This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

I've just run across a citation where an editor is insisting on putting the aims of the publishing company into the citation along with title, author, etc. This simply doesn't seem right. It isn't a question of whether the publishing company is legitimate or reliable, the book involved is by the subject of the article and it appears to be an attempt, correct or not, to use the aims of the publisher as a comment on the author. Here's a dif to show what I mean [2] - towards the bottom of the 2nd paragraph in the new edit. Thanks. dougweller ( talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not NPOV. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case I think it is - you need to be aware of the context. It's gone now, all the references have been removed by the same editor. But is it something I should raise elsewhere, or is it really ok to have part of the citation a statement of the publicher's aims, or the types of books it publishes (if from a statement by the publisher), etc? dougweller ( talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. We shouldn't be adding weird little non-standard things to citations. Especially if they smell of POV. It's not neutral. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Best & Less is having a IP, User:203.221.217.226, who is owned by the company, is adding POV into the article [3], and reveting attempts to remove it from the article [4]. The main things that lead me to believe bad faith are the use of adjectives - "our helpful, friendly staff are committed to serving you better", "a leading listed retail group in South Africa".

This was also discussed at WP:COIN two weeks ago. The user was counselled, and since has been blocked for 31 hours.

More eyes and some preventive action on this user is what i am after. -- Sk8er5000 ( talk) 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is an organized and concerted conspiracy to violate NPOV by removing any use of the word "cold" to describe the mantle even though the verifiable and reliable peer-reviewed science uses the word "cold" over and over again to describe the mantle. Also see Expanding Earth where a deliberate organized attempt is being made to suppress any information that might portray the hypothesis in NPOV. And subduction where all critical citation is suppressed. Wikkidd ( talk) 04:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that this editor and a suspected sockpuppet have been blocked indefinitely for edit-warring and personal attacks and block evasion. dougweller ( talk) 12:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this page is very POV. I am giving you some sources to check out:

1. Goebbels J (1948) «The Goebbels Diaries (1942-1943)», translated by Louis P. Lochner (New York: Doubleday & Company)(about the Katyn massacre)

2. «Pravda» 19 April 1943

3.Fisher B «The Katyn Controversy: Stalin's Killing Field»,

4. Furr G. at http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/discuss_katyn041806r.html

5. Roberts G «Stalin's Wars» (New Haven: Yale University Press) (footnote 29)

6. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States: diplomatic papers: the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference), 1945, Volume II (1945), page 803

7. Experts of Nuremberg Archives: Nikzor.org - 59th Day, Thursday, 14 February 1946 and Conot R E (1984) «Justice at Nuremberg» (New York: Carol & Graf Publishers) page 454

8. US Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee on the Katyn Forest Massacre, 82d Congress, 1st and 2nd Session, 1951-1952, 7 parts (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1952)

9. United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1952-1954. United Nations affairs, Volume III (1952-1954), page. 13 and 15

10. Rule E, «The Katyn Massacre», www.stalinsociety.org.uk/katyn.html

11. http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/03/and-now-for-something-not-completely.html

12. "Katyn Graves Story Declared Grim Fraud" ("New York Times", 28 June 1945)

The rest of the editors refuse to even discuss the subject. Spastas ( talk) 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection? I see a bunch of cites above, but no actual objection. We shouldn't have to go to another website or book to find out/figure out what your objection is. Just tell us. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of people believe that the massacre was the work of the NAZIs, and I think they have a pretty good case for it. I am basing this on the books/sites/newspapers that I am citing. This view is not even mentioned in the article so I can surely say it is POV and needs to be corrected. I have tried to speak to the rest of the editors but they keep telling me that thinking that this article is POV is "ridiculous" and that all of the above sources are "junk". They refuse to acknowledge that somebody is questioning the neutrality of the article, even though I have tried to explain it to them. Spastas ( talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

During World War II, the Western Allies and the Soviet Union were at war against Nazi Germany. The news of the Katyn Massacre was a huge embarrassment and potentially damaging to the Allied war effort. So, publicly, yes, the Nazis were blamed and yes those accusations were reported by newspapers of the day. But privately, the Allies believed the Soviets were responsible. In any case, in 1990, the Soviet Union finally admitted responsibility for the Katyn Massacre [5], so there really isn't a debate anymore. There was 60-70 years ago, but not anymore. That's why the editors were saying that these weren't good cites. New information has since come to light. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with TQFN here. The fact that the Russians admitted responsibility means you need to provide some compelling evidence that the admission was false and that the Soviets did not in fact commit the massacre. None of your reliable sources seem to demonstrate that. The  Seeker 4  Talk 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I can not prove beyond any doubt that this crime was not committed by the Soviets and that it was committed by the NAZIs, but neither can anybody prove the opposite. None of us were there, so we have to rely on historical sources, both of that time, and of the present. I think that the fact that there is proof that the documents produced by the Russian government are fake(or inconsistent with historical facts to say the least), is something that should make us question them. Also there is a lot of evidence as to who committed the crime. For instance the bullets used for the murders were German and the Soviets could not have had them, as Goebels admits in his diary. Also the rope used was German. The style of execution matches other German crimes. The bodies had not fully disintegrated when they were unearthed. If the crime had been done by the Soviets 3 years earlier, the bodies would have fully disintegrated. Churchill, after the world war, in his famous talk about the "iron curtain" mentions that the crime was the work of the Nazis.

So I believe this is a valid theory, substantiated by a lot of facts and should be at least noted in the article Spastas ( talk) 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It may well be a valid theory, but you need to provide modern sources that are reliable, as requested on the talk page of the article. I am not arguing what the truth about the actual massacre is; I am sure you have more familiarity with the subject itself than I do, but I have to support those who question your sources until you can provide reliable (meaning not a blog) modern sources that there is more than a fringe belief that the massacre was perpetrated by the Nazis and not the Soviets. As another editor also noted on the talk page, covering the question of whether the Soviet admission of guilt was a lie can be covered in the article as an added section if consensus supports it, but the sources you provide are not enough to change the tone of the article. The mantra on Wikipedia is we report verifiable information, not the " truth". I personally think the two groups, Nazis and Soviets, are equally repulsive so I am certainly not taking a side based on any personal preference, only the relative merit of the sources. I also am not arguing about what you say about the German bullets and rope; it may be true and it may not, but to be included in the article, you need verifiable, reliable third-party modern sources. Historical sources being used to draw conclusions in this case would be original research, so you need to find sources from reliable modern historians discussing these points, not the original documents. Even pre-1990 historian opinion cannot be relied upon because they wrote their opinions before the Russians admitted to the massacre. The  Seeker 4  Talk 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There's no reason for the Soviet Union (and later the Russian Federation) to admit guilt for the massacre. I did some more research, and in 1992, Moscow released the original 1940 execution ordered signed by Stalin himself [6]. Encyclopedia Britannica places the blame on the Soviets [7] as does History.com [8]. The CIA's report on the Katyn Massacre goes into a lot more detail [9]. Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I just edit conflicted with more or less exactly the same answer as The seeker4: we need up to date Reliable sources that put this forward as a legitimate theory in the 21st century. That means recent journal articles, mainstream newspapers and magazines; otherwise we are venturing into Original research which is not permitted here. -- Slp1 ( talk) 16:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert's book(Yale University press)(2003): In the footnote (n.29, p. 400) Roberts records Harriman's summarizing his daughter's conclusion that "from the general evidence and the testimony Kathleen and the Embassy staff member believe that in all probability the massacre was perpetrated by the Germans."

In the TEXT (pp. 171-2) there's a much longer quotation from Kathleen Harriman.

First, she remarks on how "fresh" the bodies looked. This was a big issue with Burdenko. The Germans said the Soviets had shot the Polish officers in the Spring of 1940, which would have meant they'd have been in the ground during three whole summers, when the earth is warm and decomposition would be rapid.

The Soviets contended that the Germans had shot the Poles in the Fall of 1941, so they'd have been in the ground during only two summers (1942 and 1943). Logically, therefore, better preserved bodies would point towards German guilt.

Goebel's diary might not be new, but if Goebel's admits to the crime...

Supposedly they were "discovered" in 1989. But Gorbachev denies having seen them, or knowing about them at all, at all until December 23, 1991, two days before he left office. (On these points see New York Times articles of October 15, 1992, p. A1 and October 16, 1992, p.A6, available from the Historical New York Times database).

Surely these are reliable sources Spastas ( talk) 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Kathleen Harriman:

"The coverup began in April 1943, almost immediately after the Red Army had recaptured Smolensk. The NKVD destroyed a cemetery the Germans had permitted the Polish Red Cross to build and removed other evidence. In January 1944, Moscow appointed its own investigative body, known as the Burdenko Commission after the prominent surgeon who chaired it. Predictably, it concluded that the Polish prisoners had been murdered in 1941, during the German occupation, not in 1940. To bolster its claim, the commission hosted an international press conference at Katyn on 22 January. Three American journalists and Kathleen Harriman, the 25-year-old daughter of US Ambassador Averell Harriman, attended. After viewing exhibits of planted evidence, they endorsed the Burdenko Commission's findings. (Ms. Harriman later repudiated her 1944 statement before the House select committee.)" [10] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the rigid chinese protocol that forced the emperor and britan into not settling the war peacefully or of the restrictions of the britsh from the rest of the country except Canton due to Xenophobia. Also no mention of the British refusal to meet with anyone except the emperor and refusal to kowtow (kneel and place head on the ground 9 times) due to a belief that GB is greater than any other country. Article is skewed slightly in these respects..... Lbparker40 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"it seems that way because pbhj seem have to adopted the article and is bulldoging it against attempts to provide balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk • contribs)" Lbparker40 ( talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was tagged by user HotRaja ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same as below) but there has been no constructive criticism forthcoming from any editors, and I am beginning to feel that NPOV is being abused by some editors to somehow prove their POV. Though the article does have a plethora of unreferenced information (it may merit a "Refimprove"), I believe tagging an entire article as POV is blatant abuse of WP:NPOV. Once again I seek an independent settlement and to get on with adding material. Nshuks7 ( talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Kargil War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article was tagged by user HotRaja ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there has been no constructive criticism forthcoming from any editors, the "tagger" inclusive. Please help resolving this once and for all. Thanks. Nshuks7 ( talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An RFC has been opened regarding the guideline WP:TERRORIST on the talk page at WT:WTA. To all viewers: your comments are welcome. Ray ^Talk 18:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing of notorious antisemite occurring. WP:NPOV does not require mining Mein Kampf for quotes justifying Hitler's anti-semitism, but that's exactly what's happening to this article, where reliably sourced material is being removed in favor of primary source quote-mining to create a fake "balance" in favor of fringe thinking. Compare old version to new version. THF ( talk) 23:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please somebody not involved comment on my revisions, motivated originally by the substantial BLP issues (reported at WP:BLPN, which is how I came to the article). Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 04:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the major BLP issue which prompted me to get involved with editing heavily was the NPOV problem that the quotes used to characterise the subject's positions in the old version consistently omitted context to make the quotes appear (more) damaging, plus were arrayed in the lead almost like a charge sheet (instead of a short summary of the issue). "Blackwashing", one might call it... Rd232 ^talk 05:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm been editing on this that for the last year with several editors and the main consensus has been to present his views and let them speak for themselves and then have a separate section on accusations of antisemitism and response. There was a recent misunderstanding about use of primary sources, but that has been resolved.

Yesterday User:THF comes along and declares that Atzmon is most notable for being an antisemite (without providing WP:RS) and therefore in effect all the political edits must be written to prove that point and any other views of his are simply fringe and not worth much mention. If that isn't POV I don't know what is. In fact I was considering quoting some of his statements to that effect here for comment myself. See all the talk entries from here on. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check out talk entry on Using WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR

And feel free to comment as a third opinion since at least two editors continue to assert or don't seem to understand that just because a few opinion pieces published on WP:RS say he's an antisemite, it is Not ok to take quotes out of context of these interviews to prove that point. See Using 3 recent WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll is currently ongoing about how the Republic of Macedonia should be described in the article Greece and related articles. The name of the Republic of Macedonia is a controversial issue in Greek politics and a number of articles relating to Greece use a different terminology from that in operation in the rest of Wikipedia. The straw poll proposes that the terminology should be standardised across Wikipedia to meet neutral point of view requirements. Please leave comments at Talk:Greece#Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece. -- ChrisO ( talk) 03:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

{{ USgunorgs}} nominated for NPOV-check because of additional problems with the template beyond layout. Trying my best to do this right, sorry if did it wrong -- Kuzetsa ( talk) 19:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So...what are the "additional problems with the template beyond layout"? Aside from two comments made in September 2006, I don't see any discussion of POV issues with the template. -- Hamitr ( talk) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

“This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.”

When the box containing the above notice appears on the top of your page, and for discussion purposes is caused by someone who simply wants to injure the page, how long does it stay there as a "red flag" to the page?

If the person who caused it to go on the page in the first place either drops out of the "talk page" or keeps the discussion alive in order to keep the page "red flagged" by having the box at the top - is there a point in time of resolve to get the page back to its normal and proper appearance and purpose.

Assuming the charges are unfounded - who decides this and who is in charge of removing the box - and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainman20 ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, the editor who added the box made some kind of comment on the discussion page for the article. If they didn't, I would feel comfortable removing it from a low priority article - but I personally would bring it here if it were a high priority article and ask for help in what to do next (or even to the help desk or both). I've added neutrality boxes to articles, I usually write one or more paragraphs on why. If anyone wants to remove it, they should address the concerns I listed. Usually, it's because the article is a biography and the only source of material is the person in question and only quotes and citations from their own work is referenced. Or, it's because someone says something like "So and so successfully shows that Kant is wrong on X," when Kant isn't quoted and the person quotes only so and so. More is needed. Levalley ( talk) 01:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

See Talk:Websense#.22Controversy.22_section. Someone wants to remove all the controversies around Websense, a software that is know for all the controversies around it. Removed sources include Amnesty International, internet free speech defender Peacefire and political scientist Norman Finkelstein. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite accurate, Enric. I don't feel the Controversy section (or, indeed, the article as a whole) is neutral and it gives undue prominence to very minor matters.

• Websense is a software product that gets installed on web gateways - it can be done by companies (or schools, or libraries, or public service/government organisations) to stop their employees/users browsing for porn, or non-work sites, or illegal download sites, or whatever.

• Websense, the company, filters websites into predefined categories (and administrators of the software can put any site they wish into any category they wish). The categories get downloaded onto the local copy of the software at predefined intervals.

• The administrators of the installed software decided what categories get blocked, or don't get blocked. (Or, IIRC, that some categories get blocked during working hours but are fine on lunch/after hours).

So why is the article NPOV?

• Inaccuracy: The lead says "This enables its clients, businesses and governments, to block user access to chosen categories of website." Websense's clients are organisations. Businesses, schools, colleges, ISPs, libraries, voluntary and public sector organisations. Not governments. I'm not aware of any government that acts as an ISP.

• Bias: A screenshot is captioned "Having been set up in this instance to filter the category "advocacy groups," Websense is seen preventing access to the human rights organization Amnesty International at http://amnesty.org/" That would be because Websense (the company) correctly placed the Amnesty site in the category "Advocacy groups". Some admin in the organisation where the screenshot was taken decided that the category "Advocacy groups" should not be available from that organisation's web connection. I.e., not the fault of Websense (the company). A fairer screenshot and caption might be of Websense blocking access to some adult/porn site...

• Undue weight: From the reference, Norman Finkelstein's blog was apparently placed in some category that got it blocked - by some unspecified organisation. A user complained to Websense that the blog was in the wrong category. They fixed it the next day. Websense categorise thousands of sites every day - I'm sure they'd admit they're not 100% accurate, but when it was brought to their attention, they changed it. How is that noteworthy? They've mis-categorised several sites I've needed for work, and an admin either changes it themselves, or gets Websense (the company) to do it - no real hassle, or conspiracy. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversies are sourced, so I don't think they can be removed outright. Fair or not, the media has covered these criticisms, so the best thing to would be to include answers to the controversies (even cited to the company itself would be valid as long as the answers are noted as being the company's answers) in the controversies section. I think that would be more fair, and more balanced, since removing this content would be ignoring the very real coverage of these issues. Just my uninvolved opinion :-) The  Seeker 4  Talk 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed that the material should not be removed. Public sector organizations are also called governments,and I'm highly skeptical of the assertion otherwise. You apparently didn't notice the full-text link to the Amnesty International ref [11]. Fortunately Enric has been doing good work here, and I hope these references are not removed again. II | ( t - c) 08:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In coming across the article on Meat especially the "Nutritional benefits and health concerns" section, I felt as is that part of the article was written by a devoted vegetarian: there is hardly a sentence about the benefits of meat in a balanced diet, and the section waxes verbose on a slew of primary sources that report a correlation of some aspect of meat eating with a disease as if meat eating was in all cases causing the disease in question. However, I would appreciate a second opinion to gauge whether I might be too easily offended. :) -- Ramdrake ( talk) 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is very one-sided POV. A tiny blurb at the beginning about being high in protein is followed by paragraphs of "meat is bad because..." Definately needs cleanup. The  Seeker 4  Talk 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The section also has some problems with WP:MEDRS, especially the use of primary sources. - Atmoz ( talk) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started work on the section. Additional help and/or feedback would be most welcome.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 13:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Nutrition section 3:3 might better serve as the first subsection under the Nutritional benefits and health concerns as section 7.1. Much of the existing section 7.1 could then be relabeled "Health concerns” as section 7.2. But I'm afraid that the section citing various studies might become unmanageable, as both pro-meat and anti-meat people will always have a fresh study to back up their positions. Astynax ( talk) 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A user or users have used language in the past that conveys their POV. We discussed some things, and most were obliged. However, he/she/they will not allow the ToC subjects of Indology and Indian Politics to be separated. These are inextricably linked, but mutually exclusive subjects. Please make note of my previous edit, and how it was reverted.

Also, several people were engaged in off-topic discussions that at times got quite personal and nasty, which should have at least been discussed more privately.

NittyG ( talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing has been discussed, I went ahead and changed the article. NittyG ( talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I came across an article which desires to be a List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience. It has 2 major problems as far as I can tell, but I could be wrong, 1. It defines a limited number of 'appropriate sources' from which these characterizations may come from, rather than relying on RS and Notability. 2. Some of these characterizations come from non-RS sources but these 'characterizations' are not in-text attributed to those that made them. I believe that no matter what is written in the Lead, the WP policies regarding attributing 'opinion' still holds. There is a bit of back and forth on the talk page which may be of interest, the current discussion starts here Unomi ( talk) 07:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology is generally not a RS for subjects related to science and pseudoscience. It's a pseudoreligion that pushes pseudoscientific ideas.

WP:RS states that sources must be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and WP:V that "[t]he appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". Those important phrases obviously are requesting editors to make common sense judgment calls each time they edit. Especially the first one requires that sources that misuse information and twist words cannot be considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

No pseudoskeptical sources can be considered "trustworthy" or "authoritive" on the subjects of science or pseudoscience, since they don't understand them and they reinterpret the words to mean whatever they wish them to mean. Humpty Dumpty is not a good source. Through the Looking-Glass-type sources only create confusion. -- Fyslee ( talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

@Fyslee: I am going to ask you one last time to cease and desist with using strawman tactics and attributing statements or intents to me which you do not back up with diffs. I have never sought inclusion of Scientology sources. I repeatedly stated that the Scientology discussion was silly. But nor do I accept that a non-rs source is used as an RS, and further, to the exclusion of other sources of similar RS-status on the basis of your special pleading and irrelevant thesis. The source which you seem to hold in such high regard was held in such low esteem by California Superior Court Judge Hon. Haley J. Fromholz that he saw fit to write

“

the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations. Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address.

”

and

“

Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines.

”

This is not some woo-woo propaganda. You bandy his website around on the feeble excuse that there are 'no better sources', seeing as how he is presumably (one can hope) used as a secondary source I find that somewhat hard to believe. If anyone is trying on a No true scotsman type fallacy it would be you with your tenuous grasp of 'trustworthy' and 'authoritative'. Now I have not tried to stop you from using Barrett as a sources if that is what you wish, but you must realize then that in-text attribution of the opinions must be given and further that this opens the door for other sources as per WP:NPOV. It is exactly to exclude Scientology etc. that I argued for the strict adherence to RS, and that RS/N was the place to go for confirmation of what constitutes RS. You consistently indicated your unwillingness to abide by wikipedia guidelines and policy and seemed to imagine for yourself some loophole where you could cherry pick sources without going to RS/N. That is why we are here at this noticeboard; if you continue to make unfounded and slanderous accusations we will very quickly see ourselves at yet another venue for dispute resolution. Unomi ( talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi has a habit of sounding a lot like other (in this case banned) editors. Both points of Unomi's are misleading and at best show he is working under a misunderstanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Quackwatch has been found to be, on and off wikipedia, a reliable source. Fyslee is correct, and is referring to a recent discussion on the article talk page. There is no NPOV-problem at this article (except with the occasional edit that is quickly fixed or reverted), the article after extensive discussion was renamed and edited to more than address any possible NPOV concerns. In my view it went to far, and we're now seeing editors with a certain view trying their luck at taking the next mile. Verbal chat 19:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My points are not misleading, they are exactly the heart of the matter. That you seem to exhibiting signs of Ego defence to the point of mis-characterizing me is troubling. If you do a search on RS/N for QuackWatch you will find that it has indeed never been held as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I think that the quote of the judge above paints a rather different picture than the one you are trying to paint. As the article is currently having its NPOV status questioned by multiple editors on its talk page it certainly does seem to have an NPOV problem. Unomi ( talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What is this dispute about? I mean, I see what you're arguing about, but what specific Wikipedia content or policy is at issue here? Actually, I see that User:Eldereft made the same request. Quit mining court decisions, which even with the ridiculous contextomy you've performed have no bearing on the matter at hand, and try making a specific suggestion in a reasonable tone. Is your point that you don't think Barrett is an appropriate source? I might agree with that, depending on the circumstances, but when you start mining court decisions you're essentially warning me not to take you seriously. MastCell  ^Talk 21:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that it seems like we are using non-rs material in an RS fashion, ie without direct in-text attribution. It also seems like there is confusion as to which entities may have their characterizations included. This is a direct consequence of not, in my opinion, adhering to RS and/or NPOV. The quotes which you found absurd in the highest degree are, I believe, representative of the Judges assessment of Barrett, but you are right that it does not belong here, I was merely trying to make Fyslee see that what I saw as his appeal to authority was unfounded in more ways than one. Unomi ( talk) 21:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any non-RS sources used in an RS fashion, I just see a POV-pusher trying to label any RS he disagrees with as being unreliable. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• DreamGuy which 'POV' do you believe that I am pushing and based on which actions of mine? Unomi ( talk) 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, you really do need to read the contents found at the link listed in this box (copied from the top of the Quackwatch talk page: -- Fyslee ( talk) 03:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

An amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source.

I have read it, perhaps you should take the time to read it again. Let me summarize my understanding of it again and perhaps this time you will have the courtesy of responding to my comments regarding it. Arbcom found that they should not make content rulings, and as such should not characterize QW as reliable or otherwise. The fact that they don't say that it is reliable does not mean that they found it to be reliable nor does it exempt it from being used in accordance to WP guidelines or policy or being subject to the findings of RS/N. If you believe my summary is incorrect here and now would be the time to point it out to me. Unomi ( talk) 05:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather selective and twisted interpretation. You're welcome to be more specific on my talk page. This is not the right place for this discussion. -- Fyslee ( talk) 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, I have some questions for (only) you here. -- Fyslee ( talk) 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have replied to your questions. Unomi ( talk) 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience?

What would be the difference(s) between a "List of pseudosciences" and a "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience"? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the words "topics", "characterized" and "as"? Shot info ( talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Allow me to rephrase. What is the difference(s) between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, please refrain from changing the topic of this thread. While this might be a remotely related matter (because it comes from the same article talk page), it only muddies the waters and sidetracks the discussion to bring it up here. I'm already having trouble figuring out what Unomi really is after without you bringing this other topic up. -- Fyslee ( talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posed a valid question which - as I mentioned before - directly relates to topic of this thread. I have have posed this question (or an amalgamation of such) several times in the past day or two, but no one has yet answered it for some strange reason. If you would be so kind to answer this time, I'd greatly appreciate it. What is the difference between a list of pseudosciences and a list of topics characterized as pseudoscience? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the work "characterized"??? One would be a list of X. One is a list of somebody saying it is X?????? The reason why you probably haven't received an answer is possibly as it is self evident. But what do you propose, that the two lists (assuming there are two lists) are merged? Or created? Or modified in some fashion. Don't forget that here in WP, you have the right to ask a question (numerous times in fact) but you have no right to an answer. Shot info ( talk) 05:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer can be found in the long discussions that led up to the change of title, which made the title NPOV (it violated it before) and brought the title into line with the existing inclusion criteria and content. You were an active participant in those discussions, so this is a disruptive discussion here, and knowing you it's probably a trick question. Go and reread the discussions and you will find the answer. Why should we do your work for you? You're misusing this board. The community of editors who discussed the whole matter made a decision. Just because you don't want to abide by it doesn't mean you can legitimately misuse this board now, so long after the decision. Abide by the results of that decision and start editing in a collaborative manner. This nitpicking, stonewalling, and general disruptiveness is very tiring. You're not getting your way there, so now you are spreading your dissatisfaction to this board in a form of forum shopping and it shouldn't be encouraged by legitimizing your question with an answer which you already know. -- Fyslee ( talk) 06:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the question is that "characterised as PS” equals, “attributed by someone as PS”. The implication is that the party making this attribution should be made explicit. MaxPont ( talk) 06:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with the substance of what Fyslee is saying, sans the personal comments. I believe this is a general dispute: When we found this compromise title, did we intend to change the contents of the list substantially by including what all of us agree are bad sources if they are notable? My comment re Scientology on the list talk page was from the position that we didn't, but Levine's position also makes sense. From the notability (rather than correctness) point of view allowing sceptics' organisations but not Scientology makes no sense. I hope that with a bit of good faith from all sides we can find a compromise. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Characterized as PS" simply means "described as PS". The question of attribution is another matter, one which I do support, but it isn't inherent in the phrase. Whether to attribute a statement or not is a matter determined by common sense and to some degree by policies here. See below. -- Fyslee ( talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't gotten deep into this and hopefully won't in the future but shortly: there's nothing sacrosanct about CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer as arbiters of The Truth. Dubious positions are expressed in these articles, in some cases positions against the mainstream (e.g. econometrics is pseudoscience). Presentations on a each topic should be balanced and the specific pseudoscience characterizer should be attributed. Like Middle 8 [12], I think topics which have been notably characterized as pseudosciences, as reported or expressed in reliable sources, may be included even if they aren't considered so by mainstream authorities, as long as it's a balanced presentation. Obviously dubious pseudoscience assertions from dubious sources shouldn't be used (e.g. HIV research is pseudoscience from the Journal of Scientific Exploration). Scientology and the anti-psychiatry movement are notorious for calling psychiatry pseudoscience, and I recall seeing an article in PLoS Medicine from an anti-psychiatrist, which should then be includable. As far as Quackwatch, while one can invoke WP:PARITY to use it in some cases, it remains a self-published website by a psychiatrist with an agenda and proof of major bias. Undue reliance upon it can lead to factual errors. For example, Quackwatch's Feingold diet article excludes or misinterprets (e.g. ref 6) supportive evidence of it which our article documents and which includes a 2004 BMJ meta-analysis and 2 subsequent studies. When the Feingold article was created it relied exclusively on Quackwatch. II | ( t - c) 08:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed that they are the arbiters of truth, and of course sources should only be used where appropriate. Your opinion of QW is not shared by eminent mainstream scientists and organisations, and is another mischaracterisation, which shows your bias. Scientology is not a reliable source for anything other than Scientology articles, I strongly disagree with Levine, II, and Hans on this point. Verbal chat 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? If I said anything anywhere that can be read as support for using a Scientology source outside a Scientology article, please give me a diff so that I can clarify. However, Scientology's anti-psychiatry nonsense was widely reported in the media. This obviously presents us with the problem of deciding how to deal with it. I think it should be mentioned, but with proper framing.

"Your opinion of QW is not shared by eminent mainstream scientists and organisations" – Could you please clarify? Are you trying to say no such scientist or organisation shares II's opinion, or that most of them disagree with II? I don't think you can prove either. Or do you mean something much weaker, such as some mainstream scientists and organisations don't agree with II? In that case your conclusion is faulty. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@Verbal - Scientology is a reliable source for what Scientology thinks, and they think that Psychiatry is pseudoscience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 ( talk) 04:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that Verbal doesn't respond, but I guess he just didn't notice my question. In case anybody is still confused about my position, here is something I said a few days before Verbal's comment: "Does anyone really believe that anti-psychiatry sources from a hermetic science fiction religion are reliable in any reasonable sense of the word?" [13] -- Hans Adler ( talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and I apologise for my misunderstanding of your position, but the above makes it very clear - I missed the earlier comment also. I have stricken your name from my comment, and thank you for AGF. Yours, Verbal chat 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

@Verbal - All I am saying is that "Characterized" suggests opinion, just as Shot info suggests above. Thus, in the "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience", opinion is the basis for inclusion. Yes, Scientology is not anywhere near an RS for science, but it is an RS for its own opinion. Just as Quackwatch has been deemed an RS for its own opinion. Above, Hans Adler rightly points out that Scientology's "psychiatry is pseudoscience" opinion is well publicized and rather notable. So why shouldn't we include their opinion in this list? Excluding their opinion (or point of view) seems like an obvious NPOV violation and that is why we are here on this board; to get input from outside editors.

Again, if this list were just a "List of pseudosciences" then absolutely in no way, shape or form would I be advocating for the inclusion of Scientology's opinion about psychiatry or any other science-related topic for that matter. Per WP:PSCI, Scientology does not even remotely come close to representing the scientific community and is thus not a reliable source for determining what is generally considered pseudoscience. But that's not the article we are discussing. We are discussing "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and there, Scientology is clearly a reliable source for its own notable characterization. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be occurring at the WP:RS/N, since it involves a question about the reliability of a source, and the consequences of allowing such sources on the list. You have admitted that Scientology is not a good source:

• "I certainly agree that Scientology is not the best source of science (or even a good source, for that matter). But this article is a list not dependent on science, but rather dependent of characterization -> hence opinions -> hence points of view. CCHR is a reliable source of their own point of view, and they have characterized psychiatry as a pseudoscience. CCHR is a notable organization with a significant POV. I would be happy to bring this to NOR/N, but we have to be clear that this is not a list dependent on science, but rather a list dependent on points of view Agreed? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)" [14]

Yet you insist on allowing it and just such unreliable sources. The problem is that allowing such sources would be a violation of WP:RS, which states that sources must be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand,..." (Emphasis original.) How can a source that is from a pseudoscientific source be considered reliable to express themselves about the subject of pseudoscience? Pseudoscientists lack the ability to recognize the fault of their own reasoning in such matters, and their expressions are thus classic pseudoskeptical opinions. If we were talking about the individual articles which are all wikilinked in the List, then this would be a different discussion, where Scientology's opinion about psychiatry would be given very brief mention as a notable fringe opinion, but this is a list, which by its nature must be rather brief and on-topic in its mention of each subject, leaving the longer discussions for the main articles.

How can you suggest we include unreliable sources in this list, just because they express an opinion? Common sense and WP:RS dictate that we limit ourselves to opinions expressed in RS which are "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", not just any unreliable, but notable, fringe source that has expressed an opinion. "Opinion" is not the only inclusion criteria, and even if it were, we should only use reliable ones. Those are provided by the scientific community. Only those informed by and allied with the scientific POV can be considered reliable to express themselves about the true nature of science and pseudoscience.

Your misguided belief that "this...list [is] not dependent on science" is an absurdity. One must understand "science" to be able to properly identify something that is "pseudo" science. Science is the inevitable starting point, and only the scientific mind can direct the pejorative "pseudoscience" arrow at the proper target. I won't deal with your strange idea (hopefully a momentary glitch in your thinking) more here, since I have already done so at the List's talk page-- Fyslee ( talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How can I suggest we include unreliable sources in this list, just because they express an opinion? Because this is a list where inclusion criteria is based on opinion - it is based on notable sources which have made a characterization. It is NOT based on notable sources which have made a reliable characterization, for if the characterization was reliable, it wouldn't be a characterization; it would just be true. If a source was reliable for characterizing a topic as pseudoscience, then using that source, we could just call it a "pseudoscience". And if all of the sources we used in this list-article were reliable as such, then the "characterized" portion of the title would be completely unnecessary. It would just be a list of pseudosciences. However, that is not the case right now. Right now, we are using several other sources which are not "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to" pseudoscience. Quackwatch - since that keeps getting brought up - is not generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to pseudoscience. If it was, then we could use Quackwatch's assessment alone to label scores of topics as pseudoscience. Yet - despite it being a partisan (i.e. militantly prejudiced) site - we are using Quackwatch in this list-article as a source. But that's okay. Because "pseudoscience" is not the subject at hand...

The subject at hand are "topics which have been characterized as pseudoscience". Anyone can make such a characterization. However, we currently (and rightly) limit "anyone" to only those people and organization which are notable. And the fact remains that like Quackwatch, Scientology is a notable organization which has characterized a topic as pseudoscience. Their characterization is notable and like Quackwatch, Scientology is a reliable source of its own opinion on this matter. WP:RS is not the issue...

WP:NPOV is the issue. Why? Because some editors want to exclude certain significant views. This is expressly verbotten per NPOV which states that content must represent fairly and without bias all significant views. "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." This is why we are here and not RSN. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You write: "Quackwatch - since that keeps getting brought up - is not generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to pseudoscience." Totally false. That is your personal opinion, and it is only shared by sources criticized by Quackwatch. Many scientists and other notable scientific skeptical sources and societies share the POV of Quackwatch. It is those who push pseudoscientific and pseudoskeptical positions that are criticized by all of them. Those who criticize QW are indeed correctly judged to be unreliable, and numerous mainstream RS consider Quackwatch to be a reliable and trustworthy source to quote as an authority on such matters. You're just plain wrong. -- Fyslee ( talk) 06:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And that is your opinon. But alas, this is not what this discussion is about. Instead, please disregard any mention of Quackwatch in my last post and please reply to the substance of my position on the article in question and NPOV. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an opinion backed up by facts, and correctly frames your opinion of QW, and it does seem to be rather central to this whole discussion. It also highlights the bias of your position. Using Scientology as a source for what is PS and what isn't is a ridiculous suggestion, and doesn't fit with our policies and guidelines. Verbal chat 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but as far as I know QW has not been found an RS by RSN, feel free to point out where it has. It is a logical fallacy to think that because arbcom withdrew content rulings that it then defaults to being an RS. Again, considering that there seems to have been atleast historically a lack of against QW on RSN and the language that arbcom members used in their discussions, I think it would be prudent to have QW validated as RS. This would save us all a lot of time. Again, I am by no means trying to *exclude* QW, but I don't think it is prudent to include it as anything but as a source of opinion, until such a time we have word from RSN. I am sure that RSN will approve it right away based on its merits as you state them. This is not WP:RSN. Unomi ( talk) 09:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to RSN, but I rather feel the consensus will be the same (please leave a note here if you do). Until then the working consensus seems to be clear. The NPOV issue seems to have run dry at least. Verbal chat 13:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Took it myself, see WP:RSN#usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't technically make content rulings, but since a well-functioning Arbcom is quite good as a predictor for community consensus, it makes sense to look at individual arbitrators' opinions on a content question. What I see there is an inofficial, and definitely not binding, finding that QW is indeed a reliable source, but a partisan source. That an earlier finding against Fyslee, in part for using QW, was still correct (not because of general reliability issues, but because of COI issues and its partisan nature), but that an inappropriate heading that implied a content ruling (and a wrong one, too) had to be fixed. The partisan nature of the source makes it necessary to decide its usability on a case-by-case basis. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, you seem to repeatedly imply that we're claiming that QW can be used as something other than a source of opinion. That it can be used as a source of its own opinion is already established through many RSN and the ArbCom Amendment. That applies to nearly all sources we use. Hardly any of them can be used as other than that. It is only in matters of scientific nitty gritty that MEDRS requires better sourcing, IOW using actual reviews and research regarding matters that are not just opinion, and even then, scientific research can be disputed and revised. Wikipedia contents are all sourced opinions, with few exceptions. Opinion is not a bad thing. QW, just like most other sources, should not be used for MEDRS purposes. MEDRS requires that we use the research when it's available. You seem to be attempting to deprecate QW as a source, something which the ArbCom Amendment fixed. The original findings contained improper wording that was being used to deprecate QW, and now that is changed. The usual precautions that apply to all other sources also apply to QW. There is nothing unusual about that. What you do need to recognize is that QW happens to publish some of the most notable, widely cited, and highly regarded mainstream opinions on matters related to quackery, health fraud, consumer protection, and pseudoscience, and that's how we should use it. That's why pushers of fringe POV don't like it, and we know what Wikipedia thinks of their opinions (not very highly). The opinions published by QW aren't even very controversial in the mainstream world, only in fringe circles, where those criticized do alot of complaining.

What specific wordings are you having problems with? Where is it being used improperly? Please be specific. We need an example to start with so we can understand you. If it's being used improperly, that should be fixed. Normally this should be done at the article level, not here at this board. -- Fyslee ( talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that QW and most other sources were indeed being used as an RS of fact, I came to that conclusion because of the fact that even though I hear that the article in question is more than a year old there are only 4 items on the list which have in-text attribution of 'characterization', perhaps I made a storm in a Japanese teacup, but it seemed very inappropriate to me, further there seemed to be an inconsistent manner of recognizing that it was a list of characterizations, not 'truths' which could be used to exclude sources containing characterizations. I am now under the impression that we are in broad agreement with regards to the necessity of in-text attribution. I can't currently point to any pressing example with regards to sources which are being suppressed, it was more a matter of principle and an effort to align the article snugly with general wikipedia policy and guidelines so we wouldn't be forced into these discussions repeatedly down the road. Perhaps I was stressing prevention over ad-hoc 'cures' needlessly. In any case I consider the horse if not dead then at least knocked out cold and I am backing away from it. I want to thank everyone for indulging this discussion. Unomi ( talk) 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more information about attribution in this essay:

"All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source; in practice not all material is attributed." (Emphasis original)

and here:

" Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

"The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text."

While the essay and policy refer to in-line attribution as the use of sources with in-line references that refer to text at the bottom of the page, it can also mean identifying the source in the text of the article, as in " Quackwatch has stated this about Applied kinesiology: quote....[1]" While the first is an absolute requirement, the second isn't always required, but I generally support doing so. -- Fyslee ( talk) 06:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not Barrett again!

(moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery) -- Enric Naval ( talk) 02:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this is NPOV/N, RSN is over there.

That said, no one is quite sure that the requirement will be RS, Fyslee seems to argue for it, personally I don't care what it is, as long as it is applied consistently. Unomi ( talk) 05:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WP:RSN -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Page: Umar User: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pashtun_Ismailiyya

The user has mentioned over and over that he is a secular source, but he is not. He has been editing the page which details the biography of one of the Khalifas of Islam deliberately to apply certain myths that are only found in Shia mythology. No historical evidence of these incidents is there in any bookd up to 200 years after his reign and death. However, that is NOT the main form of dispute, the dispute is that he is fabricating references, and despite being warned several times on the talk page by more than 4 users, he keeps coming back and reverting the page with such nonsense references. He refers to a book called Mosnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, which I have a copy of and I have proven to him that his story doesn't exist.

All I am asking is to keep Shia stories UNDER SHIA section, and not to fabricate statements that say the story is validated in Sunni Muslim books. He persists, and the page at its current state has been reverted three times in under 24 hours (actually four, but the last time is a tag addition), and you can find clearly that in one area it still mentions the fabricated reference ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar#Caliphate_of_Abu_Bakr "According to the narratives written in the Shia books and notable primary Sunni sources including Ibn Qutayba's Al Imamah Wa'l Siyasa, Tabari's History and Masudi's Muruj Ud Dhahab as well as the great Sunni legislator Ahmed ibn Hanbal, following his election to the caliphate", and made a correction in another by removing the reference, HOWEVER still falsely claiming that it exists in Sunni books (beginning of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar#Shia_Views section: "According to the narratives written in the Shia books and a substantial number of primary Sunni histories, following his election to the caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar with other companions went to Fatimah's house to forcefully obtain homage from Ali and his supporters." This is a great falacy and a matter of huge impact for the religious accuracy of Islamic history and needs to be corrected.

I am not censoring the page from mentioning the story, but he CANNOT fabricate validity of these myths by saying it exists in Sunni books when it does not, or use references of modern secular books (which is fine) however calling them Sunni sources.

I will await your action to revert the page and put it under protection until you at least contact a Muslim scholar to authenticate the page. I suggest you use official sources such as CAIR in the states or the Canadian Islamic council of scholars.

-- Sampharo ( talk) 09:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears that over the last few days much has been posted by User:Dynablaster about an alleged conspiracy involving the U.S. government and Iraq. Most of the stuff written is cited pretty well, but has a clear anti-US bias. Another example is United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. Not sure how we should go forward, but it would nice to have a few more eyes on this. -- Mblumber ( talk) 22:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, multiple articles were created (see this table) with the specific purpose of documenting support each side received during the war. There is zero dispute that the Soviet Union, France, United Sates and Germany etc supported one or more sides during the conflict. Countless reliable sources provide a wealth of information on this notable topic. These pages settle a longstanding dispute on the main Iran-Iraq War article (r.e. how much space to afford each side). All daughter articles were created through consensus. Furthermore, I have been careful to provide high quality sources throughout, and correctly attribute words to authors. Again, to emphasise, the intent of these pages is to describe the type of support each belligerent received. On the other hand, "Iraqgate" has broader scope and is more amenable to describing the controversy as it unfolded (it might seem laughable today, but George H. W. Bush initially denied having supported Iraq in any way). In this light, Iran-Contra affair is to United States support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war as Iraqgate is to United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war. If editors wish to expand latter page to include initial denials, please feel free, but on specific country support pages, no such scope exists. See International aid to combatants in the Iran–Iraq War for a list of pages. Dynablaster ( talk) 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, most of these pages were created by a chap from Wiki military history, er, project thingy. Dynablaster ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help resolved the NPOV dispute at Ning. Centralize discussion at Talk:Ning#NPOV dispute - Controversy section. - kollision ( talk) 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on homeopathy is an attack piece. Every statement is criticised and no POV tag is being allowed an insertion there (you can compare it to the articles on chiropractic, osteopathy and naturopathy). Please look into it. Thanks in advance for the help.- NootherIDAvailable ( talk) 10:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posted on WP:FTN, I suggest that is the more appropriate venue to continue. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of a subject that has no scientific backing and is widely considered psuedoscience is not NPOV, it is required to adequately explain the majority view on the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at finding someone neutral who could insert a POV tag, as is the case with chiropractic, osteopathy and naturopathy (despite the fact that they're more NPOV).- NootherIDAvailable ( talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about NPOV template usage at Mohamed ElBaradei#Template usage.-- 99.130.163.56 ( talk) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on Christian Conventions, which I reorganized and revised last Monday, has had someone put up an NPOV dispute tag. The previous article had turned into an unreadable, contradictory mess with few citations, and a lot of POV pushing from different directions (mystifying, rather than informative to read). So I thought I'd put it into some kind of order and pare it down to items where there were published sources which could be cited. But the note on the talk page seems to be mainly challenging something that I would think is undisputedly factual. So I'm at somewhat of a loss as to whether there is something else there that I need to address or tone down. My first experience with getting this tag, so I'd appreciate if anyone could give a look to see if they can enlighten me as to what needs to be fixed??? Astynax ( talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's scarcely worth a dispute tag, IMO, but there's a lot of phrasing that suggests POV. The article reads more like student's paper than an encyclopedia article. There are lots of adjectives, for example, and people tend to dispute adjectives. Also lots of asides, lots of summary, and lots of "quoted words" all of which might appear POV. Examples:

• this group had not yet acquired its secretive nature
• the new doctrines caused a considerable stir
• it was noticed that the requirement to “sell all” was starting to be downplayed
• This eventually, and naturally, led to...
• Little mention was made of the schisms, and silence proved to be an effective tool in smoothing over the splits.
• increasingly replaced with less confrontational “Gospel Meetings”

And so on. The editor in these instances is adding a (fairly reasonable) POV and (fairly reasonable) editorial guidance, but it's a POV nonetheless, and it really doesn't need to be there. I know nothing about the subject, but as I read the article, I began to know something about the editor. This suggests to me: POV. -- nemonoman ( talk) 10:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. You're messing around with Religion when you edit this article. Unless the neutrality is fastidious, there will be plenty of kindling ready to flame. So do your best, encourage other editors to revise (and then revise THEIR work) but Be Prepared for the fire. -- nemonoman ( talk) 10:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PPS. More citations will mean fewer disputes. -- nemonoman ( talk) 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

MORE: I have gone back and read the complaint on the discussion page. Your response was correct and in keeping with good standards and good faith. To dispute the article's content, which is reasonably well cited, but NOT present any RS's in support of the assertion is just flaming without substance. I'd advise:

1. A sweep of the article's language, removing as many asides and opinions as possible, and adding citations were helpful 2. A soothing statement on the Talk page that you've had a go at NPOV'ing the article, but it's up to other editors to provide reliable sources for their assertions 3. Remove the NPOV tag.-- nemonoman ( talk) 11:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned suggestions. I'll make the edits as soon as I have a chance, my object being an article which presents information in readable format. When I came across this section a month or so ago, I was shocked at the mess it had become. And no one wins if flames from either side of whatever disputes and controversies within this sect turn it back into a bunch of conflicting, vague claims. Maybe I should have tackled a less sensitive subject, but I did have access to citable material and so jumped in with both feet. I really appreciate the help. Astynax ( talk) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and good luck. I empathize. I tried to make some sense of Aurangzeb, a very controversial figure. A saint to the Muslims, a demon to the Hindus, and every little tribe or caste in India has something to say on the matter as well. I pulled that article together, and then the nihilists barged in and peed on the rug. I have not had the stamina to maintain it in anything approaching proper form. On the other hand, Jooperscoopers and I managed to get Taj Mahal squared away quite well, and I and number of editors got Meher Baba to GA status. So sometimes the magic works. Good luck, bud!-- nemonoman ( talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute tag has been put up again with no new citations. I understand that this person is really convinced that the sources are all wrong and that his or her position must be the only truth. Perhaps it is an article of faith with this person, but I'm not sure what is the purpose behind just tagging the page in order to underline that this person disagrees with something(s). Ah, well, I suppose I'll wait and see if others comment. Astynax ( talk) 09:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi astynax. Suggest this matter be handled on the article's talk page. It's a petty dispute, and doesn't really merit constant updates here. I think it will be resolved -- at least temporarily -- there. If it turns into an edit war, I'll join you in referring the matter here. -- nemonoman ( talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nemonoman. I have no intention of starting a edit war, which is the very reason why I tagged the article so that it would first prompt some discussion about it. If you would prefer I didn't create this discussion, but go ahead and edit the article, that is what may invoke an edit war. I am not interested in that. I would prefer that Wikipedia remains a reputable resource of information which is not likely if we don't encourage editors to first discuss changes. Most of the discussion so far has been that the NPOV tag shouldn't have been put there, which has suppressed any useful discussion about the article. Maybe I was wrong to use the NPOV tag, and I have changed that. Tmtsoj ( talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your decision to alter the tag to a factual dispute. I can certainly understand that facts can be presented with an unfair slant, but I really believe that this is more a dispute over fact than over neutrality. It isn't hard to assume good faith on Asynax's part -- he appears to have tried to do the right thing in so far as his skills and knowledge allow. So please help fix the facts. More cited information should resolve the issue, and I look forward to your edits. -- nemonoman ( talk) 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am brand new to wikipedia and have read many tutorials. I was wondering if someone could help be get the Neutral POV removed from the article "comedian marty simpson."

I don't mean, "How do I delete the warning?" -- I mean, can you help me get the article in such a place editing wise that it will meet the standards. I am trying to do this properly and with good intent. Jim Nayzium ( talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over what should be included in the Škoda Auto article in the criticism section. Seems to be India-centric right now, and specifically around one particular website forum. Maybe this is more an issue about a worldwide view and not about NPOV, but an extra set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Military ranks of the Swedish armed forces, there's been a long-standing content dispute between User:Malin Tokyo (who seems to be acting, or at least coming dangerously close to acting, as the owner of the article) and several other editors over, mainly, how Swedish ranks compare to those of other countries. Sections of the article are being removed and restored (the lead section has disappeared twice), sources questioned and accusations of OR and bias given on both sides. There are so many issues here and frankly the talk page layout is giving me a headache. I hope someone might be a better person than I am and make something of the situation. — JAO • T • C 10:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Does every user has to refrain from putting political & right wing links (Blogs etc) on to their userpage? as this could offend anyone?

Off Topic Please forgive me that if I have posted this at a very wrong area of Wikipedia as I am very new to this. Apologises in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacharyKent ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• In general, those sort of things are discouraged. See Wikipedia:UP#NOT for more information. Arakunem ^Talk 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone have a look through 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam and make sure it isn't leading the reader to a conclusion. The facts seem to be disputed but the article seems to be somewhat unbalanced. I'm also a bit concerned about some of the statements we're quoting too. Appreciate as many experienced eyes as possible, ta. Hiding T 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what people think about a recent (and immediate revert) at Strengths and weaknesses of evolution. There were three changes to the article's lead that I was trying to make in the original edit: 1) replacing normative attributions (one side "proposes"; the other "rejects", "views", and "concludes") with something more neutral ("says"). 2) Removing the prominent pullquote from the lead, since I think it creates the impression that the article is passing judgement on the underlying controversy. 3) Removing the third paragraph from the lead, moving it lower down in the article, again, to avoid the sense I get from the current lead that it is promoting one side to a degree that is problematic for WP:NPOV. These changes all seem pretty straightforward to me, but I'm having a hard time reaching consensus with the reverting editor, and would appreciate an outside perspective. Thanks. John Callender ( talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to guess, the challenge with finding consensus is coming from your trying to give Undue Weight to a minority view. Especially with evolution articles, hundreds of hours of work have gone into finding reliable sources, reaching consensus about how to integrate them, and finding an appropriate ballance that does not misrepresent what experts in the field have said about these issues. For your first suggested change, there are many sources to show that the scientific community doesn't just "say" creationist claims of a "controversy" are bunk, science does reject, view, and conclude. Quietmarc ( talk) 16:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should make it clear that there is no controversy within the scientific community regarding the validity of the theory of evolution. That said, I think the original wording might come on a little too strong. Instead of...

"Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence.",

...how about...

"Scientists always probe the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. Evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence."? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking for some advice on a naming issue that has NPOV connotations. I posted this same message on the WP:Naming Conventions talk page, but also am interested in soliciting your input. There is currently a major debate going on regarding the article title for Maundy Thursday; see the talk page. It is my feeling, and that of a significant minority of editors, that the title violates NPOV as reflecting particular linguistic, religious, etc. traditions, and that "Holy Thursday" is a better, fairer title that encompasses religious traditions that do not use the "Maundy" label. A majority of editors disagree, but it seems to me that their argument relies on their perception of the frequency of usage of one as opposed to the other. My feeling is that, irrespective of frequency issues, the usage of both is close enough that we are obliged to use the more neutral of the terms. It is clear enough to me that this is not going to go anywhere without getting some of WP's dispute resolution running; this strikes me as a very similar debate to the aluminium/aluminum debate (or airplane/aeroplane), where neither side is likely to be convinced by the other's logic, at least without some authoritative interjection/interpretation of Wikipedia's policies on this matter. I thought it would be helpful to get the input of people who regularly attend to these concerns. Thank you. MrArticleOne ( talk) 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

An editor is verging on hysterics over my major expansion of the health effects section of Three Mile Island accident (touch of WP:OWN I think). I'm not claiming it's perfect now, but he seems uninterested in discussion, instead slapping on POV tags without explanation and putting this comment on the talk page. External input would be nice. NB for reference, here's the last version of the article before I started editing a couple of days ago. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Wow. Um. You don't need a third opinion here, you need an expert opinion. I think disagreement is primarily about the scientific credibility of sources, and that's a matter which generalists are not able to easily judge. Ray ^Talk 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been heated edit warring on the Hispanic and Latino Americans, which resulted in user 24.9.96.166 being blocked by Jersey_Devil without any sort of explanation. We need administrator look into the edit warring on that article. The dispute has been between user "SamEV" and 24.9.96.166 and IP starting with 6 over on that article. Please help with the edit warring dispute on the article and see the talk page under "SamEV" and "Jersey_Devil." There is still NPOV dispute but users SamEV and Jersey_Devil (admin account) are removing the NPOV tag and reverting the article to their liking many times now. Please help. Onetwo1 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to remove POV content from the University of South Carolina article. User:ViperNerd continues to remove requests for citations and repeatedly reverts revisions that are attempted to remove POV statements from articles. In addition to WP:NPOV, I believe this author is in violation of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR. Thank you for your time Fletch81 ( talk) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This user is making contentious requests for citations after his initial requests were addressed. This can obviously get to the point were it becomes ridiculous. Are we to believe that every word or phrase of every sentence in an article needs an outside source? I really don't think that's what Wikipedia was created for. This user is nitpicking down to an absurd level, and I believe there is a personal agenda at work here. ViperNerd ( talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You demanded sources on every sentence in an article I have invested time in, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and I gladly provided them. When you make claims that are from a POV, you most certainly need an outside source. Check WP:VANITY for further clarification. There is no personal agenda here, I am simply trying to remove POV words from articles, and you continually revert them to their previous versions. Fletch81 ( talk) 05:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? You are on a POV quest across Wikipedia, are you? Then why don't your user contribs reflect this noble crusade? Nevermind, I think we all know the answer to that question. Why don't you stick to improving UNC-CH articles and let people who truly care about other articles worry about improving them? Thanks. ViperNerd ( talk) 06:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I seek to improve articles of interest to me, and articles I feel I may be of benefit to as I come across them. I have a right to attempt to improve any article as much as you do. I have maintained civility throughout this process, yet your tone is not conducive to mutual resolution. This is why I have sought opinion from others. Fletch81 ( talk) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But you aren't "improving" anything except articles of IMMEDIATE interest to you. That's quite apparent from just a cursory look at your user contribs. You seem to have no trouble at all finding numerous sources for nearly any statement in the UNC-CH article, but you would have us believe that you can't improve other "articles of interest" by likewise sourcing them? That's pretty disingenuous. ViperNerd ( talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of interest in this discussion. Interest has no bearing on wikipedia's core policies. Fletch81 ( talk) 06:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But you are the one who brought interest up. And now it's suddenly not relevant? Why am I not surprised by this coming from you? ViperNerd ( talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I used the word interest first, yes, as you certainly questioned my motive in editing articles. My follow-up may seem like an odd juxtaposition and wasn't well-worded, but it was intended to clarify that even though I edit articles I stumble upon of interest, that interest is irrelevant to wikipedia policy. Thank you. Fletch81 ( talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'm still questioning those motives. Because you still haven't addressed the simple question of why you seem so adept at providing sources for some articles, while being apparently unable to provide anything except fact tags and templates for others, even though you have "interest" in all of these articles according to your claims. It's a pretty straightforward question, care to help us out with a straightforward answer? ViperNerd ( talk) 06:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The main reason is familiarity. I am very familiar with UNC sources. I know where to look for them. But once again, this is irrelevant. I won't ignore bias when I see it. WP:PROVEIT states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." You have failed to do so. Thank you. Fletch81 ( talk) 06:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

After viewing the article, I have a concern that is slightly different from the question of whether facts are properly sourced and cited. I'm concerned by an editorial tone that in places sounds more like a promotional brochure than a neutral encyclopedia article. That issue can only be partially addressed by adding references. I've put more details (including examples of the language that concerns me) on the article's talk page. John Callender ( talk) 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed its filled with peacock terms. Fletch81 ( talk) 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Assyrianist majority has managed to arrive at a "consensus" among themselves of trashing the carefully balanced neutrality at our article on the " Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people". Unless this is undone, we are predictably headed for another year of edit wars, confusion and ethnic hatred in these topics as soon as the Aramaeanist faction kicks into action and starts recreating their Syriac people counter-article. (background, this is an ethnic group that cannot agree what they want to call themselves. See Names of Syriac Christians). Left to themselves, they just tend to create parallel walled gardens, under " Syriacs" and under Assyrians", in obvious violation of Wikipedia's one-article-per-topic policy). Forcing them to work together rather than creating parallel versions of Wikipedia draws the hatred of both factions of angry young men to the brave admin. I have been handling this for the past year or so, and I am well hated by both factions for my pains by now, so I would appreciate if some previously uninvolved admin could try to undo the worst damage here. -- dab (𒁳) 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While estimating my decision (which I still believe was based on consensus), please read the relevant discussion here and examine not only WP:NPOV, but also WP:NAME, and which title fits better to the latter as well. Thanks.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 10:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't we solve the POV-fork problem by simply protecting the current redirects? I just protected Syriac people (which indeed had seen an attempted re-fork just today). Are there any other candidates? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "Assyrian people" is really not neutral, and arameanists will not get satisfied.

Since the article "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" article has been moved to "Assyrian people", then the best thing to do is recreating "Syriac people" article to avoid all forms of conflicts and editwars etc from Aramaeanists. The people is known as "Syriacs" or "Syriac people" by many journalists, historians, scholars etc. A google test showed that term "Syriac people" got 12.000.000 hits [15] and term "Assyrian people" only got 2,480,000 Hits [16]. An article like "Syriac people" must be re-created to avoid editwars and conflicts. Otherwise the arameanist side will never be satisfied. JeanVinelorde ( talk) 12:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, if your goal was to confirm Dab's fears about continued disruption, you couldn't have chosen a more efficient way. Look: POV forks won't be accepted. I said on the other page that I would consider blocking people who rallied for POV-forking or otherwise kept making unconstructive noise. I mean that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood. JeanVinelorde ( talk) 13:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, the last thing I wanted to cause was havoc (being accused of being a partisan [!] is also unpleasant, but it is the minor issue as far as I am concerned in this case) Let me just note that JeanVinelorde also supported the move proposal, even though it was clear by the nominator that the acceptance of the proposal wouldn't entail the creation of partisan articles.

I stand firmly by my position that I just implemented consensus (always in accord with our policies), but if you think that the re-opening of the discussion and the reversion of the move (for the time being) would attract more uninvolved users, so that a broader consensus is formed, I have no problem to do that. I did not go to the article's talk page in order to promote any kind of POV neither I enjoy the creation of playgrounds. I believe(d) I did the right thing after a scrutinous examination of the relevant discussion.

In any case, we should also 1) have in mind what dab himself admitted ("I do believe a title "Assyrian people" is acceptable in the light of English usage") and 2) think seriously if the previous title was in accord with WP:NAME. Final comment: I concur Fut's remark above, and I declare that I am also determined to fight POV-pushing, and forking with every available means.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 13:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's not in accordance to WP:NPOV and neither is it to WP:NAME. Bethink this, "Syriacs" is the name used by all of the group, Syriacs is the least ambiguous and you have double the more hits in google with it compared to "Assyrian people". The TriZ ( talk) 14:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A google test showed that term "Syriac people" got 12.000.000 hits [17] and term "Assyrian people" only got 2,480,000 Hits [18]. JeanVinelorde ( talk) 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I came upon this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_London_Collegiate_School

This reads as though it is a page in the school's marketing literature and I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I think the purpose of this page is to market the school. I very much value the ideas behind wikipedia and loathe marketing masquerading as information - I know nothing about the school and have no other axe to grind.

Taking off the quote from the Sunday Times would probably be enough - there are duplicate links to it both in the notes and external sites so it would be possible to leave in the Sunday Times link under the external site links.

I would like to flag this up on the page but don't know how to do so. Having dyslexia makes trawling through a lot of the rules extremely time consuming so would be grateful if anyone could advise me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.50.15 ( talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This seemingly obscure little article has some strange business that seems possibly related to a section a few up. A couple of editors have repeatedly altered the lead, which currently reads, "Baqofa (also, Baqofah or Bakofa) ( Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܩܘܦܐ) is a Chaldean village in northern Iraq located near Batnaya." This is a fairly straightforward recounting of the source, such as it is, which says, "Baqofa is a very old Chaldean village located 15 miles north east of Mosul and less than two miles from the village of Batnaya, it's roots goes back to the Assyrian era." [19]. Their preferred version: "Baqofa (also, Baqofah or Bakofa) ( Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܩܘܦܐ) is an Assyrian ( Chaldean-rite) village in northern Iraq located near Batnaya." Obviously, this is part of a much larger debate. I've invited sources to no avail; while I've been told they exist in other Wikipedia articles, they haven't been added to this one yet, and I haven't found a thing. (I came to this article following a listing at WP:CP; I know practically nothing of the subject, though I rewrote the article to address copyright concerns.) The most recent to promote this text is an IP editor who seems to be tracking the issue across several articles, coupled with some Swedish obscenities: [20]. Knowledgeable eyes would be appreciated. I'm not even through with today's CP listings, and it's already tomorrow. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Baqofah Explained

I will try to explain in simple words and in one paragraph. There is a vigorous movement since 2003 to unite all Christians in Iraq under the name Assyrians for political reasons. Historically, most Christians in Iraq were united under the name Chaldeans or simply Christians with small minorities here and there. Assyrian extremists where always there and were ignored for the most part but lately they are being supported by politicians Kurds in north Iraq to gain control over a small valley in Iraq north of Nineveh where most of the Chaldean villages exist today (Tel Keppe, Tel Skuf, Batnaya, Baqofah, Alqosh). The Chaldean people don’t want any territories or land, they simply want to freely practice their religion and simply be called and their villages by a name they have been known by for hundreds of years, going back to references to their names dating back to Marco Polo’s visit to that region. The conflict over the two names is happening everywhere on the internet and it is unfortunate to see it happening here, for no reason other than the ones I explained above.

-- Chaldean2 ^(talk) 18:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As there is only one person posting a dispute (suspect) due to bias and personal opinion. I vote, due to several positive comments posted, the dispute should be dropped...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.194 ( talk) 12:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Some additional eyes on this would be helpful. Two editors want to remove the current intro [21], one describing it as "blatant POV", the other expressing a similar opinion previously on the Talk page. Yet no evidence is given, merely bald assertion; and discussion doesn't seem to have even started properly, never mind got stuck. Rd232 ^talk 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: there is now some more substantive discussion, but external input would still be useful. Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This article Hindu_Arabic_Numeral_System has NPOV major issues, verifiability, bias and original research and basically a total departure from consensual and historic reality- as indicated by discussion page Hindu_Arabic_Numeral_System. I claim it is an unabashed exemplary exercise in Hindu aggrandizement by Hindu Rightists Starstylers ( talk) 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the article eCRATER has a "written like an advertising" notice and that the "neutrality of this article is disputed". The notice says to check out the discussion on the talk page, but the editor who flagged the article didn't leave any commentary.

I'm new at writing, so I'm really not sure how should I rewrite it so it doesn't appear as an advertising. I tried to describe what the company/site does without praise or bashing. I would really appreciate if someone point out to me how can I fix it, or if someone more experienced in writing can fix it.

Kuraiya ( talk) 08:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If nobody else has already done so, I'll come take a look. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a fine start to me, and it doesn't look like advertisement or blatantly non-neutral. I've removed both tags with a note of explanation at the article's talk, requesting further information if the tags are restored. I did a search to see if there were some obvious controversies being excluded, and I didn't come up with anything. I also suggested some possible additions at the talk. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look, I really don't want to go on a wrong path here. I want to continue learning and writing on Wikipedia. -- Kuraiya ( talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Initially added as the first reference in the article [22], it turned out the wine shop was no longer owned by Oei at the time this reference was added. It was updated by an ip, claiming to be Oei himself [23] Discussed in Talk:David_Oei#Advertisement. It has been unchanged since:

From December 1994 to June 2004 he was the owner of Carlyle Wines, a wine shop that was located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, which was selected by Cadogan Publishing as among The Best One Thousand Establishments In America. ^[1]

COI issues aside (Editors claiming to be Oei have edited the article with other ips and as Carlylewines ( talk · contribs)), my initial response to this information was to remove it as being unimportant and promotional. We've no reference about the Cadogan listing, nor any idea if that is a notable listing. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This info about the store was initially written by the editor who created this article. He's responsible for nearly all the info on that page. Since I discovered the page I've made a couple of corrections and very small additions to the article, not knowing how the system works. Now that I understand the system better I shall never edit again. I did not figure out that I needed an account to do that and therefore the unsigned edits. Since I've open the account as Carlylewines I've also neglected to sign my post properly at times. That being said, I don't claim to be David Oei, I AM David Oei. 421 West 57th St. NYC 212-489-6039. This store was opened by me on June 16th, 1994 and closed by me on June 31st, 2004. Ninety percent of my energies went into this store during that time although I managed to continue part-time in my musical life. Carlylewines didn't exist before me and it died with me. There are no other wine stores with that name that I know of. I will totally abide by the ruling on this issue and I thank user Ronz for going this route, but no one will convince me that 10 years of my life, a quarter of my adult life, is not critical to my life story. ( Carlylewines ( talk) 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, the dates are Dec. 16th, 1994-June 30th, 2004. ( Carlylewines ( talk) 16:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Carlyle Wines was chosen to be included in the inaugural issue (Nov. 1999) of 'America's Elite 1000-The Ultimate List- Millenium Issue-The Inside Story Behind America's top 1000 names' by Cadogan Publications Ltd. of UK fame. On page 80 you will find the following description of Carlyle Wines. "Kevin Bacon is a regular customer at this smart little wine store, which boasts an impressive array of wines, brandies and spirits. Each bottle has been personally selected by proprietor David Oei, whose expertise and commitment to service make this a must stop destination for wine lovers. The store is particularly strong on burgundies, which is unusual for New York. Woody Allen and Sharon Stone are also frequent customers." ( Carlylewines ( talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Admin Jersey_Devil is blocking users without giving reason on the block page. I suggest you take up this person's admin privilege and revoke his administrator right immediately. This block violation by Jersey_Devil was caused by the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans#SamEV. He shouldn't violate his admin privelege by blocking someone when that user didn't insult anyone on this matter. The user blocked is: 24.9.96.166.

I immediatily request Jersey_Devil's violation and revoke of admin privilege immediatily. He also reverted this very contentious topic with "npov" tag and removed the npov tag where there is heated discussion about the article going on for days. Here is his unexplained gross negligence revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans&diff=283512854&oldid=283470015 Someone people respond to this matter appropriately and revoke this user's admin account asap. Onetwo1 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Matters like these should be discussed here: WP:AN. A v N 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kathleen Battle article is found here. [24]. While I do not know his age, I suspect he is a very young editor and clearly a fan of Ms. Battle. He repeatedly deletes any information regarding the behavior that led to her firing from the Metropolitan Opera regardless of how well sourced. The firing itself and the circumstances surrounding it received a lot of press attention and are well documented. Its significance to the biography is that it ended her celebrated operatic career. The most recent passage he purged was:

Although Battle gave several critically praised performances at the Metropolitan Opera during the early 1990s, her relationship with the company's management showed increasing signs of strain during those years. ^[2] As Battle's status grew, so did her reputation for being difficult and demanding. ^[3] In October of 1992, "when Miss Battle opened the Boston Symphony Orchestra season, she reportedly banned an assistant conductor and other musicians from her rehearsals, changed hotels several times, and left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" ^[4] In February 1994, during rehearsals for an upcoming production of La Fille du Régiment, Battle was said to have subjected her fellow performers to "withering criticism" and made "almost paranoid demands that they not look at her." ^[5] General Manager Joseph Volpe responded by dismissing Battle from the production for "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals. Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members" and indicated that he had "canceled all offers that have been made for the future." ^[6] Battle was replaced in La Fille du Régiment by Harolyn Blackwell. ^[7] At the time of her termination from the Met, Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that "the cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired." ^[8]

1. ^ [1]
2. ^ Bernard Holland, Kathleen Battle Pulls Out Of 'Rosenkavalier' at Met, New York Times. January 30, 1993. Accessed 22 July 2008.
3. ^ ALLAN KOZINN, The Met Drops Kathleen Battle, Citing 'Unprofessional Actions', "New York Times". February 8, 1994.
4. ^ ALLAN KOZINN, The Met Drops Kathleen Battle, Citing 'Unprofessional Actions', "New York Times". February 8, 1994.
5. ^ Michael Walsh, "Battle Fatigue", Time Magazine, February 21, 1994
6. ^ Allan Kozinn, The Met Drops Kathleen Battle, Citing 'Unprofessional Actions', New York Times, February 8, 1994. Accessed 22 July 2008.
7. ^ Edward Rothstein, Opera Review: After the Hoopla, 'La Fille du Regiment', New York Times, February 16, 1994. Accessed 23 July 2008.
8. ^ Michael Walsh, "Battle Fatigue", Time Magazine, February 21, 1994

He distrusts media accounts regardless of the source. He wants primary source eye witness accounts. His stated reasons for the deletions include:

"Is Time Magazine considered a high quality news organization like AP?" [25]

"You state, "The consensus view that Ms. Battle caused her own firing by being difficult and demanding is not presented." In your statement lies the very reason that the portions you feel should be present do not seem appropriate per wikipedia, which is why I remove them. "The concensus VIEW" does not mean something is FACT. That is, concensus view DOES NOT EQUAL fact. In WWII Germany the concensus view was that those of jewish decent were greedy, selfish, inferior. Media helped to spread this view. German people were not "bad" people, but a critical mass and media helped keep this view prevalent which certainly did the opposite of "do no harm." / If concensus view were supported by "stone cold proven facts" (verifiable events and from credible, unbiased witnesses), then it would qualify as fact." [26]

He doesn't have an understanding of wikipedia concepts or how to apply them. Believe me the debate/educate approach really is pointless. I don't know how to deal with him apart from a continuous neutrality tag which isn't improving the article. Should I remove the tag - the article isn't moving toward NPOV? Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. -- Eudemis ( talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the article Troy Davis case is not written from a NPOV. The article is very one-sided and does not address both sides of the issue. The article only makes an attempt to convince the reader of Davis's innocence and does not address or downplays evidence against him. Regardless of induvidual editors views, this article must address both sides at least until the Supreme Court decides the issue. JakeH07 ( talk) 23:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please look at New Romanticism, I've an anon reverting me as I attempt to summarise sources neutrally. I've attempted to explain on the talk page, but the anon is not listening. I requested semi-protection but that was denied. Appreciate input. Dispute currently centres on this edit, [27], with the anon refusing to list the three bands based on their point of view. I think the current text doesn't work because it renders meaningless the introduction of Martin Fry. In my version the point is supported by the source provided, Rimmer's "New Romantics: The Look'", while the Sim reference supports the point that a number of sources see the band as a NEw Romantic band. Appreciate thoughts. Hiding T 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I attempted to implement a more NPOV wording here. This was reverted by User:BassPlyr23 who has since removed tags I added from the article and accused me of being a "Palestinian sympathizer". Regardless, I still think "killed" is the mot juste here as no murder verdict was ever handed down. What do others think? -- John ( talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A killing can be a murder without a murder verdict, otherwise there would be no such thing as an "unsolved murder". Calling this a murder is accurate, and therefore NPOV in my opinion. If anything, massacre is more inflamatory than the word murder is, but both are accurate in this situation and should therefore be maintained. The  Seeker 4  Talk 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I think a reference for the use of the term "murder" would be required though, no? -- John ( talk) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. One of them is Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm

One user claims this source is not neutral since within the article there’s the following mention: The turning point of the war was the occupation of Lima on January 17, 1881, a humiliation the Peruvians never forgave, Daza...as brutal and incompetent as his predecessors

Yet, given the context of the war several sources talk about humiliation. See for example the headline of the NY times in 1879. The humiliation of Peru; The battles which preceded the occupation of Lima. [28]

I must also add, that the source is not being used to claim that Chile humiliated Peru during the war, but rather to verify that Bolivia (another country involved) declared war first. Please advice is this a neutral source?

Likeminas ( talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are laboring under a misapprehension. WP:NPOV is a policy we use to guide our writing of Wikipedia articles, not a policy that we use to judge sources. All sources have a point of view. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true; a better place for feedback about the appropriateness of that source would be the reliable sources noticeboard. It seems though that you may be alluding to an issue of undue weight, which of course is a point-of-view issue. You may wish to clarify your request, either here, there, or at both noticeboards. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is something of an edit war over the Controversies section of this article at the moment. Neither of the proposed edits deal with the underlying WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. Additional input appreciated. -- Kangaru99 ( talk) 23:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please also see the related question here [29] whether or not Charting Stocks.net is a reliable source. -- Kangaru99 ( talk) 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I demand a neutral point of view in reference to a debate, in which I am involved with User Mythdon. I am convinced that this User is abusively using the term "Policy" in this discussion. Also, shouldn't the above referred discussion have taken place here rather than on my personal talk page? Finally, if User Mythdon is correct in pointing out the lack of "Notability" for the source I am referring to, please indicate what would constitute a notably valid source in the case of a fictional character which is part of a notable fictional TV series. Thank you, -- Jazzeur ( talk) 14:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Home_birth

Significant edit war in this article between pro and anti - home births editors. Basically each side just keeps adding studies supporting their POV, particuarly in regards to safety. We seem to be debating the merits of each study which to be honest is beyond us. Some advice on what constitutes a valid source and what doesn't or how to resolve this conflict.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemical Ace ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a subject where it is critically important that a balanced view be given, and that is not where it currently stands in my opinion. I've pointed out a couple examples, and suggested that parts of the article, particularly the safety section, be disputed until both sides can agree in discussion on how to present a more complete picture. Valid studies would be medical studies, conducted by medical universities, which the home birthing community appears to loathe. However, anecdotes and nonsensical stats do a disservice to the subject, and only confuse the issues. Right now, the article's Safety section reads like the material I can get on any pro-home birthing site. Astynax ( talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also added to the tag on the talk page to point to the Reproductive category within the WPMED project. You may want to ask for participation there, as they would be more familiar with the studies. Astynax ( talk) 18:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added an NPoV dispute tag to the article, as it is clear that the article is far from neutral. There is also a continuing edit war with only minor progress towards consensus. I'm not sure that this will be solved by just myself - further intervention may be required. Astynax ( talk) 05:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Possible_convassing_concern.

Sorry, that's clearly the appropriate noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly shown that Indology and Indian politics need to be separated in the TOC of the article on Subhash Kak, but someone keeps pushing his/her POV. Take a look at the discussion: Talk:Subhash_Kak#Indian_Politics_and_Indology. NittyG ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As there was no discussion, I went ahead and changed it. I suspect that the person will revert the changes, in which case I will have to revert back, until it goes to a 3RR noticeboard. NittyG ( talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This page on a large private prison corporation reads like an advertisement. It's too much work for one editor to fix, so I am posting here because I feel that it is too interesting a subject to leave as what amounts to a brochure. Pink-thunderbolt ( talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that whenever I check this article, I find unsubstantiated claims of genocide reported as fact, unverifiable claims of the use of chemical warfare by the SLA, inflated casualty numbers and un-cited numbers of protesters, all slanted towards a pro-Tamil bias. The article often refers back to the ongoing civil war in Sir Lanka to give the protests context, which in itself is not an issue. However, when ever aspects of the conflict are refered to, it is done so in such a way that makes the article read as a Tamil P.R. piece. For example, casualty numbers in the article from a recent now seem to be being selectively sourced from pro-Tamil media (i.e. tamil.net) which claim a much larger number of fatalities, ignoring the widely reported lower numbers found in most mainstream media articles. Mike McGregor (Can) ( talk) 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This entry does not fit the usual standard of ethics and balance seen in wikipedia, and should be entirely removed.

Twice I have tried to insert sections WITH REFERENCE SOURCES regarding negative aspects of this living person's character. They are well documented cases which can also be verified from the American FBI, if anybody so wishes. On both occasions "Raguib" deleted my insertions. And now it has been given a "protected" status.

What now remains is a one-sided completely unreferred eulogy of a person whose contribution ranks less significantly than millions of young Bangladeshi expatriates.

It must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.196.90 ( talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarification, I have reverted this anon IP's edits, where the anon added alleged records of the subject's arrest and convictions. The only "reference" the anon provided was from a web based non-notable magazine/tabloid from Bangladesh, which itself did not cite any sources. Therefore, per WP:BLP, I have reverted the additions by the Dhaka University IP. I am also willing to remove further unreferenced/laudatory content from the article. -- Ragib ( talk) 16:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The fifth largest city in Mexico. As a border city between Mexico and the United States, the English language press tends to report on the city's worst problems. Its crime problems certainly are serious, but the article coverage may be distorted. As an attempt to counterbalance that, some inexperienced editors have attempted to add material that's basically civic/business boosterism. Segments of the article appear to have been written by non-native English speakers. Have culled through a fair bit of that but problems remain. Needs the eyes and opinions of more experienced editors: not an easy article to balance appropriately. Durova ^Charge! 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on about the use of the map File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG on the article about Germany (terminology). The factual accuracy of this map has been heavily disputed on Commons, most recently here. Wutsje ( talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on Commons has resulted in "Keep", but that explicitly does not imply a judgment on whether it is factually correct or could be used legitimately in Wiki article space. With regard to formal aspects, I'd say the way the image was compiled amounts to original research, so it should not be used in articles. It also lacks sufficient information on what is being regarded as German language. There is a difference between Germanic languages and German. I have a map of the "area of Germanic languages" from a 1953 encyclopedia here that includes the Netherlands, parts of Lithuania, and also Denmark and Sweden. So the area in the map File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG seems to be either too large (for "German") or too small (for Germanic languages), and I would support deleting the image. If someone should find a reliable source or any notable institution that defines "German" in the way the uploader did, then the image might be uploaded again, with proper sources given. — Cs32en ( talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the image and it does not represent specifically Germanic languages or German. It is a (still current and accurate) map of the six major German dialect branches (combined) - Friesisch, Niederdeutsch, Mitteldeutsch, Fränkisch, Alemannisch and Bairisch-Österreichisch. Wayne ( talk) 19:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dutch area has a different (brighter) color in the map. The reader would think that it would be a variant of German. There is no explanation in the legend, which simply says "German language area", the file name translates to "Historical German language area". I don't think the map is grossly inaccurate otherwise, but it's impossible for the Wikipedia community to check its accuracy, as its composed of so many different sources in a way that I would characterize as original research. And the map actually claims to be accurate with regard to very small areas, especially in the east. The problem here is that alternative proposals might not be factually accurate either at the moment. It should not be difficult to find a non-copyrighted map from an admissible source that shows the language area from about 100 years ago. -- Cs32en ( talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume (WP:OR) the dutch area is brighter because although the dialects are part of a major family group they are not widely spoken. West Frisian is spoken in the West Friesland area while Lower Frankish is spoken in the rest of the brighter area. Both are of course German dialects. The map might be more relevant if the author modified it by colour differentiation to show the six different dialect families. As it uses multiple sources this map is minutely detailed compared to what you will probably find on the web so if modified may be a good one to use. Wayne ( talk) 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is Marburg University's dialect map. [30] Check the boxes to get the different dialects. And here's one [31] that shows some of the language islands. Wayne ( talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found a map of dialects spoken in the Benelux countries here. Low Frankish or Low Franconian might be regarded as a precursor of a German dialect, but today's Low Franconian is, according to the Wikipedia article, a subset of the West Germanic languages. The German Wiki article Niederfränkische Sprachen says that Dutch is the Dachsprache for Low Frankish. So most of the area that is bright green in the map is not German language area. I'm not a language expert, so I don't want to make any statement on whether any part of it belongs to the German language area or not.

Prussia invented the term Deutschniederländisch ("German Dutch") for some Dutch dialects, meaning that they would be some German variant of Dutch. (Prussia would of course not have agreed that German would be a variant of Dutch.) This term is logically inconsistent, and has been largely replaced by "Kleverländisch", which is sort of a German translation of South Guelderish. — Cs32en ( talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the Frisian languages: those are not dialects of German, that is historically and linguistically simply not true. They are - just like English - members of the Anglo-Frisian languages. Wutsje ( talk) 23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The German Wiki has a section on dialects that are being spoken by people who formerly spoke Frisian, and that are therefore sometimes referred to as "Frisian" dialects. The nomenclature seems to be somewhat inconsistent, although there appears to be agreement on the substance of the relationships between the dialects and languages. -- Cs32en ( talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That section explicitely states that those dialects are not considered to be varieties of Frisian languages ("Nicht zu den friesischen Sprachen gehören verschiedene Varietäten in den friesisch besiedelten Gebieten (...)"). Anyway, the problem is solved now, since the map has been replaced with a new one. Wutsje ( talk) 10:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to say: they are called Frisian, but they are not Frisian. I can't find the new map at the moment. Could you add a link here, Wutsje? — Cs32en ( talk) 14:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's here. Wutsje ( talk) 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The new map seems factually correct. I'm not an expert and can't say anything on the details (smaller areas etc.). More information on the source should be given (current description: "Based on a map by Dr. V. Schmidt and Dr. J. Metelka."). — Cs32en ( talk) 16:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am german and i can understand dutch just fine (without ever having actually learned it). Dutch people can also understand german. The languages are extremely simialar and are easier to understand than some of the german dialects. So If the map counts regions with heavy german dialects like swabian as historicly having been german speaking - i see no reason to not include dutch as well - it's certainly more similar to german than swabian (-: -- Hoerth ( talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the Rapture article violates Wikipedia's NPOV standards. The doctrine is held by non-dispensationalist Christians as well as dispensatonalists, and there are timing differences between different theological groups. One group is now being represented to the exclusion of the others -- and all groups need to be represented. I've attempted to discuss this on the talk page to no avail. This diff removes the NPOV from the article and caues the violation. Thanks in advance for the help. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 02:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a recent trend by some editors to include countries' territorial claims on infobox maps on country articles, which spark edit wars and destroys NPOV consensus on these articles. Such cases are the Argentina and People's Republic of China articles. Sihjop ( talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to balance section to reflect episodes of perceived sectarianism with attempts to combat sectarianism are constantly removed despite all criteria being met. Numerous attempts at concilliation and discussion are rebuffed as such the article now contains factual errors.

02:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeekerAfterTruth ( talk • contribs)

Editor ukexpat added a 'This article is written like an advertisement' to an article I submitted on Greubel Forsey. I edited and rewrote the article following the Wikipidia Principles of Neutrality and have twice asked for reconsidereration and/or comments/suggestion but have had no reply (in many months).

May I please ask another editor to read the article and either remove the 'This article is written like an advertisment' or make suggestions as to what work needs to be done.

Thank you, User:Underthedial|IanS]] ( talk) 08:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE ? -- Jaymax ( talk) 09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited the article a bit and left a few comments in the talk page. The article still reads a bit like an advert at some parts, so the tag should probably stay for now. (a comment for IanS, maintance tags are supposed to attract editors who are interested in solving that kind of problems. Those tags sometimes tend to stay stuck in some articles for years, but I am a witness that there are editors out there that are dedicated to solving very old tags, so they shouldn't usually be removed until the problem is solved, this advice applies mainly to maintenance tags in uncontroversial articles that don't receive much attention, it does not usually apply to stuff like NPOV tags being slapped without explanation in controversial articles that receive lots of attention. Those tags should not be interpreted as as an attack on the subject of the article, they are comments about how the text of the article itself needs to be improved. Also, while searching for what "iW magazine" was, I found Maitres du Temps and I had to tag it too, sorry for that but it has similar problems with bolding and stuff.)

About NPOV, since the tag is justified, this is not a NPOV problem but a problem of writing the article better, which takes quite a lot of experience. Myself I have only learned to copyedit specific stuff so I'm afraid that there is not an inmediate solution to the tag. The usual advice is editing other articles so you get more experience and gradually learn to write wikipedia articles better. Also try going to the featured articles list, pick a couple articles from a topic you like and read them to get a better feel of what is considered very good writing style in wikipedia. I have found that it has helped me in improving my presentation of topics.

Finally, I have to commend IanS for having so much patience and civility, and for assuming good faith of other editors. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: I edited heavily the article and it seems like I managed to remove most of the advert problems, so I went ahead and removed the tag. Feel free to restore as necessary and give advice/complain in the talk page -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if we could get a little feedback regarding WP:NPOV and my analysis for the current naming dispute at Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) vs. Electromagnetic therapy. For more information and to leave a comment, please see Talk page starting are Rename section. Thank you. -- CyclePat ( talk) 04:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved comment - I attempt to be neutral, but I think at least part of the problem involves editors talking past each other, so please correct me where I err. The issue, as far as I can tell, concerns whether it is fair to have two articles, one for medicine and one for alternative medicine, and the titling of the latter article; links are to current titles last I checked. Some editors feel that having two articles is necessary because the history, theory, and use of the two sets of applications fundamentally differ. Other editors feel that maintaining two articles is dismissive of part of the single topic and unsupported by the sources. Outside comments are welcome, especially since neither article is the best Wikipedia has to offer. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved comment - regarding above comment: This is a fair assesment of the current situation. Thank you. -- CyclePat ( talk) 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A new editor, user:CeterisParibus xcs has created a series of long articles on aspects of the history of Cyprus. I found three of them in the list of new articles to be wikified. None of them are wikified at all, the formatting isn't good, and it's quite likely that some or all of the text is plagiarised. They are all written from a pro-Turkish Cypriot point of view. It would be good if some more people could have a look at them. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this article as it reads very biased in favour of the Han empire over th Roman empire and the article appears only to exist to prove a point of the Han empire being better than the Roman empire. Another editor a few days ago did try to help by adding pictures to the article regarding the Roman empire but prior to this the article was dominanted with Han empire pictures. It seems in the article's history that one editor, user:teeninvestor, appears to dominate the article, treating it pretty much as their own pet project to push their own biased pro-China point of view, as can be seen in moreorless their entire contribution history as their account seems basically only to exist to futher a pro-China point of view across Wikipedia. Thank you. 88.109.22.102 ( talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention. I have never seen an article like this in WP. It reads more like a thesis than an article. I'm not sure it has a proper place in WP. If it does, I'm going to write one too: Comparison of George W Bush and Satan. Or maybe: Comparison of George W Bush and Christ. Both seem about as reasonable of as Comparison between Roman and Han Empires.-- nemonoman ( talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

nemonoman: NPOV would insist you write a Comparison of Christ and Satan page as well. That should make you popular. I'm going to take a look over there myself - I've noticed at least one editor who's pushed a Roman/Chinese connection theory on a couple of Chinese philosophy pages, so this problem might be a bit more spread out than it appears. -- Ludwigs2 15:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It does seem very strange for an encyclopedia entry. Some of the material might be relevant within articles dealing with the limited contacts between the two, or as an illustration of Exceptionalism. I agree that articles on “Comparison between A and B” are out of place, however interesting the subject. Astynax ( talk) 20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, rather than trying making an issue of the article's POV or arguing about splitting it (articles already exist on the two empires), it would be best to nominate it as an AfD on the basis that it violates Wikipedia's standards for content. Astynax ( talk) 03:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make that case, I'm certainly open to discussing it. what content guideline do you think it violates, though? the idea itself does have presence in scholarly sources (though not exactly in the way that it's being presented in the article), it's not exactly indiscriminate, not exactly original thought, not exactly a soapbox (though it is a little bit of all of them). I'm not quite sure you could get an AfD to fly, except maybe on notability grounds. plus, there are some valid and interesting sources tucked away in this mess. that's why I thought about splitting the article - take the comparative arguments and make them sections (or parts of sections) of the already established articles on the respective empires. that would keep what was good and useful in the article but give a chance to put it back into proper weight with the rest of the scholarship on the matter. the article itself we could shrink or turn into a disambig page.

sorry about the {{ split-apart}} tag - there was no 'split and merge the pieces' tag that I could find. -- Ludwigs2 04:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the subjective comparison implied by the title, I think it violates several of the guidelines. Primarily, comparisons of A vs. B are not subjects appropriate for an encyclopedia. The logic behind forbidding cross-categorizations would apply here - there are limitless such comparisons which could be made, as Neonoman noted). It also could be noted that it seems to violate the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Original thought, etc. This type of essay/comparison would be more appropriate in a Wiki other than Wikipedia. Astynax ( talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to remind: there has been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, deemed no "consensus". NVO ( talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What if you clearly indicate in the Afd that this is to merge the information into other article? Which would essentially delete the original article? (note: Who do we give credit to though... the Original source, republished by Wikipedia editor in the deleted article? -- CyclePat ( talk) 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Combined with the fact that we have a List of Bilderberg attendees which raises BLP problems if this article turns into an attack article, this article needs to be kept as NPOV as we can. I'm just fending off attempts to make it even more pov right now, but it needs work to make it balanced. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really that knowledgable about the Bilderberg Group, but I can watch it and revert any obvious cases of vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute at parental alienation syndrome regarding the neutrality of the article and references within the literature. Any comments on the page would be welcome. In particular, I wonder if my analysis here is sufficient to demonstrate that rejection of PAS is the norm and therefore it is undue weight to try to minimize them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Referred to WP:ANI#Parental alienation syndrome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute at parental alienation syndrome PAS regarding the neutrality of the article and references within the literature. Any comments on the talk page would be welcome. In particular, I ask the community to evaluate an edit with regard to the scientific status of PAS: PAS is not accepted as a syndrome because (1) although most mental health and legal professionals agree that the phenomena of PAS does exist (2) there is no agreement as to whether or not PAS is an abnormal disturbance and (3) there is no agreement as to whether or not PAS is a useful new diagnostic category that is not better explained by a different diagnostic category or subsumed by an existing diagnostic category.

Here's the edit: [32]

It has been reverted, and the most recent justification has misrepresented the content of the edit.

Thank you, Michael H 34 ( talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This may be a content dispute. There's a pretty extensive discussion here. I see it as an undue weight issue at least in part, so NPOV may be a good place to start. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 21:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about User:Infonerd2216's insistence in inserting the word "tough" in a statement about the playoffs series with the Lakers. I reverted his edit because of pov concern and more importantly, adding this descriptive word doesn't increase readers' knowledge about the subject. I tried to explain to him several times about this, but he refused to listen and even resorting to personal attacks. [33] I think something should be done.— Chris! _{c t} 01:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree; "tough" is subjective—who's to decide what "tough" means? Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if that user continues to make personal attacks such as those above, he should be blocked. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the word again, as it is clearly POV, and no consensus exists for its inclusion. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He just tried to re-insert another POV adjective, " hard", but it has essentially the same meaning. — LOL  ^T/ _C 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is presently rising to the level of edit warring. I have tried to utilize the talk page to reach a consensus, to no avail. Each time an npov tag is placed on the article in question, it is removed. The problems with the article are as follows:

• The subject concerns Human rights in the United States. Notwithstanding, the article reflects a continuing critique of the United States' human rights policies OUTSIDE of the United States. It content forks into various topics, including enhanced interrogation techniques, that are given undue weight, or are totally inappropriate in the article in question.
• The article has been essentially "claimed" by the human rights advocates, and is by any standard decidedly anti-American. Those with countering (or even moderate) view points are treated with noted hostility, labelled as being from the "fringe elements of the American right", and their good faith comments are treated not only uncivilly, but immediately discounted as bad faith. This is a per se violation of Wikipedia policy in this area.
• Changes to the article of even a minor nature are immediately reverted with comments referring back to the talk page, where the issue of npov has not been resolved, and the hostility noted above is provided. There is an absolutist quality at work, that one view point is the "right" view point. This has made improvements to the article in question nearly impossible, unless one shares the absolutist views of a group of editors that have claimed the article.
• The article delves into Hurricane Katrine response as a human rights violation. This reflects adherence to a "fringe theory", as objectively, the size of the disastor area exceeded the size of the United Kingdom. Instead, the article focuses on the race and class of those in New Orleans, and then makes sweeping claims that a slow response (which included lilly white parishes surrounding New Orleans) was because of the "race and class" of the residents of New Orleans trapped at the Superdome. The accepted view is that the response to Hurricane Katrina was a failure in leadership at all levels, local, state and Federal, but it is not generally accepted that the response was a human rights violation per se.
• Pursuant to what I have noted above, I request assistance at this time in improving the article in question to meet neutrality standards, and to reflect the neutrality required by Wikipedia. I also ask for assistance in determining if the article in question adheres to a neutral point of view. Thank you.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 14:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Please provide one reliable source that you feel best represents and supports your POV about Hurricane Katrina. I've looked at your edits and the talk page, and you appear to be POV pushing, and you have been very open about it. You also show no understanding of WP:FRINGE or WP:ENEMY and I have never seen you make a neutral edit. There are dozens, if not hundreds of reliable sources on human rights and Hurricane Katrina. For the record, I am an involved editor, but I would like to see this dispute resolved. Viriditas ( talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. You appear to lack a basic understanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I suggest you review them before posting further. My "POV" is to reach a "neutral" POV, and my edits reflect my attempts to reach neutrality.

The human rights stance on Hurricane Katrine stems from a strained reading of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, which provides that governments are responsible for preventingand avoiding conditions that might lead to displacement of persons, and for taking all measures possible to minimize displacement and its adverse effects. Under this theory, the US Army Corps of Engineers failed to meet this obligation by enforcing and/or re-building levees in New Orleans. The guiding principles also state a national governments’ obligations to protect people during displacement,regardless of whether that displacement is due to conflict or disaster. The Principles guarantee, among other things, the human right to dignity, security, liberty of movement, and respect of family life. They also forbid discrimination of any sort, whether it be on the basis of race, language, national origin, legal or social status, age, disability, or property. It is alleged that the US failed to meet this guiding principle when people without automobiles were not evacuated, and the majority of these individuals were black and/or the elderly. Prisoners were left behind in jails when cowardly guards fled their posts. The Guiding Principles obligate governments to provide humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons in accordance with the principles of humanity and impartiality and without discrimination. They statethat international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors have the right to offer assistance and that consent to do so shall not be withheld—especially when authorities are unable or unwilling to provide the needed assistance themselves. They also mandate that international humanitarian organizations offering assistance are obligated to protect the human rights of IDPs. It is alleged that principles were not always honored in the wake of Hurricane Katrina because of fraud by private contractors, and refusal to accept aid from foreign governments, who offered medical aid and equipment, as well as the mismanagement of the American Red Cross in assisting with efforts. Other points include the cost of housing, medical care expenses, etc. Do we now have it all straight?[ [34]

The problem you have is rather obvious as the United States is a Federal Democracy, not a unitarian form of government. Government is shared in this case on three levels - municipal, state and federal. Each layer of government has a different job in disastor assistance. Municipal government normally provides the manpower and has jurisdiction over the means of providing logistics and evacuation plans from its jurisdiction. State government has, under the US constitution, primary jurisdiction over the health and welfare of its citizens. The federal government provides the monetary considerations and additional resources to assist in disastor relief. In this case, the first line of defense, the municpal government, fell apart, which meant that contray to their own evacuation plans, they failed to bus their own citizens without automonbiles out of the city. Instead, lines of busses were left in the city. The guards at the prisons you identify were municipal employees, and they abandoned their posts. The police force left. The next line was the State of Louisiana. Under law, the state has the primary power to assist its own municipalities. If this fails, the State then requests "Relief Disastor Assistance" from the federal government, which has to be invited into the territory of the "sovereign" state. Once requested, the federal government then declares the area in question a Federal Disastor Area, and FEMA enters the picture. In other words, the role of making such a request for federal aid and assistance falls to the Governor of the State. In this case it was Blanco, who dragged her feet for days.[ [35]] The result was an epic breakdown in leadership on all levels of government. Bush could have declared martial law in the early hours, but that would most likely have lead to a separate human rights violation section. Once the federal government was allowed into the city, they engaged in rescue efforts and other steps to ensure food, medical care and other steps were taken for the remaining citizens. Couyld it have been done better? Certainly, but this particular disastor engulfed an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom, not just New Orleans. the entire number displaced? 400,000. [ [36]] What does that mean? Take the entire population of Baltimore City, and find them new homes. Even the guidelines you cite to at Principle 7, subparagraph 2 state: "The authorities undertaking such displacement shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to the displaced persons, that such displacements are effected in satisfactory conditions of safety, nutrition, health and hygiene, and that members of the same family are not separated". I would suggest that housing and assistance for such a number of people was provided "to the greatest extent practicable". If you can find anything differnt, please let me know.

In conclusion, I don't think Hurricane Katrina was a Human Rights violation, I think it was a human disastor generally. It showed the pitfalls of lousy local leaders coupled with a gigantic natural disastor of biblical proportions that overwhelmed the federal government. I think its inclusion in this article is seriously misplaced, and that you are stretching by including it. It deserves its own article, but is not an example of a human rights violation in the United States, though the results of the bungling was human misery. Thank you. -- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please find attached a link to Congressional Reports: H. Rpt. 109-377 – A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, which further supports my point of view.[ [37]] Thank you.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Now might be a good time for you to review Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. In the above comment, you have not offered a single reliable source for your POV. Instead, you have presented your own opinion that you have interpreted from primary sources. Viriditas ( talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I provided several "reliable" sources that support my position from the Washington Post, a report on the Hurricane and leadership failures, and the Bi-Partisan Congressional Report on Hurricane Katrina response. Each lists leadership failures and incompetence as the leading factor at issue. If it is your contention that these sources are "unreliable", please provide specific arguyments to support this theory. As for your other points, I am "pushing" neutrality, which is a guideline that should be followed in any Wikipedia article. I direct your attention to WP:Neutrality, which you can review after WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I have also reviewed Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, which ironically talks about edit wars and undue weight, and rather amply makes my point. Thank you for referring me to it, and I suggest you give it a fresh read.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a basic misunderstanding of how reliable sources are used on Wikipedia. You have not offered a single reliable source that supports your claim about human rights and Hurricane Katrina, nor can you find one. What you did do, was collect primary and secondary sources together and then draw conclusions from them -- conclusions that do not appear in any one source. This is generally described as "original research" on Wikipedia and is not appropriate. If you wish to counter my statement, it will be very easy to do. All you need to do is provide one reliable source that shows, without any interpretation by yourself, that the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina did not violate human rights. Multiple reliable sources have been provided that claim that it did, and it is our job as editors to represent the best sources. Now, if you wish to show that it is not, please point me to one source that represents your alternative opinion that this is a conspiratorial, fringe theory, as you claim. You also claimed that "it is not generally accepted that the response was a human rights violation per se." So, please, put up or shut up. If this doesn't make sense to you, please ask someone else to explain it. Viriditas ( talk) 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your predictably uncivil response.

A small sampling from the sources:

Put another way, there was a massive strategic failure of long-term federal planning that dwarfed tactical federal failures this past week, and a massive strategic and tactical failure of medium- and short-term state and local planning that dwarfed myriad cases of individual heroism. Worse, it is now clear that state officials refused to give their legally required consent to surrender control to federal authorities despite their own massive default on their obligation to protect the public. Instead, state officials jealously guarded their ultimate legal power of decision while shifting maximum responsibility to the federal government, thus creating an intolerable situation. Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco thus refused a direct request on Friday, Sept. 2, from President Bush that the National Guard be federalized; Bush made the request after becoming disgusted with anarchic conditions at the Convention Center.

[ [38]

Hurricane Katrina displaced more than 400,000 people from the New Orleans area and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, according to a Census Bureau report to be released today, one of the most comprehensive looks at the hurricane-induced migration.

[ [39]

The failure of local, state, and federal governments to respond more effectively to Katrina — which had been predicted in theory for many years, and forecast with startling accuracy for five days — demonstrates that whatever improvements have been made to our capacity to respond to natural or man-made disasters, four and half years after 9/11, we are still not fully prepared. Local first responders were largely overwhelmed and unable to perform their duties, and the National Response Plan did not adequately provide a way for federal assets to quickly supplement or, if necessary, supplant first responders.

[ [40]

In not one of these sources does the term "human rights" appear. In not one of these sources does the conecpt even get discussed. Instead, the sources look to leadership failures at all three levels of government as causing the disastor in response. Thank you.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Outside Viewpoint - since the sources don't discuss whether OR NOT there are human rights violations stemming from the handling of the disaster, they don't seem overly relevant. You need to find sources which DO ADDRESS human rights (perhaps in response to the sources currently in the article) rebutting their position. The sources quoted above to not preclude a 'human rights' perspective to the tragedy.-- Jaymax ( talk) 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you cannot provide a single reliable source that supports your claim. Sorry, but you don't get to cherry-pick sources to support your interpretation of a particular issue. You either support your claims directly, or you drop your argument. Your argument is not based on any sources, but on your own personal opinion. If you are claiming that an article about human rights in the United States lacks neutrality, then the way we handle that on Wikipedia is to provide another POV. The topic is human rights, and unless you can directly address that topic with a source that actually discusses it, then you don't have an argument. Viriditas ( talk) 15:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming your failure to read the sources, or perhaps your refusal to admit their existence. My points came from them (which is why they were cited), but if you want to maintain this stance of hostile denial, that's your business. I don't think it's really fooling anyone. Yachtsman1 ( talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've read the sources. You simply don't have an argument. You're reduced to cherry picking sources that don't discuss human rights, and because the sources you've cherry picked don't discuss human rights, you are saying that those that do are "fringe" and conspiratorial. That's ridiculous. To address and criticize the human rights question, you need to find a source that discusses it. Jumping up and down and pointing your fingers at material that doesn't even discuss it is absurd. This is pure foolishness. Viriditas ( talk) 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet the points you make are based on an underlying premise that the failure of the government to evacuate people from New Orleans was based on discrimination, and that the housing provided was equally based on discrimination, which brings the matter into human rights purview. The sources make clear that these situations arose from incompetence, not racial animus in violation of human rights. In other words, they counter the motive section of the article, which is required for an act of the government to violate human rights as against "minorities", the sole underlying basis for your primary source. Keep trying, though. -- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They weren't my points, but the points made by the cited sources -- multiple sources you are ignoring. Do you understand that we write articles based on sources, here, and not opinion? It doesn't seem that you do. NPOV comes from the careful use of multiple sources. Unless you have sources that criticize the human rights issue, you don't have an argument. Viriditas ( talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Subject: Re. to first post regarding point #1. It is stated taht "The subject concerns Human rights in the United States. Notwithstanding, the article reflects a continuing critique of the United States' human rights policies OUTSIDE of the United States." I see where there may be a problem, but really this is just a paradox. The reason I say this is because of the article's title. I believe this is a type of POV or content fork to the main article which should probably be titled Human rights and the United States. As for "Human rights in the United States", why can't it be "Human rights "inside" the United States"? Nevertheless, this later suggestion doesn't really resolve the problem of Content forking issues and how editor or where they should present information regarding "outside policies". Hence, in think the argument you raise is valid regarding the article's title. If you take that into consideration then yes, there is an argument regarding WP:NPOV and content forking. But that's not really the case. This is because I believe the term "in", is used losely as a general term. Here at Wikipedia for articles it is used losely for a general perspective "in" or "from" that country or area. You may wish to consider, implementing information about "Policies within the US" but also consider "Outside policies (in or of the United States)". If there is enough information perhaps you should consider making or finding another article which deals with Human rights policies within the territory of the United States. But as is, not even having read the article, but just skimmed over the debate, it looks like you would have trouble doing this... and I recommend working on one article for now. As for the titles, I digress; " Human rights in the United States", " Human right of the United States, Human rights surounding the United States, Human rights throughout the United States, Human rights and the United States, Human rights inside the United States, Human rights outside the United States, Human rights inside of the United States, Human rights outside of the United States, Human rights inside and outside of the United States... or why not... Human rights policies of the United States, Human rights policies within the territory of the United States, etc... etc... All seem to be content forks of my recommend suggestion or the current articles title (which I also prefer and is quite clear that it should include "Inside" and "Outside" policies.) -- CyclePat ( talk) 17:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

P.s.: Look at that... my meandering thoughts do make sense.... the article was moved here originally from Human rights and the United States. -- CyclePat ( talk) 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stepping back from the Katrina issue for a second, let me restate some issues I raised in the article's talk page.

• There is an undue Weight on current events on a country with 200+ years of civil rights history. Why focus on Abu Gharib as opposed to, say, My Lai?
• Entire sections seem entirely devoted to criticism of the United States, for example the Katrina sections and Justice system. The Death Penalty lacks a SINGLE PRO ARGUMENT. How is that balance?
• A HUGE overemphasis on criticism. No article on a subject, short of Satan himself, should have criticism of the subject in the very first paragraph.

As a random aside, 51% of the New Orleans fatalities were Black. New Orleans was at the time 70% Black. Doesn't that mean non-Blacks were disproportionately killed? Odd, considering the supposed reason the response was slow was race. Joker1189 ( talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss Katrina with you, but you are welcome to address the rest of your issues on the article talk page. I'm curious what you mean by a pro-death penalty argument. Do you think that such a thing belongs in an article about human rights? Are you unaware that the very concept of the "death penalty" is generally viewed as a violation of human rights? Should we defend the violation of human rights in an article about human rights? I suppose it would be possible (or even necessary) to attribute the position of those who support violating human rights for informative and historical purposes. How would you recommend doing it? Viriditas ( talk) 06:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, because I'm not going to claim any knowledge of that particular issue. But as for the Death Penalty, of course there needs to be pro arguments. First of all, the claim that the death penalty is is "generally viewed as a violation of human rights" is exactly what's wrong. The vast majority of Americans support the death penalty. In an article about the USA, that has to be addressed. Asking "Should we defend the violation of human rights?" is also the wrong way of thinking. Because once again, you are presupposing the death penalty is wrong. People in prison are also denied their right to movement and privacy. Most people see this as justified. For an article on prisons to look exclusively at those "human right abuses" without stating the reasons these rights are removed would be terribly POV. It's the same for the Death Penalty. Substantial margins support the revoking of the right to life of sufficiently heinous criminals. There is no mention in the article what these reasons would be.If I may make an analogy, when you put someone on trial for murder, you look at the mitigating circumstances. No judge says, "I don't think your defense is relevant. Should we really defend a violation of human rights in a court designed to uphold justice?" Unfortunately, the article in question has changed from a history of human rights in the United States to a show trial of perceived wrongs committed by the United States, with no pretense at balance on this particular issue.

I think this pretty much sums up most of the problems of the article. You need to have both sides of an issue, period, no discussion. WP:NPOV dictates and I quote:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

You must give some space for counterpoints and be neutral. A simple laundry list of things the US didn't do isn't really informative unless you give the why (why it's a violation, and why it wasn't signed/adopted). For the prison system, a few isolated incidents are not sufficient, you need to back them up with other incidents. It might be a good thing to mention in the racial section any of the following: "The Underground Railroad," "The Civil Rights movement," "Montgomery Bus Boycott," "SNCC," "SCLC," "Martin Luther King Jr.," THE FREAKING EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, 13TH, AND 15TH AMENDMENTS!!! Omitting such things in that section alone really hurts the article as a whole. Soxwon ( talk) 16:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article the section links to, Capital Punishment Debate, as has to address the debate. But compare the two articles' opening:

Opponents of the death penalty often state one or more of the following reasons as the basis for their opposition: the possibility of the execution of an innocent person; the lack of deterrence of violent crime; and opposition to the death penalty based on a moral or religious basis. Supporters of the death penalty often state one or more of the following reasons as the basis for their support: the deterrence of violent crime; closure to the families and friends of the victim (in practice, the death penalty is used almost exclusively to punish convicted murderers); and the belief that a temporary prison sentence is not effective punishment for such an act.

vs.

Capital punishment is controversial. Death penalty opponents regard the death penalty as inhumane[64] and criticize it for its irreversibility[65] and assert that it lacks a deterrent effect,[66] as have several studies[67][68] and debunking studies which claim to show a deterrent effect.[69] According to Amnesty International, "the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."[65]

The first adequately explains the debate surrounding the death penalty. The second states exclusively the arguments of the opposition while preemptively denying an argument from the proponents(deterrence). That is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker1189 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the claim that the death penalty is is "generally viewed as a violation of human rights" is exactly what's wrong.

No, it is exactly right. You counter with "the vast majority of Americans support the death penalty" which doesn't even address the isssue, but avoids it altogether. What the vast majority of people believe doesn't change the fact that it is generally viewed as a violation of human rights. Only 13% of Americans believe in natural evolution. Does that change the fact that evolution is generally viewed as valid? Please name a single human rights commission, organization, group, or paper that claims the death penalty promotes human rights. You won't find one. Your argument assumes that this is a matter of public opinion. It isn't. We don't write encylcopedia articles based on what the general public thinks or believes. The article is about human rights in the United States. It's not about the death penalty debate or a debate about universal healthcare or any other debate except human rights. If you can address that point, then great. If not, it doesn't belong in the article. What does belong, is a discussion about how the death penalty is used in the United States, why the data shows there is an imbalance in its use, and why it is viewed by human rights groups as a violation of Articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Counterpoints to these types of points are always welcome as long as they address the human rights questions and are based on good, reliable sources that directly discuss human rights in the U.S. Viriditas ( talk) 00:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that a human rights organization doesn't mention it gives you the excuse to simply criticize without mentioning context (i.e. why the "reforms" haven't been put into place, what problems each proposal entails). You can't just give this one-sided view of things, that's not how this works. Soxwon ( talk) 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please put aside your strong POV for a moment. All of our articles are based on good sources. If you can't find good sources for your "counterpoint" that you propose, then they don't get added. It's that simple. If you can be specific, I can give a specific answer. FWIW, my only interest here has been the coverage of Katrina, but I'm willing to address anything as long as I have the time. Quickly looking at GBooks, I see America Without The Death Penalty: States Leading The Way (2005) a book that includes some views closer to your own, but you would need to read it carefully to prepare a good counterpoint. You keep making accusations about what I am doing, but I am not the author of this material. Take a step back, inhale deeply, and try to make your point. Viriditas ( talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My strong POV? The Katrina section is in the worst shape as it cites two partisan sources and then misquotes an AP article so badly it might as well just get deleted. I can find sources about the counterpoints fairly easily, the problem is I have a feeling they will be deleted b/c they're "POV." I really don't have that strong a feeling, but this article is a joke. You have a racial section without the Emancipation Proclamation, 13th, or 15th amendments. NPOV requires you to give the differing viewpoints on any subject. Soxwon ( talk) 00:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your very strong POV, stronger than most people on Wikipedia I would guess. I'll discuss the Katrina section with you on the talk page of the article. I'm not aware of any misquoting of an AP source, so you'll have to bring it up there. I haven't seen any good sources that counterpoint the human rights situation regarding Katrina, so please, by all means bring them up on the talk page. However, given the sources to work with, it would be much easier for you to address the death penalty issue. For example, Joker1189 gave a highly partisan and biased description of the issue, ignoring the great history of the death penalty in the U.S. In the source I gave you above (Galliher et al. 2005), we discover that contrary to what Joker1189 claims, support for capital punishment in the U.S. dropped to 42 percent in 1966, and was suspended from 1972 through 1976. Joker1189 fails to recognize this changing viewpoint. The same source goes on to say that in 1999, even thought the United Nations Commission on Human Rights "supported a worldwide moratorium on executions in nations that maintain capital punishment", human rights group Amnesty International observed a year later that, "88 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA." According to the source, in regards to the human rights issue concerning the death penalty, "on the world stage the United States is in the company of what many describe as terrorist states." Could you respond to that? How would you, with your diametrically-opposed POV, go about incorporating this material into the article? Or would your strong POV prevent you from doing this? Would you put aside your POV and add it to the article per WP:ENEMY? Viriditas ( talk) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious you are only going to offer accusations and misquotings of wikipedia policy then I'm going to have to go to the wikipedia cabal. Soxwon ( talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your claim about the Katrina material on the talk page. Please address it there. I would be happy to fix it or remove it if you can support your claim. As for the above, it is a thought experiment. You are faced with adding material you personally disagree with to the article. How do you proceed? Please answer my question as it pertains directly to the NPOV problem. As far as I can tell, you are willing to add material to the article that supports your POV, but you are refusing to write for the enemy to explain the other side. Am I wrong? Then, answer the question. Viriditas ( talk) 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I had already answered it and I even spelled it out for you. You still have major NPOV issues with this article in terms of what is covered and what isn't and the overwhelming amount of attackish material against the US, mainly making use of specific incidents at the expense of historical gains and accomplishments. Soxwon ( talk) 01:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You should seek to find, include and cite those "historical gains and accomplishments" WRT human rights in the article. It seems to me that both sides here would do better looking for sources to support their POV - nothing wrong with having or even promoting POV so long as RS support is found, and the POVs are balanced in the article. Arguing back and forth here brings nothing of value to those reading the article. From the outside, the US has a fascinating Human Rights story to tell, going from legal Racial segregation in the United States to a Black president in 50 years?1?!!!eleven!! It would be naive(false?) to pretend that Katrina doesn't have a human rights element - but that's not the entire story - those who feel that the "expense of historical gains and accomplishments" is being missed should seek to add same (well sourced of course) to the article, rather than attacking those who still see HR violation in modern America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an answer. You defend the use of "counterpoints" that support your POV, but you aren't willing to include points made by other POV. I don't have any NPOV issues, as I welcome any and all POV that are relevant, topical, and well-sourced. The article, however, does have issues, and I encourage you to keep the issues in focus and the complaints about editors to a minimum. Viriditas ( talk) 01:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever said we would be removing the "points" critical of the United States? To date, those remain, yet any point that is supportive of America's human rights record has been removed as "POV". In other words, the current POV favors criticism of the United States in the area of human rights, while anything that counters that POV is not welcome in the article as a "POV" violation. This is circular reasoning at its finest. All this affects is neutrality, and both points and views should be represented in the article. Thank you. Yachtsman1 ( talk) 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have issue with User:Axfield's edits to the Parents Television Council article. He keeps referring to a PTC campaign urging advertisers to boycott the program WWE SmackDown! as a "smear campaign". While it's factually correct that WWE sued PTC and won over libel, is it a bit POV to lead the paragraph/section with such language implying viewpoint rather than let the reader interpret the facts for him/herself? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 02:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Last week or so i filed an RFC on the talk page but have not gotten a third opinion. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 02:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One important question would be whether reliable sources have called this a smear campaign. If it turns out that multiple sources have used that term it may be appropiate in that situation to mention that it has been generally viewd as one with references to back it up. If not, it would be better not to use the term.-- 70.24.177.30 ( talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This page reads like an advertisement. It also omits important information, such as the reasons for Klimionok being sacked from the Garden City Christian Church. This is an indication to me that the article is extremely one-sided. The final paragraph is a shameless ad for his current church that could have been copied straight from the local classifieds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.65.21 ( talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I toned down the hagiography a bit. It still does not say anything about him leaving the Garden City Christian Church, and should not say anything unless there is a good source. Itsmejudith ( talk) 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of this article is written as if it is the truth, not a view. Moreover, the view that is presented is not clearly identified. Other views are presented in only one section, and not at length. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

May I get opinions on the POV/neutrality of this page? -- Caernarvon ( talk) 12:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a pronounced attempt to minimize well sourced criticism of UofP in this article. if the administrator was to look at the history of the article, they would see a gradual erosion to the point where the article is solely promotional and omits well documented critical views. Moreover, non-neutral or poorly sourced articles are used in lieu of better sourced articles to promote UofP policies in the interest of "balance". Mysteryquest ( talk) 12:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was hoping for the opinion of a non-involved, third party source - though it's always nice to hear from you, Mysteryquest! -- Caernarvon ( talk) 02:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In the article Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament there is a discussion which had now become almost circular regarding the inclusion of the word scandal in some form in the title. Can a completely disinterested party from outside of the UK who is entirely unfamiliar wit the subject take a disinterested look at the article and surrounding arguments. For the talk please see here and for the article please see here.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was recently edited to remove the communist Chinese from the infobox, [41]. The discussion is here [42] Sherzo ( talk) 05:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A dispute is going on the Taiwan article. One editor added that is it is a "self-governing" island and provided four sources for it. Some editors claim that it is not neutral to call it so, because according to the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China, Taiwan is part of China and therefore can't be self-governing. The PRC's claims, however, are mentioned in the article so in my opinion all the POVs are correctly represented with an equal weight. So the question is: should the "self-governing island" statement stay or be removed? Any help regarding this issue would be appreciated. A discussion is already going on on the talk page. Thanks. Laurent ( talk) 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue, including the neutrality dispute, seems to belong somewhere else, as the article is about Taiwan, the island, not about the Republic of China, the political entity.   Cs32en  15:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think someone has unwittingly transposed a territorial question with transposed it with a legal question. Taiwan may or may not legally be the property of the ROC, but as to who actually GOVERNS the island of Taiwan, that is not in dispute. As to the question of whether or not this is relevant in an article about geography, that's another matter entirely. The article about the continent of Australia, for example, doesn't mention who's governing what. Perhaps more relevant, neither does Geography of Sri Lanka.

The Australia article does talk about the government. The Geography of Sri Lanka would be a relevant comparison for the Geography of Taiwan article, but it is not a good comparison for the Taiwan article. The Ireland article describes the government situation early on. But comparisons to other articles should not be determinative because Taiwan is in a unique situation. The current government has a confusing name and is a transplant (the ROC from 1912 to 1945 has practically no territory in common with the ROC from 1949 to the present). I can think of no other country in the world for which this is true. Readin ( talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A dispute has recently arisen over the inclusion of a section allegedly linking socionics to the western zodiac, chakras, tattwas, alchemy, and other forms of mysticism. One author claims that several sources primarily written in Russian demonstrate the existence "strong verifiable ties" between socionics and mysticism, while others believe that this conclusion is unwarranted. For the relevant section, please see Socionics#Esoteric_links_to_Socionics For the discussion, please see Talk:Socionics#Removing:_Esoteric_links_to_Socionics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens ( talk) 04:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I know this might be the wrong place but I don't know where am I'm supposed to go. We need a new mediator at Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei. User:Kevin left following an unresolvable dispute with myself and now the article discussion has been going nowhere. If you would like to mediate, we need someone who is constantly there and doesn't just pop in and out. A little off-topic but I thought I'd throw a request out there. If someone would like to direct me to the appropriate board that would be great.

Editors User:NPguy and User:69.217.67.104 and I are currently the primary editors at ME but as of late I've been informally collectively "ignored" for being "unproductive."

Editors are currently posting drafts on non-notable subjects while filtering out relevant information that is sourced by primary and reliable references. This can be found here: Support for Israel/ME section. These same editors have claimed Press TV and Tehran Times, among other state-run news services qualify as reliable sources under wikipedia:reliable sources. I cite policy, explain why it is complete nonsense and violates the essence of NPOV and BLP laws but still am told to be more civil and actually read policy. Ugh.

I asked the IP and everyone else to find a 3rd party wikipedia-certified reliable source but no one has shown anything. IP posted this to qualify his ignorance of wiki policy: [ Its my opinion that an op-ed written by the subject of a biography, the IAEA, the National Academies Press, the Global Security Newswire, and the Arms Control Association are reputable and reliable sources.

• National Academies Press - iffy. Not enough to carry an entire section.

• [43]. - Doesn't look like a reliable source and I don't see it in database.

• International Atomic Energy Agency. Primary source and only reliable in its own context. In this case we are promoting something both inside and outside the IAEA. We need a 3rd party reliable source to support and also demonstrate notability which no user has done. This is probably why I'm being ignored because editors know they can't calculate notability.

• Arms Control Association. Yeah, special-interests and certainly not an RS.

This is a major issue and isn't a unique example. The entire article is supported by this kind of attitude, and the IP being the one who has controlled the editing process until I showed up clearly doesn't like someone who throws policies at his face and tells him he is wrong over and over again.

I've been sent to ANI by the IP during the mediation even though it violated mediation laws and most recently the IP filed a bogus etiquette report here. The ANI can be found at the etiquette page. IP likes to post it whenever he speaks with someone of authority.

It really bothers me how the discussion can continue to rely on totally unreliable sources that create an imbalance (see the actual article for evidence) and POV fork and nobody cares. No one. Within a day you will see user NPguy and IP, perhaps others come in here and characterize my person and post diffs to support. Then say how I've been obstructing the editing process, etc. We've had those vicious convos before and they tend to derail these incident reports. I won't engage (this time) unless it relates to the information above. If the article is saved and I get blocked it would totally worth it. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If an editor's contributions on a science-related article are repeatedly reverted by other major contributors, leading to the insidious suppression of a particular scientific theory or hypothesis, with the apparent (but unstated) motive being the defense of a more popular scientific theory with which the suppressed idea is at odds, does this situation fall under WP:NPOV? It seems to me that this is essentially a question of neutrality because the undue suppression of an established theory (or undue promotion of a novel theory) is a denial of the proper balance of giving equal weight to all theories found in reliable secondary sources. I certainly would not suggest that a theory advanced by only a single source (not notable) or only by primary sources (a novel theory) should be given credence on WP's articles. But on the other hand, a theory that has been around for decades and is discussed in multiple reliable sources should not be entirely suppressed just because it is inconsistent with another, more popular theory. Any thoughts? Wilhelm_meis ( talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific article and a specific dispute in mind, please provide the links. If this is a purely hypothetical question (meaning you have no specific dispute you are referring to) then the answer would have to be "it depends on the coverage given in mainstream reliable sources to the non-mainstream theory." It is impossible to say "yes the alternative theory should be covered" or "no it shouldn't be in the article" without knowing specifics about the actual theory in question, and without being able to research exactly what degree and quality of coverage there is. Understand that POV pushing and pushing of fringe theories to be included in articles is a huge problem on Wikipedia, so it is impossible to categorically state whether minor/less popular theories should be included without researching the specific article and specific theory in question. (no, I am not in any way implying you are "pushing" a POV, simply noting that without more detail about the dispute there is no accurate answer that can be provided for you here, if this is a quesion about a specific dispute/theory.) The  Seeker 4  Talk 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Any examples you might have would be a big help, rather than provide a strong answer on a hypothetical. Hiberniantears ( talk) 14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. The reason for my hesitation to point to a specific case is that in the case in mind, there has been no end to the edit warring and no shortage of editors jumping on the bandwagon to revert away nearly everything a user is contributing. I do not wish at this point to bring on another deluge to drown out altogether an editor who has made some useful contributions and is getting very frustrated with this situation. I think the particulars of this case may be best summed up by an IP user here. I have tried to assist the above mentioned editor with some advice on how best to broach the subject on the talk page and how to avoid getting reverted, and I have at some times, for various reasons, agreed with some of the reversions, but I don't think he should be pushed out of the project altogether. I would appreciate any further guidance anyone can give, as regards following policies and procedures on WP. Thank you for looking. Wilhelm_meis ( talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting, and a situation I may have to look into a bit more broadly since I am unfamiliar with it at a necessary level. Just to make sure I understand this, in the interest of keeping the peace the edits you made remove a brief section of language that has been involved in a revert war concerning the actual number of theories that fall under the term, correct? Seems like a reasonable solution for the time being while the central issue is hashed out. As for the content dispute itself, if two theories are the most widely accepted, while the third is not well sourced, then the two primary theories would have greater weight in this article while the third theory could have some mention if it has reputable sources behind it (in this case, I would imagine some level of peer review). On the other hand, if the third theory has not gained any thorough review, but is merely proposed, then it probably does not bear mention in the article at this time even if the individual presenting the theory is credible. However, while the article could continue to define the topic as containing two main theories, a sentence toward the end with appropriate sources mentioning a proposed third theory would not necessarily be problematic. However, this is really a superficial answer on my part. I would be happy to look it over a bit more in the next 48 hours. Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we are of like mind. I'm not jumping to one side or the other in this dispute, mostly just trying to quiet down the warring, but I think if D. Tombe or the IP editors can provide solid sources (the Goldstein equation is in there, and some potential sources for their interpretation of it have been mentioned on the talk page), then I think their interpretation should stand as a third option, regardless of what loose ends this might have regarding relativity. On the other hand, since this is certainly a minority opinion, I think it only appropriate to give it less weight in the article prose. I don't think it should be jettisoned altogether, however, if it can be proved that it is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and that it is a notable theory. I also do not wish to see a potentially invaluable editor pushed out of the project because his scientific views are unpopular and his methods are a bit rough around the edges. Wilhelm_meis ( talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

" Montana Freemen" has been mentioned in mainstream news in connection with the recent shooting of physician George Tiller.
"Montana Freemen" was, as far as I can make out, a separatist group, sometimes called " Christian Patriot", some of whose members ran afoul of the legal system (FBI siege, trials, prison sentences.)
Based on the connection with recent news, we can expect this article to get a lot of attention over the next few days and weeks.
The article has been extensively revised over the last few days, with IMHO the effect of making our article more sympathetic to this group and removing or minimizing criticism.
I'm no expert on this subject myself, however, I'd like all editors to be sure that the article remains balanced, NPOV, and cited. Thanks.-- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User Pyl has been posting an NPOV dispute tag on both the section concerning Taiwanese identity under the Republic of China article, and on the main Taiwanese Identity article. The reason seems to be that he doesn't like the information contained in several sources that say Chiang Kai-shek attempted to "sinicize" Taiwan. Lengthy discussions have not produced any indication of how he believes we can resolve the NPOV other than by removing the information he doesn't like. Can an outside party take a look at the information, the sources, and the articles and offer an opinion as to whether in the information can be included without violating NPOV, and if so also provide advice as to how to include it without violating NPOV. The dispute has also affected the Sinicization article [44]. The topic has been extensively discussed at Talk:Republic_of_China#.22sinicize.22 and at Talk:Republic_of_China#References Readin ( talk) 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to your personal comments about me "not liking" something and misrepresenting the discussion. The adminsitrator/editor who is interested in the background can see the full text of the discussion in Talk:Republic_of_China#.22sinicize.22. In short, I am not the only person objecting to this on the ground of NPOV. There are a number of editors having concerns with neutrality and the original pov tag was placed by another editor.

The issue was, in the information proposed by Readin, there was a "sinicization" program, and this program was done with a single purpose to make the local residents on Taiwan "Chinese" so that the government can retake the mainland. In my view, it seems to promote a feeling of dislike towards a political party/person and therefore violate WP:SOAP.

For the convenience of the administrator/editor who is interested in this issue, I will reproduce Readin's proposal here, as the discussion pages of the articles don't contain it:-

After the Republic of China relocated its capital to Taipei in 1949, the intention of Chiang Kai-shek was to eventually go back to Mainland China and retake control of it. For that reason, Chiang attempted to sinicize Taiwan's inhabitants. However, theKorean War in 1950, during which the PRC fought United States soldiers, changed this situation. It indeed pushed the US to conclude a mutual security treaty with the ROC since they did not want the Communists to take over the island. Thus protected by the US, the people on Taiwan continued developing their own identity, separate from mainland China.

This presentation is considered to be unneutral. The background information to this disputed section (The background information was written right above this section by Readin) was that the local residents of Taiwan were 85% Han Chinese at first place. The disputed section offered no explanation the need for the "resinicization" program, and it seemed to assume that the residents of Taiwan were not Chinese at the first place (which contradict with the background information). The background information was:-

The majority, about 85%, of Taiwan's population is descended from Han Chinese from Mainland China who immigrated to Taiwan between 1600 and 1900 A.D. Another significant fraction is descended from Han Chinese who immigrated from Mainland China in the 1940s and 1950s. But between 1895 and the present, Taiwan and Mainland China have shared a common government for only 5 years. The shared cultural origin combined with several hundred years of geographical separation, some hundred years of political separation and foreign influences, as well as hostility between the rival ROC and PRC have resulted in Taiwanese identity being a contentious issue with political overtones. It is often at the heart of political debates, because its existence makes the island distinct from Mainland China, and therefore may be seen as a step towards forming a consensus for de jure Taiwan independence.

Now I found a source actually putting the "sinicization" program into a bigger picture - it was actually a "resinicization" program, and I find this source much more neutral, as the source explains in detail the purpose was this program was part of a bigger education program, in order to form Chinese nationalism and the reason for needing the nationalism. I will reproduce the relevant section here so the administrator/editor can determine if this is indeed more neutral.

The government initiated educational reform in the 1950s to achieve a number of high-priority goals. First, it was done to help root out fifty years of Japanese colonial influence on the island's populace--"resinicizing" them, one might say- -and thereby guarantee their loyalty to the Chinese motherland. Second, the million mainlanders or so who had fled to Taiwan themselves had the age-old tendency of being more loyal to city, county, or province than to China as a nation. They identified themselves as Hunanese, Cantonese, or Sichuanese first, and as Chinese second. A centrally controlled curriculum would help forge a unified nationalistic sentiment for these people and their children. Finally, there was the immediate threat of an invasion from the mainland. Education would help build a martial spirit, inculcate the idea of Taiwan as an "island bastion," and stimulate enough military, economic, political, and cultural strength not only to survive, but also to recover the mainland.

This system, which remained essentially constant from the 1950s until the late 1980s, was based on Sun Yat-sen's revolutionary ideology and ideas of nationalism, formulated in the early years of the 20th century. Education was slated to play an essential role in bringing about national development. Sun also wanted to bind China's five major ethnic groups into a national unity, called "the Chinese people" (Hantsu), as a way to downplay ethnic distinctions. His idea of a unified Chinese state wasn't new, but his emphasis on cultural and national unity was--and it became a crucial component of Chinese nationalism.

I hope that explained my concerns with Readin's proposed information-- pyl ( talk) 07:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Or someone who is interested, could read the discussion pages where we've discussed this instead of having to also read your lengthy repetition of one side of the arguments here. Readin ( talk) 14:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is about to get ugly: Talk:Nochnoy Dozor (pressure group). Two cents from anyone uninvoled with the usualy crowd, please? ;-) PasswordUsername ( talk) 08:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin with interest in disambiguation and article (re)naming please stop by here. It's been renamed six times today so far -- Jaymax ( talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Boy racer (subculture) was nominated as violating NPOV long, long ago. Your thoughts? I would like to work on removing all the banners actually. Barfnz ( talk) 02:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:FRINGE medical therapy, and a number of maintenance tags relating to NPOV issues have been placed on the articl. User:Colonel Warden keeps removing said tags, and reverting my other MOSDAB-edits and efforts to make it more neutral in tone, rather than credulously accepting of extraordinary claims. Could some other folks look at this one? -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the final two sections need to be removed entirely and the aritcle turned into a stub. Once actual reliable sources for the claims made in the final two sections are provided, the information can be re-added but only in a NPOV manner. The current wording of the article sounds like an advertisement. I also find it convenient that the only claim backed up by a non-popular press article uses a drug along with the saline nebulizer, which seems to negate the "natural remedy" claim the article is making. The  Seeker 4  Talk 15:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Seeker 4  Talk-- LexCorp ( talk) 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the last two sections as a blatant copyright infringement from [45]. The actual version is down, so this is the cached version. Not only did is sound like an advertisement, it is an advertisement!!!-- Slp1 ( talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that it would make the inclusion of an advertisement more acceptable, but I noticed an OTRS message on the talk page. Unfortunately it doesn't say to which section of the text it refers. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I templated the Colonel, and in addition to "don't template the regulars", he replied (on his talk page) with WP:TAGBOMB and WP:INSPECTOR. I concede his point on the templating, but would like others to join in the conversation as to the other two aspects, since he seems to feel I lack a NPOV myself. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to mix a bit of fringe with mostly non-fringe in such a way that it looks like total fringe. The saltpipe sounded like fringe to me at first, but after reading the article it seems that it works with the natural humidity of exhaled air to get salt into the air and ultimately on the mucous. The section entitled salt water aerosol has an odd focus on cystic fibrosis, but given my own experience with salty air I would be surprised if its effect on all sorts of conditions of the respiratory system hadn't been proved in clinical studies. Purported benefits is apparently copied from somewhere and doesn't really fit into this article. Similarly for mechanism of action. What this article does not mention, but could, is the Salinarium in Bad Dürkheim, and of course the time-honoured practice of sending sick people to the sea-side. I am not sure how salty the air in an old salt mine is, but it might serve as a substitute.

The Kluterthöhle, however, is a cave that does not seem to have anything to do with salt. There is an association of 12 German communities having radon therapeutic(?)/healing(?) galleries, the Deutscher Heilstollenverband. There are also several such institutions in Austria; at least one of them (the one in Berchtesgaden [46]) has a decidedly fringy website (typical new age stuff, oscillations, magnetism, yoga and singing bowls). I suppose this is consumer oriented, while the Germans say they try to get the public health system to pay for them. As for the sea-side, the main benefit of these galleries may well be that the air is free of allergens.

Altogether, while the article is in a sad state I guess that it has enough potential that an Uncle G job could turn it into something quite good with not too much fringe, and that properly contextualised. That would probably necessitate widening its scope to something like climate and respiratory system. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating for deletion of the article, or labeling everything as bunk that is in it, but the large sections I pointed out above are definitely fringe and/or synthesis pushing of a viewpoint that I seriously doubt can be cited with sources that meet MEDRS. The  Seeker 4  Talk 23:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the article as it stands now relies on WP:synthesis statements thinly supported from a bunch of citations (or not at all as in citation number 1) that do not seem to treat the subject matter at hand further than as a news filler. The citation number 6 has more credibility but I can't see any link in the abstract to relate it to salt therapy apart form the use of salt. It is doubtful its authors consider the treatment being tested as "salt therapy". For these reasons it is clear that

1. This is Fringe Science at best.

2. The article needs a lot of work for it to remain in Wikipedia as a notable subject.

3. Stub tag should be used until a more mature article develops and WP should be relaxed to allow some time for active editors to improve the article.

4. Warning Tags are appropriate until a more mature article develops.

5. If no active editor emerges a request for deletion should be considered.-- LexCorp ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, did anyone let Colonel Warden know about this thread? Since he is an obviously interested party he may have something to add to the discussion. The  Seeker 4  Talk 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at his talk page just in case. It does seem that User:Orangemike did not notify him about the discussion.-- LexCorp ( talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lex is right; my bad. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being the subject of an ongoing Golan Heights RfC, (in which some have questioned if WP:SPA, WP:MEAT and WP:Canvass are being used to influence the outcome of the RfC) there seem to be a number of recent edits by several of editors, where the NPOV of the content has been questioned: Example of edits in question... A review of whether or not the recent edits and comply with NPOV would be appreciated. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a dispute going on at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. User:Skywriter has made some large revisions to this rather sensitive article in the past two weeks that are under dispute. I'm not qualified to talk too much about the article body changes - there's debate on that on the talk page as well - but I can say that his version of the lede reads to me as extremely unsatisfactory. As in, I was hoping that some "third opinion on writing style" noticeboard existed, which I would have gone to in preference to this, for my complaints about the style of the lede section. Still, there are some neutrality issues there as well, so this is somewhat relevant.

Details are at Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Lede_paragraph . Any input would be appreciated. SnowFire ( talk) 06:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I came upon this article while addressing copyright problems in a related article. Poor sourcing and promotional language undermine the apparent neutrality of this article. As a few examples, "the oldest, largest and the best university in Bangladesh", "worked hard to build up an outstanding record of academic achievement, earning for itself the reputation for being the 'Oxford of the East'. The university contributed to the emergence of a generation of leaders" and "the University of Dhaka has been a place for many great scholars and scientists." It also has unsourced negative text: "Although the university has a proud history today it has lost most of its glory." It could really use a thorough scouring if anybody has time. I'm back to copyright problems, but wanted to point it here. I've also tagged the article, so if nobody here gets to it, maybe the tag will attract an interested (and otherwise unoccupied) editor. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mind just lent me this book and after perusing it, I went to see what Wikipedia had to say about it. Knowing how Wikipedia strives to keep articles neutral, I was horrified to see its referenced article 1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_the_World, wherein the book itself is attacked in the first paragraph, tossed off as "pseudohistory" genre in the description, and even noted as a "controversial book" in the disambiguation for the term 1421.

This does not seem right at all to me, whether anyone agrees with the premise of the book or not. Isn't that why we have "Criticism" subheads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfiedler ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe your concerns are covered on WP:Undue weight-- LexCorp ( talk) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this somewhat old, but thought I'd stress what was said before. There's no way we could have accurately covered that book by encyclopedic standards without pointing out that no respected historian takes it seriously. NPOV does not mean "pretend something universally panned might be OK and limit the criticism to a small subsection." The fact that it is a controversial book is actually the being overly polite version of describing it, and the pseudohistory label is both well documented and accurate. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of Menzies' information with regard to anomalous objects on the west (pacific) coast may have merit. Furthermore Chinese exploration of the Indian ocean is well documented. The rest is mostly nonsense. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on J. Philippe Rushton's book Race, Evolution, and Behavior seems to have morphed into a collection of criticisms of this book, with several times more space devoted to criticism than is given to the book itself. Admittedly, the book is highly controversial, so discussing the ways that other researchers have criticized it is definitely necessary. But when there are also numerous well-regarded researchers such as Arthur Jensen and E. O. Wilson who have agreed with Rushton’s findings, and have argued in favored of the book’s conclusions, the fact that the article contains almost nothing but criticism of this book is definitely a NPOV violation.

This has been pointed out numerous times on the article’s discussion page. I’ll quote one comment there which provides a good summary of the issue:

I'm beginning to realise that there is a concerted effort to suppress this work and its findings. I'm not saying for a moment that it is rock-solid thesis, but I have never seen any article on Wikipedia that takes such an aggressive politically-correct stance (compare it to something truly ridiculous such as Mein Kampf, if you don't believe me). If one looks down the list of criticisms in this article, many of them aren't even valid and could be easily dismissed with a simple sentence. Perhaps it is because those who have shaped this article are afraid of the possibility that there may actually be substantial reality contained within the thesis. I do not intend to enter into a war with you people, but it gives me the heebie-jeebies to see how overwhelmingly an article can be throttled if there are enough people on Wikipedia trying to further a particular agenda. In short, the first casualty in "truth-by-consensus" is truth.

This comment and others like it have been ignored, and every time anyone has attempted to edit the article to make it more balanced, the edits are immediately reverted by the group of editors who are trying to propagate their own viewpoints about Rushton’s theories. I haven’t been directly involved in the edit wars over this article, but I’ve been watching them, and some assistance would definitely be helpful here. Captain Occam ( talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The only people who support Rushton's "theories" are racists. It is a racist book. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. It doesn't matter if you are right, or Rushton is right. What matters is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The book should be presented in a neutral fashion, with a WP:MOS compliant criticism section. The article is a horrible quotefarm of criticism which is non-encyclopedic. Re-write the article to paraphrase the notable claims/sections of the book and then have a relatively short (certainly no longer than the summary section) section of criticism, including only the most notable critiques and maybe one or two quotes of a sentence or two each. The article as it is written looks like the authors found every quote about the book they could and included them all in the article. The  Seeker 4  Talk 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that would be a major improvement over the article's current state, and the people who left comments on the discussion page like the one I quoted would probably feel the same way.

I'd also add that as long as the article is covering how other people have reacted to Rushton's book, it should cover the opinions of prominent scientists who view the book in favorable terms, such as E. O. Wilson and Arthur Jensen. In its current state it mentions these researchers, but they're given less than one-fifth of the space that's given to the book's detractors.

Is someone actually going to fix these problems with the article now? As I said before, people have attempted make changes like this to it in the past, but generally had their edits reverted right away.

Captain Occam ( talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits surrounding Jerry Del Colliano and his companies have started to look a lot like the work of a PR firm --in particular the work of User:Tigermetal ( contribs). I'm having difficulty determining whether he or his companies were over notable. Can someone take a look? -- Bobak ( talk) 14:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring the Ireland article to the attention of admins to get outside opinions on how WP:NPOV or not this article is, as I find the article to be biased. Thanks Aogouguo ( talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they've been aware of that article. You might want to bring up your specific concerns on the article's talkpage. Soxwon ( talk) 17:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the term "conspiracy theory"

Note: Copied from Controlled Demo page: I wholeheartedly agree that this article should be retitled. The additon of the word "conspiracy" only serves to make the article anything but neutral. The title of this article is in clear violation of Wiki's policy of a neutral point of view. An adequate title to remedy the situation might be : "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Theory" or something to that effect.(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

I have reviewed the messages below this, and since one of the editors referred to "controlled demolition proponents" rather than using the word conspiracy, I feel that "proponents" may be an adequate remedy to the above violation of neutrality rules. Note that the word proponent was promoted by a detractor of the banned editor. There must be a more adult manner to deal with these alternative theories. Note that Wikipedia will be read centuries from now, so much the better if we look upon all sound (or arguable) theories with a neutral and inquisitive mind in the present day (2009).(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely ( talk • Just a note regarding your term sock puppet. before I just clicked on the term and read it's meaning I had no idea what it meant. I can assure you, that I am not that. I will update my personal page for clarification. thanks. contribs) — Peterbadgely ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Unless the proponent believe in spontaneous detonation of explosives that just happened to be there for a benign reason, and it was all a huge coincidence, then they must believe in a conspiracy. No OR, just application of definitions. Now I don't believe that proponents of this "theory" do believe it was an accident or coincidence, and hence the article is correctly named. It is also correctly named per WP:COMMONNAME, and other guidelines, while not being in conflict with any wikipedia policies. It is neutral, and moving it towards the conspiracy POV would move it away from neutrality, not make it "more neutral". Verbal chat 08:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Verbal, you can't have a CD w/o a conspiracy. Soxwon ( talk) 09:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Which seems pretty obvious. The article is correctly named. Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory promoters are pushing the idea that their conspiracy theories are something more substantial. Conspiracy theory is accurate terminology. We even have Category:Conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Verbal, I quote:

:::like many other people who have read and misinterpreted [the essay There Are No Conspiracies], you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies, such the ones you mentioned. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed. That's documented in his CBS interview, which is archived. Therefore you can have a controlled demolition hypothesis without a conspiracy theory. So, we have four options. We can change the title of the article to make it honest, or we can Wikilink after we eliminate the social science references from the Conspiracy Theory article and replace them with social epistemology references to make that article honest, or we can eliminate Richard Gage from the present article, which leaves it dishonest, given his prominence, or we continue with the present BLP violation, which violates WP:Honesty about as much as is humanly possible. Wowest ( talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gage is not a reliable source. No person is considered a reliable source. Only third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are considered reliable sources and in this case, they refer to this as a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you forgot to add that the NPOV academic sources such as NIST and Bazant et. al. that are used for all the 911 articles are excluded from your definition of reliable sources because they use the term hypothesis instead of conspiracy theory or is there another reason for ignoring them that I overlooked. Wayne ( talk) 18:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has referred to Richard Gage as a source here. -- Cs32en ( talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I quote "As Richard Gage, the foremost promoter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, points out, he has no idea who planted the explosives, and he refuses to speculate because he is not a conspiracy theorist. He merely points out that a crime has been committed.". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats an observation about Richard Gage, with CBS given as the source. It's included in a comment by a Wikipedia editor, not in a Wikipedia article. — Cs32en ( talk) 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory-noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
Hypothesis-noun: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
It is clear that the article content is more applicable to the second definition (what could have happened) than the first (who did it).
To use newspaper instead of encyclopedic terminology is POV and inappropriate in this instance. The Nist uses several phrases in ther reports when talking of controlled demolition. 1: Controlled demolition hypothesis (which is the most common term they use), 2: Controlled demolition theory, 3: Controlled demolition event and 4: an alternative hypothesis. Many books by academics debunking CD such as We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist The Physics of 911 and The Absurdity of Controlled Demolition also use the term Controlled Demolition Hypothesis instead of Conspiracy Theory. Based on their own comments I suspect that many editors supporting the current name do so solely because it is POV. Wayne ( talk) 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is generally intended to convey the impression that the proponents of the theory would think that all other people would conspire against them, covering things up etc. Thus, the pejorative meaning of the term is that the mindset of the proponents of such theories would be in some way identical or similar to that of people suffering from paranoia, a mental condition. Referring to a possible alternative meaning of "conspiracy theory", i.e. a theory about a conspiracy, obscures the primary intention with which the term is actually being used. The term is not a neutral expression and thus should not be used in an encyclopedia, except when attributing it to a notable person or institution that uses it. — Cs32en ( talk) 17:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy advises not regimented aping of outside names, but rather the same thoughtful naming of any scholarly publication. I see Common Sense in WP:Words to avoid which warns us about words that editorialize and words with multiple meanings. Ponder the given negative examples of WP:Words to avoid, namely cult and fundamentalism , whose problematic nature is not hard to see. The same problems are found in the phrase CT, and this is evident in Conspiracy Theory itself.

The pejorative aspects of the term CT might be warranted for movements defined by unscholarly viral slander (not a match to our source selection). Again, CT might be warranted for movements whose sources focus dominantly on (a) theory (not evidence), and (b) recklessly slandering the "guilty" . Again, neither of these fit the selections of primary scholars-sources, which can help guide the title. Thus, The name (using CT) is falsifying. -- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: S & D: The statement that CT is intrinsically necessary to the topic Controlled Demolition ("you can't have x without y"), is evidently being presented as a claim about the what the title here must be. This is flawed. There are countless things that might be automatically entailed in the phrase "Controlled Demolition" (you can't have it without people, time, physics), and the same goes for most or all WP topics. That anything is entailed in the term is not an argument that they are entailed in the title ("people time physics conspiracy theory?"). The entry for wp:cat is not called "cat animal meowing-thing". This was raised and perhaps missed. -- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For context see

Connotation and WP:_homonyms and WP:_polysemes and Loaded words and

Code words redundancy -- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Related problems with the term conspiracy in the title are

here -------------- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 05:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean...

I know a term w/-connotations is open to POV pushing.-- Ms dos mode ( talk) 04:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

If reliable sources such as The New York Times [47], The Washington Post [48], US News and World Report [49], USA Today [50], The Guardian [51], BBC News [52], Popular Mechanics [53], etc. all use the term conspiracy theory, then that's what we use. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to say that they are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." ( WP:NPOV). This does refer to perspectives that are reported by those sources, it does not refer to how those sources present them. There is a reason why WP:NPOV uses the term "evidenced", which is not casual language. "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. [...] Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." ( WP:FRINGE) This does not mean: "You must write in a non-neutral way!" It means: "You may be unable to write in a non-neutral way." However, there are enough reliable sources on what the controlled demolition hypothesis is about, so there is nothing that would prevent us to present it an encyclopedic, neutral way. And of course we should report that it is a minority viewpoint and that most media refer to it as a fringe theory. — Cs32en ( talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." It is evidenced here: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

For article titles, see WP:COMMONAME which says "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.......but which reliable sources? The arguably POV media or the supposedly NPOV academic ones? No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using "conspiracy theory". Please address this. Wayne ( talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Exactly.......but which reliable sources? The arguably POV media or the supposedly NPOV academic ones?" We have a Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you honestly think that The New York Times, The Washington Post, US News and World Report, USA Today, The Guardian, BBC News, and Popular Mechanics aren't reliable sources, then raise your concerns there.

"No matter how many times this is brought up you completely ignore it and keep falsly including NIST in the sources using 'conspiracy theory'. Please address this." I didn't include the NIST in the above list of sources. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies as I was not specifically refering to the "list" above but to one of your replies on the article talk page and the fact that you generalise about what RS are which includes it. Wayne ( talk) 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You call subjects by the name, not by the attribute. Wikipedia:COMMONAME: "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" You don't suppose anyone would look for "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", do you? If you google this, you get exactly 18 links at this moment, most of which point to Wikipedia content. So it is clear that "conspiracy theories" is not part of the commonly used name, while it may be an attribute used in connection with the topic. Attributes should, of course, not be part of encyclopedic lemmata. — Cs32en ( talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your 1st link support a more NPV

• NY TIMESThe controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.

So does your third.

• US NewsIn the paper, Jones does not make specific accusations about who brought about the towers' collapse and avoids the casual finger-pointing that characterizes much of the movement. But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East.

In fact none of them use the phrase "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" so I fail to see how you can argue WP:COMMONAME. I agree that the majority of main stream media is dismissive if not hostile to controlled demolition proponents and we should say that. Tony0937 ( talk) 19:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony: You raise a good point and I've been concerned about this as well. Just to give you some background, the article used to be named "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis". But the word "hypothesis" was disputed since reliable sources rarely use this term. So a couple weeks ago (or so) the article was renamed "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". So for the past two weeks, the debate on that page has been whether the article should be "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis" or "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theory". If memory serves correctly, those were the only two suggestions for the article's title. Between those two choices, I voted for the later on the following basis:

"I did several Google searches on 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term 'Controlled demolition hypothesis' is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory."

Obviously, I speak for myself and not any of the other editors, but that was my thinking. (How "World Trade Center" got prepended to the article's title, I don't know. I'm a relatively new editor.)

So really, the most commonly used name is simply "Controlled Demolition" but we can't use that since that's already taken for controlled demolition. How about "Controlled demolition (conspiracy theory)" for disambiguation purposes? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That would not indicate that the article would have anything to do with the World trade center. We can assume that people who look for this topic would look for "WTC ...", "World Trade Center ...", "9/11 ...", "September 11 ...". And the article is not about controlled demolition (a well known concept), but about the hypothesis that such a controlled demolition occured (a notable minority viewpoint). So, actually, hypothesis (or theory) is the basic term that needs to be in the article's name. — Cs32en ( talk) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice WP:OR, but we're supposed to be following WP:RS. As I've already said, most (but not all) reliable sources don't use the word "hypothesis" in regards to the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. I've already provided seven cites to reliable sources - none of which use the term "hypothesis". I can provide more if need be. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources that you have presented don't use any name for the subject of the article, and those that do are calling it hypothesis or theory. Your inference that they would call it conspiracy theory just because you can find the term "conspiracy theory" somewhere else in the articles that you present is WP:OR on your part. — Cs32en ( talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked again at the sources that were given:

• The New York Times calls it the "controlled-demolition theory"
• The Washington Post article and the Guardian article do not contain any name for it.
• The U.S. News and World Report does not contain a name but says that Steven Jones promotes conspiracy theories, and that he "suggests the towers were felled by a controlled demolition".
• USA Today does not contain a name but says: "[Seven WTC] has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories [because of the suspicion] that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition." For USA Today, controlled demolition may be one of several conspiracy theories. However, subsuming is not naming, and the Wikipedia article Dog is not called Dog animal. The wording of the BBC article is similar.
• The Popular Mechanics article does not even contain the word "controlled demolition".

However, the U.S. government agency NIST refers three times to controlled demolition hypothesis and once to controlled demolition theory [61].

So the only two sources that actually use a name (NYT and NIST) are using controlled demolition hypothesis or controlled demolition theory. — Cs32en ( talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, try this link. [62] "Controlled demolition" is mentioned 5 times. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It's a bit the same as with USA Today. But as they have chosen the title "Debunking the 9/11 Myths", why don't we call the article "World Trade Center controlled demolition myth"? — Cs32en ( talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TIME magazine calls it an explanation (Note: "explanation" does not mean "correct explanation" in this context): "There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition." — Cs32en ( talk) 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" used to describe this theory is inappropriate unless it is referring to Conspiracy(crime) (which it is not). Common sense and general awareness of the subject matter lead one (even after a cursory glance at the sources) to realize that the word is not neutral in this context. If Wiki desires to take a non-neutral stance regarding the issue, then this is another matter all together. However, since the so-called reliable sources use conspiracy to describe controlled demolition in a biased, negative, demeaning, and inappropriate way, can those reliable sources be used as a source for a word in a non-neutral title? It seems that an easy remedy would be for Wiki (as an encyclopedia) to distance itself from the biased information and simply rename the article. Can information which is not neutral be used in a title to a Wiki article as long as the slanted, biased, non-neutral term is from a reliable source? Is there a cost benefit analysis between reliable source and the policy of neutrality? ( 68.14.146.78 ( talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

OK, here are 20 reliable sources none of which even use the word "hypothesis" in reference to controlled demolition conspiracy theories. These are cites from major publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such as Time Magazine, New York Times, and BBC News. All of these would pass muster on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. How long should we keep beating this dead horse? [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of those sources even use "conspiracy theory" in their titles. You're right that "hypothesis" is not used at all by reliable sources. It is a neologism contrived by those who promote fringe views. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The only dead horse I see being beaten here is the assumption that anyone would doubt that these sources are reliable sources. The government agency NIST uses the terms "controlled demolition hypothesis" and "controlled demolition theory", and it's certainly not involved in contrieving language to promote fringe views. — Cs32en ( talk) 02:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{EC} Thank you. As Cs32en has pointed out, there are a few that do use the term "hypothesis", but these are a minority. The majority of reliable sources don't use this term at all. BTW, I also researched "myth" and while it's used by some reliable sources, most do not. "Conspiracy theory" is the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources do not use any name that refers to the topic of the article. Those that do are using the terms controlled demolition theory or controlled demolition hypothesis (NIST, NYT), while Popular Mechanics may implicitly use conspiracy theory, as its text is one of the few that address specifically the topic of our article and not some wider issue, such as the 9/11 Truth Movement in general. — Cs32en ( talk) 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources simply use the name "controlled demolition" and describe it as a conspiracy theory, which is why I suggested "Controlled Demolition (Conspiracy Theory)" for disambiguation purposes. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the formal aspects of the naming issue, that would be a possible entry for a disambiguation page, as such entries are based on the principle of subsumption, and there are WP:RS sources that do such a subsumption with regard to the subject of the article (see my comments above). It would still not address the WP:NPOV problem. Newspaper language is different from encyclopedic language. The other problem is that the name itself would then be "controlled demolition", while people would search for something that has "World Trade Center" as part of the name. — Cs32en ( talk) 03:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the legitimacy of this discussion

• Could an administrator please apply WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions to the single purpose accounts that are disrupting this thread with their WP:ICANTHEARYOU games? We've discussed these issues many times before. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Under the Controlled demolition page, there was a section which linked to this discussion of Neutrality page. There is NO attempt to purposefully disrupt or violate repetition rules. Peterbadgely has been a member for less than a week and is becoming accustomed to the process and rules. Peterbadgely respectfully requests that Jehochman consider this before requesting that sanctions be applied for unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. Not only will peterbadgely branch out to other historical subject matter, but peterbadgely will improve the neutrality application of Wikipedia in general. ( Peterbadgely ( talk) 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Further note: Is there a way that members can receive copy of another members lobbying efforts to get one sanctioned, so that a member can respond before a sanction is considered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbadgely ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You can stalk my contributions: Jehochman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to understand your personality. If the administrators at Wiki are as intelligent as I think they are, then I believe they understand as well. Thank you. ( Peterbadgely ( talk) 22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

The discussion that took place before the article was renamed started at 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC) and ended at 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC). 5 editors have participated in the discussion. This is probably not the appropriate way to proceed when dealing with a controversial topic. As the scope of the prior discussion was clearly insufficient for consensus building, I see this discussion here as legitimate. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the issue before the community if involved editors are unable to achieve consensus or if there are concerns that a given action is inconsistent with established Wikipedia policies, if this is not done repeatedly during a short period of time or in an otherwise distractive way. — Cs32en ( talk) 02:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The request to rename the page was posted at 03:46 on 5 April. Three editors supported the change and one opposed over the next six hours before Jehochman assumed consensus and changed the name. Two of the three supporters lied to justify their support by stating NO RS uses the term hypothesis. None of the three supporters replied to the concern raised by the opposing editor. These actions are a violation of WP policy and policy requires the original name be reinstated pending consensus. This was requested at 08:02 on 6 April and denied, basically on the grounds that conspiracy theorists do not get a say. Several editors then restarted the section with suggestions for an alternative name without using either hypothesis or conspiracy theory to which a single editor replied (the only reply given) that only New York media "has any legitimacy" and all other media is "likely to be quite dubious". The discussion restarted again on 26 April with three editors for and three against. The next logical step is here as it is obvious there is not only no consensus but not even a legitimate willingness to debate on the part of supporters for the current name. When debate fails WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions are invoked and all opponents are accused of disruption which seems to be an increasingly common tactic. This issue is quite important to WP as it goes directly to the heart of WP's legitimacy as an encyclopedia. Is there someone in WP in a higher position than admin that can review the issues raised here? I apologise if I offend anyone but I have no faith that a popularly elected admin has the skills to mediate in this particlar case. Wayne ( talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

<- Could we have a summary of where we are at now? Unomi ( talk) 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion never reached any final conclusion. From what I could gather 'World trade center controlled demolition conspiracy theories' failed WP:COMMONNAME ? Unomi ( talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "9/11 Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theory" might be a better name but I don't think we'll get concensus on any renaming of the article. At least it's better than before. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What as it before? Unomi ( talk) 06:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Has this discussion been abandoned? If so what was its conclusion? Unomi ( talk) 21:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Crickets. Unomi ( talk) 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)