 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
That might be true, if there were any such scholars. Nobody has presented any such source at this point. Federales ( talk) 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Back to the original NPOV call - the issues were, to summarize, that 1A) using "anti-Islamic" was to introduce a racial-political slur. I argue it would introduce calling a spade what the sources say is a spade; 1B) that piping "anti-Islamic" to "Islamaphobic" violates SURPRISE. If that's REALLY true, my recommendation is to use "Islamaphobic" to pipe to "Islamaphobic", it seems a fair representation. 2) That calling this particular spade what sources say is a spade would use Wikipedia's editorial voice unfairly. This is an organization called a "hate group" by the SPLC and ADL and that went to court for the right to run anti-Islam ads on the subway. It doesn't feel so subtle as all that. EBY ( talk) 04:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV has been in dispute for a long time now. Some Relevant discussions on the subject are:
Archived Discussions
Still Active Discussions
Recently open Discussion to resolve the two NPOV tags on the page
I am posting here because I would like to finally gain consensus over any WP:POV issues. First, I would ask for editors to review the whole article for any WP:POV issues. Second, I would like to gain consensus to remove the two WP:POV tags. Things are at a standstill on the talk page. If editors would give their input to the recent open discussions, it would be helpful. Thank you. Casprings ( talk) 23:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
This substantial new article (created June 16) contains many references and quite a bit of useful material, but it is essentially an essay aiming to convince the reader that "hookups" are a bad thing. The article needs a major pov-cleansing. I would be willing to do some work on it if there are other editors who are willing to get involved, but I don't want to get into a one-on-one dispute with the article creator. (I have also raised the problem on the article's talk page.) Looie496 ( talk) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
North American Union ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi all,
There is a slight disagreement over at
List of Iranian news agencies. I feel that some items should not be added to the list because they're not Iranian and not news agencies, giving the impression that they're just an excuse to link to something controversial. The other editor, of course, disagrees and feels that they're valid additions. Other suggestions would be welcomed.
bobrayner (
talk) 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Modelzone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should the following paragraph be kept or deleted from the lede section of the above article?
According to an analysis of the 2000 census data by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles section of Toluca Lake is an affluent, 71.9% white, domestically stable, older-aged, low-density neighborhood of the city.
The discussion is at Talk:Toluca_Lake,_Los_Angeles#.3D_ARE_YOU_KIDDING_ME.3F_.3D. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel that the article 2013 St. Louis Cardinals season is not written from a NPOV. For example, the sections "Spring Training" and "Regular Season" just contain small milestones and notes about the team, a section that is NOT on the season pages of other MLB franchises. Not only that, but the sections seem rather biased and many praise the achievements of the Cardinals. I feel this section is unnecessary and not neutral. I'd like to hear what others think. Mpejkrm ( talk) 20:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Reebok_insider_trading_case could use some additional eyes. I closed a recent move request there, which shifted the title from being a biography to being about a criminal case. In the ensuing article cleanup efforts, two of the protagonists from the move request are making various accusations of POV pushing. Would welcome additional eyes on this, as it's not obvious what is the most neutral, correct, and complete set of info to include in the article.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said there are no doubts about the facts of the case. Please read any of the multitude of reliable sources and jump right in editing. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the current revision of the article by Factchecker is perfectly good: [ [11]]. The way I read the sources, Pajcin was a rogue Croatian trader who got some help from his friends and family. His aunt and girlfriend let him use their accounts. His Croatian buddies made trades using his info. His high school friend (Smith) gave him grand jury info. His work friend (Plotkin) helped him meet a Merrill banker (Shpigelman) who gave him mergers info and also helped him recruit two warehouse guys (Schuster, Renteria) who gave him Business Week info. In the end, the only info that made any real money was the one Reebok tip from the Merrill guy. Pajcin was arrested and then rolled over on all his buddies and accomplices. Everybody got jail time. The government got the money. As far as insider trading scandals, this is pretty minor. The media coverage was a little all over the place, and it looks like they were mostly reprinting government press releases. The current article cuts to the chase and, to me, looks neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic. Jaytwist ( talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is mostly a plot summary for a movie about Indian socialist freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. The article is extremely biased against the British Empire and attempts to present Singh in a heroic light. The first part that was added earlier is alright although it could be better. The second part though is a problem. It presents inflammatory information such as claiming the bomb Singh and his associates blew up in Parliament was to show that "Bhagat is awakening", the U.K. government maltreated prisoners, a speech that Singh made is "wonderful", many killed or executed freedom fighters are "martyr's" for what they did, and it features a quote that Singh and the other people executed with him supposedly said before being executed. True or not, this is way beyond the bounds of encyclopedic journalism. As well, the page is poorly written. The main user that posted this was IP Address 117.197.25.224 on November 18, 2011 who has never contributed before or since. It is unfeasible to write this on the article talk page because I am sure people won't read it as no one has complained before or even used it except to post templates and copyright notices on a picture used. -- Thebirdlover ( talk) 03:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over the section " Evolutionary psychology defense" which was added by User:Memills. The section consists of a list of books that allegedly contain rebuttals to the criticisms described in the section " Evolutionary psychology#Reception". It is not explained how the critics are wrong and which criticisms are misunderstandings. Instead, it is stated that critics misunderstand evolutionary psychology, period. This was discussed on the article talk page: [12] [13]. I argued that the section "Evolutionary psychology defense" violates WP:STRUCTURE and WP:NPOV because the subsections of the "Reception" section already include specific rebuttals and adding a final blanket rebuttal creates a biased criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure. Two other users, Logic prevails and 121.72.116.250, seemed to agree that the section creates a pro-EP bias.
Btw, the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology has the same problem with excessive "rebuttals": [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I previously opened a request for comments by neutral 3rd parties (see: WP:3). I was hoping that would help to resolve the editing disagreements between myself and Sonicyouth86 ( talk). However, rather than first attempt to work it out there, Sonicyouth86 brings it here. Ok.
First, note the tone of Sonicyouth86 -- highly contentious and confrontive. I ask that Sonicyouth please tone down the rhetoric and ad homenims (as I have already requested repeatedly) -- it is not helpful.
User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· is not unbiased. He has previously shown a self-admitted, strong antipathy toward the field of evolutionary psychology. There is a larger academic debate between the conflicting theoretical paradigms of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology in which he is actively involved.
I stand by the contributions I have made -- they have been made in the interest of accuracy and fairness, as I believe a review will show. I encourage a review of the interchange between myself and Sonicyouth86. (However, a heads up: it is long, drawn out, and highly repetitious.) Memills ( talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Memills is to all intents and purposes a WP:SPA editor on the subject of Evolutionary Psychology and Men's Rights Movement, two topics which appear to be linked philosophically and empirically. I have encountered him on the MRM pages, and have been appalled by the totally unapologetic misuse of sources. Having a POV is one thing, and pushing a point of view is bad enough, but falsifying sources to that end is inexcusable. See this for an example. I am strongly considering a request for arbitration about this editor as the misuse of sources strongly reminds me of the the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance in which an editor was sanctioned for chronic misuse of sources to push a particular point of view. I am unfamiliar with the specific academic and sourcing issues regarding evolutionary psychology. User:Maunus and User:Sonicyouth86, it seems like you may have more expertise in this area. Are there similar patterns of edits which falsify the sources in this area? If so I would be glad to work together to present a case to the Arbitration Committee about this editor. Slp1 ( talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever it is, evolutionary psychology has no particular slant towards the rights of particular groups. I am not quite sure whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues has any legitimacy and whether it should be linked to the article EP as happened here. [27] The other WikiProjects linked on Talk:Evolutionary psychology are what would be expected; however, this addition seems very odd. Mathsci ( talk) 08:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Neutral editor Dailycare ( talk) has responded to my request for a Third Opinion. The response is here. Dailycare ( talk) apparently agrees with me that Sonicyouth86 has misrepresented what the reference sources actually say. Dailycare ( talk) also proposed a compromise solution, which is fine by me. In addition, Leadwind provided a suggestion for compromise on one of the issues here. Memills ( talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we get back to the subject? Is the " Evolutionary psychology defense" which lists books that allegedly contain rebuttals a violation of WP:STRUCTURE (and therefore WP:NPOV) because of the criticism-specific rebuttal-general rebuttal structure is creates? All criticisms in the article already have "rebuttals" and the section is one more "rebuttal" to unspecified and unmentioned criticisms. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 00:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Having stopped in on the page from time to time, I agree with the assessment that memills WP:OWNS the page. I don't expect this to change without much expensive drama. aprock ( talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the section "Evolutionary psychology defense", which was removed by Dominus vobisdu and restored by Memills, it seems it might not match the sources. Segerstråle's book hardly discusses EP except to explain how it differs from sociobology. It is one of three sources mentioned without specific page numbers to support a sentence concocted by Memills. I have not checked the other two sources (they look as if they're about sociobiology), but the section reads like an essay, the statement of a personal point of view. The statements cannot be verified from the sources at present. The last lengthy quote from a very recent journal blog (11 July) seems WP:UNDUE. As written, this section looks like an attempt to have the last word in a he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said-he-said-she-said line of reasoning that runs through the article. The relation of the content to the sources is unclear. Mathsci ( talk) 21:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure how to go about this so I though I'd better ask for some help: I have some concerns about the article regarding Hoyts cinemas.
First, let me compare it to articles about other cinema companies in the US and UK; articles for Odeon and AMC, for example; they all clearly outline controversies that surround those companies, such as the lawsuits AMC has been subjected to because of it's ADA access issues. These articles clearly show both positive and negatives aspects of the companies which they are about. The Hoyts article, however, shows only positive things.
Recently, Hoyts was involved in a nation wide scandal when it was discovered that one of their complexes was infested with rodents; I made an edit to the article describing the situation and included two references, including one which linked to a statement by the company itself. Within days, the edit had been reverted and the references removed, by who I don't know.
It appears that someone, or maybe a group of someones, is or are trying to cover up controversial issues involving this company, as well as many other Australian companies. Can something be done about this? If so, what?
-- Klltr ( talk) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Lately there has been more negative press about Small Smiles Dental Centers. Currently the lead mentions the 2010 settlement with the US federal government (At one time it had to pay a settlement to the federal government after accusations of Medicaid fraud, but the chain did not formally admit to wrongdoing), but since new allegations came out in 2013 I would like to mention them in detail in the lead (concerns of quality and doing unnecessary work), and that the accusations are reoccurring, as indicated by reliable sources.
Should I say in the lead "During its history the dental chain has faced accusations of providing unnecessary dental care, improper restraint techniques, and quality of its work"? The improper restraint refers to the use of papoose boards in dentistry for non-emergency patients. The "unnecessary" refers to accusations that the chain is doing dental work that is not necessary.
Thank you WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Prodigalson49 ( talk · contribs) is zealously removing this information, sourced to Ugandan newspapers, about Ezra's various brushes with the law. Interestingly, the user has been editing that article -- and only that article -- for the past three years, and refuses to clarify the nature of his relationship to Ezra. Third opinions, please? Jpatokal ( talk) 08:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor, User:Twobells, has taken to editing the article Danny Nightingale (soldier) to present a POV that there is some sort of official conspiracy being conducted against the recently convicted soldier. This diff and accompanying addition here is the first example. In it the editor commits WP:SYNTH to "prove" Nightingale's allegations of a conspiracy simply because his prosecution continued even after some Mp's questioned it. The key phrase is "a position given credence", an analysis not contained in any of the sources, and not repeated in the media anywhere. I explained this, and how it was a synthesis, to Twobells here.
Eventually, Twobells found an op-ed by Frederick Forsyth which he claims provides the precise analysis requested. He introduced it to the article here with the text: "However, author and journalist Frederick Forsyth considers that undue pressure was placed on Nightingale for reasons unknown, he states that Nightingale was facing 'pretty relentless official persecution'." Reading Forsyth's op-ed reveals no such wording about the sinister "reasons unknown" etc; Forsyth simply states that he finds the whole affair "extremely odd" and offers no explanations, makes no allegations, says nothing of substance. I have again attempted to add balance and have altered this to: "Author Frederick Forsyth, writing in the Daily Express, has called the prosecution of Nightingale "extremely odd" and "a pretty relentless official persecution."" Forsyth simply does not offer any more of use than that!
To maintain balance, I added this to the article: "Nightingale and his supporters claimed that his trial had become "political" and that the authorities were pursuing a vendetta towards Nightingale because he had challenged the military prosecutors. Steven Morris, a journalist for London's The Guardian newspaper, wrote that Nightingale's supporters believed that the prosecution was an attempt by the army and the Ministry of Defence "to slap down the SAS" because it had become "too powerful and autonomous."[8]" Twobell's reverted this text here claiming it was "not neutral far too pov"!
Here Twobells added the phrase: "Blackett went on further to criticise both the public and government for supporting the decorated soldier." Which is blatantly false and not supported by the sources; the judge's exact words were "I trust that those who have been so critical of the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Court Martial process – particularly those who made unfounded and uniformed remarks under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege – now realise how inappropriate and wrong their criticisms were." No mention of "supporting" Nightingale and no mention of the public: Twobells is simply attempting to distort the judge's remarks to imply something he did not say. Determined to press this Judge vs Humble Joe Public angle, Twobells later altered my addition of the direct quotation here...
With this edit twobells says that "Nightingale was unable to make any comment follwing the trial due to threats of further prosecution", ref'd to a video of Mrs Nightingale talking to the press afterwards, clearly a POV edit designed to draw sympathy. I altered it to "Nightingale was banned by the SAS from making further comments to the media. His family said they had no regrets over pursuing the retrial and would "seek legal advice before considering an appeal." This accurately reflected the reported comments here in The Times. Twobells subsequently changed this to more POV: "Meanwhile Nightingale and his family insist they will continue fighting for the truth to come out; however, Nightingale himself was unable to make any comment due to threats of further prosecution if he spoke out".
Clearly, Twobells is a "supporter" of Nightingale and wishes to present Nightingale's case in the best light, from a pro-Nightingale POV. I am neither for nor against Nightingale, and in general my edits - if there is a pattern at all - would show I have an interest in raising awareness of miscarriages of justice. I'm certainly not trying to push a POV on this article. But countering the POV is leaving me vulnerable to charges of edit warring. I raised this on Twobell's talk page - his response was that I was guilty of "one of the worst examples of pov writing I've ever seen on wikipedia" and "an arrogance I have yet to see worse here." The guy is clearly not open to discussing this. Keri ( talk)
Has had the following material repeatedly inserted into the lead:
All of the criticism is fully covered in the body of the article - making up well over half of the entire article as well as 80% of the lead.
I suggest that while the museum is clearly non-scientific, that NPOV requires still that we usebalance in the article, and that the lead is quite unbalanced as presented: I proposed:
As being in full compliance with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT but was reverted. [28] Opinions thereon are welcome. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that Google News is leading (at least in Canada) with coverage of the Sammy Yatim shooting. Nothing wrong with that, but it's become customary for them to link to a relevant Wiki article for hot stories. This time, they've gone with List of cases of police brutality in Canada, and people are already taking the bait.
I'm sure we can see the issue with judging a man before he's had his day in court (no matter how bad the video evidence looks). But do we then tell the Googling world "Sorry, Wikipedia has no information."? Or do we create an article about the shooting, word it more neutrally, and hope Google deems it more relevant? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a neutral article is required, but it will not hold up against the Wikipedia editors unless the story receives wider coverage. 5,000 likes on a related Facebook page and some coverage from national media is still not enough. Once the police make a report and explain their side of the story, or unjust cause is found, it will be difficult to make an opinion-neutral article. Altonbr ( talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
please keep wikipedia news/articles up with the current events regardless of it being be somehow biased (true neutral does not exist) I think is more important to be current with little information of an event than ignoring the issue and look plain insensitive/uninformed, it is a upside that the nature of wikipedia is to be updated with more current information when that information becomes available. I'm sorry to post this in here but I didn't know where to address with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.144.144.236 ( talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In the section titled “Purity of the Teaching” of the Transcendental Meditation movement [29] there is a paragraph regarding Robin Carlson, which ends with the statement that in 1983 Robin Carlson filed a $43 million law suit against MIU alleging interference in conducting his seminars. No further details are given, but the 1986 decision Vincent P. McCARTHY v. The IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY (a case dealing mainly with Carlson’s attorney), details how the case ended and reaffirms the original court’s right to enter the judgment. In the recap, it said that the court entered a consent judgment and order of permanent injunction that dismissed Carlson's petition and enjoined him from interfering with MIU's activities.
Does the sentence as currently written, describing the filing of a lawsuit for tens of millions of dollars with no mention of the outcome, leave the reader with the impression that there was is implied guilt on the part of the defendant MIU? If so, would it be correct to add a sentence from the judgment regarding the resolution of the suit, to reestablish NPOV? Thanks for your input.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 21:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
There is also a second option: As this is mainly about a failed lawsuit with only a marginal relation to the subject matter of the chapter “Purity of the Maharishi's teaching" should that paragraph be there at all? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 03:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The case and transcript are primary sources. If the case was summarily dismissed, and it never really got secondary source coverage, there is good precedent for not including it at all. Thousands of cases get dismissed every day, and do not merit mention in Wikipedia articles. Collect ( talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I just put a NPOV check request tag on Brett Kimberlin but I'm not sure whether it'll get noticed by a bot or it'll just remain there until a user deletes it so I will place a check request here.
Here is the background: Brett Kimberlin is a political blogger/Twitterer who has had heated conflicts with a few conservative bloggers since, about, 2009. For some of the individuals involved, there have been competing harassment lawsuits filed against each other and each "side" has its vocal supporters. In fact, for the individuals personally involved in this dispute, finding evidence of the "evilness" of their opponent is about all they spend their time on. As far as I've seen and read, there is plenty of misconduct going around on all sides of this political disagreement.
That said, Kimberlin committed a serious crime in the 1970s, that is factually true. But the bulk of this article (which I'm not sure even meets Wikipedia Notability standards), is focused on these 30+ year old activities, not the current state of affairs. While I try to assume good faith, I can't help but think that the sole purpose of this article is to create bad press for a party involved in an ongoing lawsuit, so that anyone Googling his name will come across an entry with that focuses on all of his past misdeeds.
I see issues with WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POINT WP:COI and WP:CALM. I should note that while I'm familiar with many of the individuals in the dispute (mainly through following the back-and-forth insults on Twitter), I was surprised that there was even a Wikipedia article on Kimberlin and I've never corresponded with any of the parties personally or written about this political in-fighting. I came across the article, was surprised it was so biased and am just following it up with a request for a review by an impartial editor. Thanks! 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 18:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Just popped in because of my mention in the noticeboard. I've repeatedly said I've got no trouble adding any sourcing that other editors feel comfortable with and personally switched out McCain as sourcing when asked. Here's the relevant part of my latest comment on talk "Goethean reverted a mainstream press account? diff and article link? When did the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette start being a controversial source? " TMLutas ( talk) 13:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the larger WP:COATRACK, Kimberlin's previous actions are certainly the main source of his notability. Him being married is certainly not controvercial - but the source being cited to WP:V his marriage is unreliable, and most importantly in the same blog post cited makes massive BLP violating accusations. I am not a fan of kimberlin, and am personally inclined to believe almost every negative rumor about him - but attack blogs are not reliable sources for wikipedia. I have no objection to the journal gazette source to back the information. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I needed to be the source of new information for this article. All I did was ask for a NPOV check. I don't think it matters whether we are talking about recent edits or older ones, I wanted the article, as a whole, to be reviewed. Like I tried to say (above), I'm neither friend nor foe of Kimberlin but McCain (and a few others) and he are antagonists, both in the political blog world and in court.
I don't know the particulars of who is suing whom and for what, I just know that there are these two opposing camps, each with their own supporters, and the feud (fought in blog posts and Twitter) is very vicious, very personal and has been going on for 2-4 years now.
Frankly, I was surprised not to an edit war going on but it seems like the anti-Kimberlin folks have been more active than the pro-Kimberlin ones.
I'm not asking for facts to be removed, I just think that, as it reads, the primary focus of this article is on crimes that were committed 40+ years ago. It seems unbalanced. It might be the most notable thing that has happened in his life, but I also know that since this living person is involved in court cases, individuals involved in them will Google his name and this is what they'll see. I'm not advocating censorship, just that I think the tone of the article sounds like it was written by someone who either is in opposition to Kimberlin, being sued by him, is one of their supporters or, in general, has an axe to grind.
I posted about it here because I thought there was a formal "review process" done by a volunteer team of uninvolved editors. That doesn't seem to be the case. So, I will post about this on the BLP board and see what folks there think. I do appreciate everyone weighing in, both those who think drastic changes need to be made and those who think it's fine as it is. 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if User:Pluto2012 has deleted a section (based on a false POV claim) instead of re writing it.
according to the rule: do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. he should not have deleted it.
The issue was discussed in the article talkpage. in my opinion, Pluto should un-delete this section. If he thinks it is biased, he may add other well supported opinion.
What is your opinion?
(note: the problem was posted on other noticeboards to no avail) Ykantor ( talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Page:
John Buchan (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
There is a dispute on whether the article on
John Buchan, who was appointed Governor-General of Canada in 1935, should say he was appointed by George V on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister or by George V, "king of Canada", on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. The sources merely use the title "King".
The first Canadian Royal Style and Titles Act of 1953 provides the official title of Queen of "the United Kingdom, Canada [etc.]", and there is some usage of the term "Queen of Canada." Before that the official title was the one used under the British Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927, which makes no specific mention of Canada. However the most commonly used term is "The Queen."
There is a discussion at Talk:John Buchan#King of Canada.
TFD ( talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There has been ongoing discussion at Talk:William_M._Branham#NPOV regarding the proper approach to attaining NPOV with respect to the article in its current state. Other relevant discussion related to the NPOV issue are also on the talk page (e.g. see Talk:William M. Branham#Summary section
Because I viewed it as non-NPOV, I added a number of external links about a year ago as an attempt to add a little balance to the article. Unfortunately, I did not have time then to go to the significant effort of a complete rewrite of the article.
As a result of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Exceptional Claims .26 Self Published Sources, all of the external links that were negative to Branham's claims were removed (edit by Rev107)at 03:09, November 18, 2012). At the same time, all of the external links to websites of supporters of Branhamism were retained. Needless to say, when I returned a year later to look at the article, it was still clearly NPOV but now all of the external links were of Branhamite origin.
I am prepared to undertake a complete rewrite of the article based on properly sourced acceptable reference materials (i.e. not self-published websites of any variety) but, I am afraid, based on my few attempts to edit the article, that I am in for a massive edit war, which I would prefer to avoid.
I started to outline my concerns at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Exceptional Claims .26 Self Published Sources but am not sure that it is the correct place to discuss this issue, as the heart of my concern is whether the article is currently NPOV (which I think it is not).
If this should properly be dealt somewhere else, I am happy to have this moved (I am not an expert at things Wikipedian).
Here are some of my concerns:
1. It is clear that Wikipedia should not be used for original research. Presumably that means that an editor should not analyze William M. Branham's published sermons and then make statements in the Wikipedia article based on that analysis. I understand that an editor is supposed to use acceptable reference sources that summarize or comment on the religious leader's published materials but am I right to assume that one should not synthesize self-published sayings into anything either pro, con or even neutral? Isn't that the place of independent reference sources?
2. If an editor can use self-published materials of a religious group that make wild supernatural claims for its leader, why can't one at least post external links to self-published materials on a research website that aims to debunk the supernatural claim using historical research? Personally, I would think that both types of websites should not be used as references and, at best, should be restricted to the external links section.
3. Wikipedia should presumably not be used as an apologetic for a religious group (it is my view that the current article is used in such a fashion) but rather should represent a neutral overview derived from acceptable reference sources, particularly when they are readily available.
4. Rev107 seems to be confusing the article on William M. Branham with the article on Branhamism. A self-published source from a Branhamite website might be valid as a reference for the article on Branhamism but not for the article on Branham himself. The William M. Branham article currently contains self-published references to Branhamite church websites and Branhamite organizations which should only rightly appear, if anywhere, in the article discussing the movement.
In my opinion, the article on William M. Branham does not currently adhere to the NPOV policy. However, before I start a rewrite, I do need some guidance on the article as it currently sits. Taxee ( talk) 04:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor who probably represents the company seems to have turned this article into a quasi-advertisement. I neither enjoy fixing such things, nor am I good at it, so I'm posting here asking for help in fixing it up (for lack of a better place to post). Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
== Chennai Express ==
Talk:Chennai Express is currently being subjected to an incredible barrage of whining by fans of the film's star who insist that the standard Wikipedia source of box office gross information, BoxOfficeIndia, is wrong wrong wrong and Wikipedia is full of haters of their beloved star! I don't know if the problem is socks or meatpuppets or just fans and am not sure whom I should notify about it. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Never mind; this is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Chennai Express already. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
After a recent controversy, this article has completely lost its neutrality. Please check the edit history and the talk page for the discussion and circumstances regarding this complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.213.18 ( talk) 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Article about a Ukranian writer created by User:GlaubePL, who has identified as Polish. Mr. Viatrovych has apparently written stuff that is disliked by people in Poland, and the article was, in its previous state essentially an attack page with serious WP:UNDUE issues. The content in question was removed repeatedly by at least two IPs, until it was reported to OTRS as a BLP violation (which is what I treated it as). Beyond the weight issues, which are solved by entirely removing the material, I have no desire or intention of engaging in a content dispute (since I am not involved per se), so I'd appreciate it if other editors could do a basic POV check to help GlaubePL's understanding of the NPOV policy and how this material might be better presented. He has offered to create a revised version of the "Critique" section removed from the article, which in my opinion is still problematic. Also notifying User:Sieben Zwerge, an SPA that has only edited this article and its talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not mind that Mr. Viatrovych receives criticism on Wikipedia but in the 1 August version of the article the sentence appeared: "V. Viatrovych uses double standards in regards to testimonies of witnesses. He completely rejects memoirs of Polish witnesses to OUN and UPA crimes as allegedly biased". That is not a WP:NPOV sentence... If the sentence would have been "Viatrovych has been accused of using double standards in regards to testimonies of witnesses. He is also accused of completely rejecting memoirs of Polish witnesses to OUN and UPA crimes as allegedly biased". It would look a lot more NPOV.
Furthermore the 1 August version looked like a personal essay, that style of writing is not allowed in Wikipedia. I think that the page was not intended to be an attack page... but the right tone was not found. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks too. I prefer the third version. It's good to go. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
A dispute at Workers' Youth League (Norway) needs your input. I argue that the label "terrorist" is too value-laded and contentious to be used. The other guy disagrees (see edit summaries).
Note that
Beyond clear that he should be described as a terrorist. If anything bin Laden actually has a better defense for not getting the label, since there is no evidence he directly performed any terrorist acts, but was only involved in their planning etc. In any case, gazzilions of reliable sources describe them both as such, in addition to Brevik's conviction which should end all question. That said, that he qualifies for the label does not mean the label is mandatory in all contexts, and the appropriateness or not of the label would need to be decided by consensus - but argument to the contrary can certainly not rely on its inapplicability. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Terrorist is a devalued word. Far too many point scoring politicians and media outlets daily misuse the words terrorist and terrorism for them to have any real value to us in creating a serious, quality encyclopaedia. We should simply describe what a person did, and leave up to our readers to choose a simple and simplistic one word descriptor if they so choose. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
For info, I've proposed a change to the manual of style guidance. Formerip ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I need some extra opinions to the article on Konrad Lorenz where an editor is removing sourced material regarding Lorenz' work during WW2, and reinserting what he claims to be "historical truth" which is nonetheless unsourced and in contradiction to the sources used in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Long time controversial article had achieved some good balance and neutrality imo. Now some editors are coming in and significantly upsetting that balance imo. All negative information about Zimmerman is being whitewashed out of the article. And all positive information about Martin is being removed as well. A few of the recent topics to be issues that are getting rammed through
I believe this article could use additional eyes to make sure it is being dealt with in a WP:NPOV manner. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
At Concerned Women for America, I've made an attempt to address a longstanding advert tag by removing copious amounts of material sourced only to CWFA's self-published promotional material. User:Intermittentgardener has repeatedly reverted while steadfastly refusing to explain any problems that he or she found with my edits. Talkpage discussion can be found here. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Self-description with advocacy groups such as this is a huge problem as it is often designed to misrepresent the actual aims and activities of the organization. Ideally, we should rely totally on reliable independent secondary sources, with primary sources used sparingly to illustrate and supplement what those sources have to say, at most. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 19:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not the personal sandbox of editors who spend most of their time removing material that opposes their POV. Imagine the uproar if an editor spent their entire day deleting the pages of liberal organizations on Wikipedia that have similar content. That sword cuts both ways. A much better path is to have an open discourse with the other editors of the article rather than making unilateral edits and wholesale changes without seeking consensus, which is a violation of WP:CON and WP:CIV. If an editor of an article has neutral content that accomplishes the same goals then they should work to improve the article by providing that content, but if their purpose is to simply delete material because they have a personal issue with the organization then that would be an example of POV editing. Lordvolton ( talk) 05:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Folks. We are having a problem converging on a solution and need some outside input. The specific section under discussion is Gospel of the Ebionites#Relationship to other texts. You can link to the talk page discussion section through the tag. The sentence at issue is in the second paragraph and reads as follows:
Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate.
The specific issue is the source that follows it:
refn
— Petersen 1992, p. 262 – "A dissenting position, however, is that of Boismard, who detects two traditions in Epiphanius' quotations from the gospel used by the Ebionites. One is a later, more developed tradition, which is probably a Greek language original; the second is a much more primitive tradition and has a strong imprint of a Semitic language. It is this latter tradition which Boismard equates with the Hebrew (i.e. pre-Greek) recension of Matthew - the document described by Epiphanius." For further details, see Boismard 1966, pp. 321–52 .
The NPOV question concerns how to weight the quotation in this note. Should it be (1) summarized in the main text, (2) left as a note, as it is currently, or (3) reduced to a citation? We have tried WP:DRN and two WP:3Os, but we are seemingly at an impasse. Can you weigh in here (no pun intended)? Thanks. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to investigate this properly, but I'll make a brief comment. It sounds to me like it belongs in the main text, though perhaps very briefly. On the other hand, where is the source for the sentence "Its relationship to a hypothetical original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew remains a subject of scholarly debate."? The present tense "remains" implies that still in 2013 there is debate on the subject, but all I see mentioned is a reference in a 1992 article to a theory proposed in 1966. Something more recent is required before "remains a subject of scholarly debate" is acceptable. If that can't be found, it should be reworded as a reference to a theory proposed in 1966. Zero talk 02:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
refn
— Gregory 2008, p. 55 ; Gregory provides a counter-point to Boismard's view: – "The reasons for believing that Matthew was composed in Greek are so compelling that the quest for a Hebrew original is best regarded as a dead end, no matter how romantic its pursuit might seem."
Gregory's quotation represents the majority view. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I rechecked Google Scholar with "Boismard" & "Gospel of the Ebionites" as the search terms. I see Andrew Gregory's 2005 paper (same Gregory as 2008 above). He is discussing Boismard's proto-Luke model, which is off-topic here. I have Verheyden's (2003) book chapter in front of me. There is a brief mention in a footnote on p.192 of a Greek phrase similar to Acts which Boismard regarded as an interpolation. However, there is nothing about a Hebrew Matthew as an underlying source. I don't see the 2008 publication. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
On a personal note, I have never been to this noticeboard before. I am delighted to see that all of you conduct yourselves in such a professional and scholarly manner. I like it! Ignocrates ( talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Editors are invited to participate at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law, a Request for Comments concerning material on countries' obligations under international law to protect LGBT rights. One of the main issues for discussion is whether the material in question is written from a neutral point of view. — Psychonaut ( talk) 12:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)