This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
The neutrality of Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute section contents has been disputed at Talk:Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute. The dispute was announced using the "NPOV-section" template, started on 2 December 2014 and ended up finding a consensual wording of the section on 9 December 2014. After the dispute ended, the wording of the section was updated, deleting the "NPOV-section" template.
On 8 January 2014 an edit #641543166 changed the consensual wording of the section. The problematic and nonneutral aspects of the edit:
Proposal
The proposed action is to revert the edit #641543166. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
R v Morgentaler is a 1988 Canadian Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional the part of the criminal code concerning abortion. Back in June I noticed that someone had changed the lead from
R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
to:
R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
This struck me as quite POV. Included as a citation is a letter to the editor at The Guardian. The author of the letter is a legal authority, but nonetheless written as a letter to the editor, arguing against what for the purpose of our article seems like a strawman (i.e. there is no claim that this decision means "a constitutional right to abortion" nevermind "abortion on demand", nor is there any claim that the court had "no interest in protecting the unborn").
The text was originally added in May by 99.224.218.198 and since my first revert the same user has periodically restored the same text another five times. I hoped being a contentious subject that others would get involved, but nobody has. Uncomfortable continuing a months-long edit war, I turn here. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
following on Andy's message above - there are court cases that are widely misunderstood, especially within activist communities. In my world, the decision in India about Gleevec was touted by anti-pharma activists as a huge blow when it was a very narrow decision that grew out of weird timing (patents filed at the same time that the law was changing), and the Monsanto v Schmeiser case is widely described by anti-GMO activists to be about genetically modified seed patented by Monsanto blowing onto a farmer's field, when in reality the farmer had intentionally planted a bunch of GM seed he had intentionally saved. Court cases are "used" all the time in inappropriate ways. But the point that there should be responsible reporting in reliable sources that accurately describe the decision, and perhaps even mention the decision being widely misconstrued, is great - if those sources don't exist, that is a sign that the claim of mis-construing is not accurate, or is a fringe view. A letter to the editor is a lame source. Jytdog ( talk) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I just want to note, that the source being discussed was used as follows:
"The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion, e.g. in a recent Guardian letter [1] by Gerard Mitchell.
- ^ Mitchell, Gerard (22 May 14). "Clarifying facts on Canada's abortion law, or lack of". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 Jan 15.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
and|date=
( help)
Content says nothing (and even that nothing is unsupported by the source) and appears to be just some kind of WP:COATRACK to bring in the source. I removed it. Jytdog ( talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Could we please get some more eyes at Economic growth? People have over the past four or five months been slowly trying to include obscure primary source studies of relatively tiny datasets to try to imply that inequality causing economic growth is still a viable theory. These studies have huge caveats that went unmentioned in the inclusions. And now User:Volunteer Marek is trying to claim that Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) aren't primary source studies, and that my insistance on agreement with secondary sources is against consensus because "at least one other user objects" to my edits. EllenCT ( talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
“studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews”← that seems like a quirky definition of what a primary source is. What (if anything) in economics is a primary source? ... if some authors produced a dataset and then did an analysis of it maybe? Or some microeconomic theory proposed from scratch? If sources are drawing on third-party material and offering commentary and analysis, then they are secondary. How much weight they should be accorded is a different question, and should be determined in the usual way (prestige of publishing venue, impact, etc.). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek is wise. bobrayner ( talk) 22:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
We could really use more eyes and help on the article. I find the situation intolerable and the other editor simply impossible to get through. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple of users, namely Tigona ( talk · contribs), Zeog ( talk · contribs), and several IPs, some or all of which may be Matthias Kuhle himself, are pushing this academic's obviously controversial idea that the Tibetan Plateau was covered almost completely by an ice sheet in the last glacial period (and probably earlier glacial periods), and that the Tibetan Plateau is itself the cause of the glacial periods, or the current ice age, on the pages Ice age, Geography of Tibet, Matthias Kuhle, and possibly elsewhere, by presenting the hypothesis as accepted, or even majority consensus, and the opponents as mere dissenters. The glaring (and formerly, when Geography of Tibet contained virtually Kuhle's whole bibliography, clearly extreme) over-reliance on Kuhle's own (numerous) publications, together with the quite apparent fact that there are numerous opponents, makes me almost certain that this narrative is wrong and biased. If it were true, it should be easy to cite supporters, instead of citing Kuhle himself dozens of times (note the borderline citebombing in Ice age#Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snowline, where all footnotes are citations to Kuhle's own publications). It appears that Kuhle is using Wikipedia to promote, and defend against criticism, his pet hypothesis to laypeople after it has been rejected by the relevant expert community (compare this dissertation), trying to short-circuit or circumvent the scientific process. This pattern is, unfortunately, all too common with cranks in academia. In this case it is difficult to see who else would have an interest in promoting this particular hypothesis – it appears too obscure and unexciting to garner much attention and fans compared to other fringe hypotheses, and outsiders would find it difficult to assemble the man's whole bibliography, so I'm hard-pressed to assume good faith. This looks like a classic case of WP:SELFPROMOTE, with the tell-tale sign being the liberal use of WP:SELFCITE. I note that Talk:Matthias Kuhle lacks a COI note currently, even though it is pretty much obvious that some Wikipedia editors have an undisclosed personal affiliation with Kuhle. (Also note that Kuhle's page has only narrowly escaped deletion, due to lack of any clear consensus on his notability.) -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are mainly based on numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique") by citing Kuhle's own work ( my revert just now). Unless, of course, those many citations cited as criticism are presented without proper context or are otherwise misrepresented (i.e. assuming there's a legitimate basis for including it -- which is to say that it's due, without issuing a scientific judgment), we'd likewise need secondary sources to counter the criticism. I also removed a glut of journal publications and conference proceedings per WP:PROMO and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a CV). Also tagged the article for expert attention, etc. because I'm not at all equipped to parse the factual content. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
After reading this section I searched for secondary literature dealing with the Tibetan glaciation theory. I found many textbooks, which described this theory as well (i. e. J. Ehlers 2011: Das Eiszeitalter, cf. http://www.springer.com/popular/book/978-3-8274-2326-9.; Anderson, Goudie, Parker (2013): Global Environments Through the Quaternary: Exploring Evironmental Change, page 86-87, cf. https://books.google.de/books?id=lFP1CdFDkIMC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Global+Environments+through+the+Quaternary+kuhle&source=bl&ots=Qrz9AuLgzQ&sig=_22DYGYmK1VJ1UqxvBDCZdnLGd8&hl=de&sa=X&ei=_fCzVP7vBYnyPPLxgNAJ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Global%20Environments%20through%20the%20Quaternary%20kuhle&f=false) and Nesje, A. & Dahl, S. O., 2000. Glaciers and Environmental Change. Arnold, pp. 1-203). Furthermore I found several articles which described the lack of calibrated numerical dating samples in High Mountain Areas (also Tibet) (i. e. Chevalier et al. (2011): Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces, cf. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110004014; Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, page 369 cf. http://palaeoworks.anu.edu.au/pubs/INQUA2007abstracts.pdf). Consequently the last sentence of this author page should be corrected into: These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are uncalibrated numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. --— Tigona talk \\ 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
An i.p. is constantly adding to the lead of the article that ETA is a group "known for targeting civilians." A statement like that, besides being unsourced, is questionable. The group, I would argue, is better known for waging a violent struggle for Basque independence, during which, as always occurs in conflicts involving paramilitary groups, civilians died. In some cases, these were after explosions targeting infrastructure, where there were disputes over the customary telephone warnings given. Those attacks, while criminally reckless, are not the same as "targetting civilians." Others were politicians, members of political parties or people working on military bases, who supporters of such groups would argue were "legitimate targets" rather than "civilians." Either way, the vast majority of those killed were not civilians, using either definition. Ultimately, it's not our job at Wikipedia to decide whether they were or not, we simply state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. In the ip's edit summary, they say: "a non NPOV editor is making a concerted effort to whitewash this article as compared to the more official Spanish language version." As all I've done is revert to the longstanding consensus version of the lead, this is not correct and besides that, the Spanish language version of the article is no "more official" than ours and says nothing in the lead about the group being known for targeting civilians. Valenciano ( talk) 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This article on a 2016 presidential candidate in the U.S. has been a long-term problem with NPOV. The lede read like a campaign bio, one editor using the name Webfooter has been editing at length (including changing "politician" to "statesman"); etc. I would like some eyes on this, preferably including some that admire Webb more than I do. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Here I am with my hands up. Don't shoot! I left a message on the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard. I am now concerned that there may be a conflict of interest, since you say that you don't care for him, OrangeMike, and Jytdog describes himself as a "Clinton Democrat." Is there anyone who may be more neutral who could handle this? You have all the power, of course, and I'm just a person trying to accurately portray an individual. (By the way, I said "noted author" because it was less puffy than "Pulitzer Prize" nominated author. I said "statesman" rather than "politician" because of his career path, entering politics later. However, I can see that politician would fit at this time.) I used Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia page as a guide. Today you deleted all but a small paragraph in his introduction, Orange Mike. Hillary's introduction contains five well developed paragraphs. Nothing you deleted was fake or puffed up. He just happens to be a man who has had many accomplishments, which should noted in an introduction and then in more detail in the article. ( Webbfooter ( talk) 03:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
Content:
In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from a modernistic reading of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading. These readers cite certain lines as being questionable, including "I simply must go", "The answer is no", "I've got to go home". There is also the line "Hey, what's in this drink", which is seen as implicative of alcohol affecting the "mouse's" judgement or that they have been drugged. However, many movies, which? at the time the song was written, used a similar line to refer to someone behaving in a different manner than they expected and blaming it on the alcohol.
" ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ was once an anthem for progressive women. What happened?". The Washington Post. Hannun, Marya (11 December 2013). " 'SOUTH PARK' Takes on Bill Cosby ... BABY THERE'S AN ASSAULT OUTSIDE". TMZ (11 December 2014). " 8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape". Cracked.com (13 February 2010). " “Baby It’s Cold Outside” Isn’t About Date Rape!". Salon (website) (19 December 2012). " Is "Baby, It's Cold Outside" a date-rape anthem?". Salon (website). Deusner, Stephen (10 December 2012). " Baby, It’s Just A Song". The Federalist (website). Magness, Cheryl (3 December 2014). " Christmas songs that illustrate the worst in humanity". George Ouzounian (19 December 2012).
These are some of the proposed sources for and against the date rape implications surrounding Baby, It's Cold Outside. We are determining if these are propaganda or satire, and if so, which ones fit RS guidelines. Timeraner ( talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved from WP:RS/Noticeboard. Timeraner ( talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of other sources being discussed on the article talk page. IMO the standard for inclusion here is (correctly) pretty low. We are not talking about any BLP issues, or statements of fact. Its "What are the opinions about this song". Interestingly for the federalist, their article largely argues against the "rape" interpretation, so removing them removes one of the better soured counterpoints to the controversy. This hasn't gotten "Tier 1" coverage like the other controversial Christmas song Do They Know It's Christmas which has been covered by NPR and BBC, but its still a pretty notable controversy, and there is not a really widely discussed counterargument Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia– GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 22:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The main issue I see with American Left is that it deviates from the existing left wing and left right politics articles. It defines "The left" in a different way to exclude pretty much everything but socialism, Marxism, and communism - something that deviates from the normal American sense what is left of center. It appears that it might be better titled as American Socialism since that is it main focus.
I think it would fall under POV-lead or POV-title. I haven't put up the templates but posted here first. Dairyfarmer777 ( talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Amazingly enough- this has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV and thus has no place at WP:NPOV/N either. Go to mediation or the like - but the folks here can not possibly do anything as a NPOV matter. Collect ( talk) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, which addresses the allegedly non-neutral creation of external links to Prager University, a website associated with radio host Dennis Prager. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As the discussion has not reached a close I have started an RfC. You are more than welcome to participate if you have not already done so. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
146.23.68.40 Posted to this Talk page in 2011. I responded a few days ago, but it appears this contributor is no longer active. I would like to get the Neutrality issue resolved. Any help here, or am I in the wrong place. Doesn't seem like a big problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonbill ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do you think my version or the version to which the article was reverted is more neutral?
jps ( talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I placed the notice on the article "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" on January 10, and provided an explanation on the talk page. The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later [7]. It was restored today by someone else, at which point an edit war began. [8] [9] [10] It seems to me that the wording of the notice ought to be either obeyed, or the wording changed. Also, I would appreciate it if people would take a look at this article, because it seems to have a really severe neutrality problem. 55 Gators ( talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
55 Gators - in response to your question, this seems de facto definition, an example that removers ignore the process and then victim-blaming happens over the claim of you didn't do it perfect as judged by ... Yah, it's a largely malfunctioning process. Nobody gave acknowledgement that you posted to TALK and the deletion did not participate in TALK, it's more assertions the other way and that you didn't do everything perfect which to me reads like evidence a tag is needed and they should TALK but that behaviour is not motivated. Removal might work closer to basis of talk use if a tag was semi-protected and criteria set for admins to meet before applying or removing but that's not the way it is. Annnnnnd I expect to see complaints about the 'but he poked me first...' flavor and red herring type. You raised the issue, but should not expect all parties to play fair when they really care. Markbassett ( talk) 00:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC on Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension ( Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#habeas_corpus_section) pertaining to the section of the Lincoln article ( Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war). Piledhighandeep ( talk) 08:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
[This is copied verbatim from a query initially at the Help desk, moved per the suggestion of a fellow editor]
Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, but I've always wondered this:
What is Wikipedia's stance on partisans?
I've read WP:REP in the past, but I've always wondered what the general community thinks of this.
(Note that the partisans that I speak of are the ones that follow the rules for the most part, but do still obfuscate information that they find unfavourable from their own edits.)
If a partisan were to edit Wikipedia within the general rules, but yet obfuscate some information or otherwise "shadow" an article, and then in the long term the information that they added ended up being reworked by future editors so that the page turned out quite well balanced, could the presence of such a person truly be seen as a problem? If the partisan added legitimate information, and then the pages were later improved upon by others to add the information that they had left out, then wouldn't "the (first-version-writing) partisan" just be another step in the life of the general creation and improvement of an article? Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 11:56 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
Is it undue weight to mention bills that do not pass in articles about the subject of the article?
These about the Gun show loophole:
Diff of the edit that removed the text - [11].
Link to discussion about bills - [12].
This one, regarding Universal background checks:
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that whether a bill passed or not is the wrong question. We should be asking whether any given bill, pass or fail, is sufficiently important to the biography of the legislator, which we can decide by considering its coverage in reliable sources. Formerip ( talk) 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Lightbreather...if the bills didn't pass them maybe the legislature failed to see that there is a problem that needs addressing. I think a brief mention of a specific bill that did not pass is probably fine...so long as most of the bill that did not pass is about the specific article and not just some pork that was attached to a larger bill.-- MONGO 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Is the title "Gun show loophole" contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?
It was discussed about a week ago - [13] - and then another discussion was started today - [14].
Others want to title the article "Gun show loophole controversy."
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the article's original title was "Gun show loophole" but "controversy" was tacked onto the end of it on December 2, 2014, [15] by an editor who is now topic-banned [16] from gun control articles. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
At the moment I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not this question should be discussed here. Note however that I have just added a Request For Comment to the article's talk page. -- Talk:Gun show loophole#RFC to rename article. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather -- Umm "Is the title Gun show loophole contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?" is kind of a leading RFC phrasing so maybe start TALK at what to look at and how the concerns might be addressed. I'll offer that there seems consensus it's a non-neutral but common name, submit it might be agreed to expect political concepts do label games, so perhaps look at Death panels which gets that title and also puts mention of title sensitivity prominent in lead section which sets context and weight. Markbassett ( talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Before being threatened with a topic ban again I would like a third opinion on the section about “Peace activities”. There are a number of links indicating that some SGI adherents like doing gymnastics and building human pyramids. I’d like a third opinion if there is enough evidence that this IS an official SGI peace activity and if the reference stated are concrete enough?-- Catflap08 ( talk) 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I was on the Talk Page of an article ( Talk:Tom Brady). Per an "Admin Help" Template request, an administrator told me that I should come to this page with my questions and concerns. There is an article ( Tom Brady) that is being edited in a very POV manner (in my opinion). Editors on that page will not allow any mention (whatsoever) of the word " Deflategate" in that article. Even though Tom Brady is a central figure in that topic; Tom Brady himself held a press conference on that very topic; and the topic has a million reliable sources. One editor in particular, in my opinion, is editing in a POV manner and interpreting Wikipedia "rules" to his convenience ( User:Calidum). He says that, per BLP, we cannot "infer guilt by association". And, on top of all that, he keeps deleting a post that I placed on that Talk Page. He has deleted my post about 3 or 4 times now. My post contains nothing but (A) factual information; and (B) my concerns for editing that specific article. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro - Deleting anothers Talk when that Talk is about the editor deleting it ("It should be noted that User Calidum") seems understandable that you would want to type that and that he would then feel free to delete material that seems just about him. Kind of two wrongs make a sorta-OK protocol item than a Neutrality topic. The positive outcome is each editor got to vent some steam out, it's in the history, and Talk winds up more polite and on topic at the end. But I'll suggest talking the article topic and ways to proceed in this at the article Talk more likely to stick and looks better. Markbassett ( talk) 13:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
incident in which "some people are suspicious of Brady" and he held a press conference to dispel accusations of alleged cheating'. People either get BLP or they don't and I rarely find that explaining it achieves anything, however, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, therefore people are not permitted to add rumors and accusations (there are some exceptions but they do not apply in this case). If a due process has found someone guilty of wrongdoing (and if it is WP:DUE), that information can included. Until then, stick to Twitter. Also, an article talk page should not be used to make proclamations about other editors, and the editor was quite correct to remove the off-topic attack. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Me and an anonymous user are having an edit dispute in regards to the display of the Iglesia ni Cristo's founder Felix Manalo as the "above=" field in the navigation template. I think it's giving him undue weight since his article is already linked. Can someone look into this? -- wL< speak· check> 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I feel guilty - but when I posted the query at BLP/N, another editor insisted it was not a BLP issue and now says the issue is that the source has a "viewpoint" rather than just giving a neutral fact - so I am having to come here for a determination as to whether the use of the CSM is POV in esse, or simply reciting a neutral fact (the precise same source is being used by him, so there is no basis to doubt reliability, but I decided to ask here to see if the claim is, indeed, POV and UNDUE:
The preceding part currently reads:
Is the fact that people sending emails were actually notified that the emails were not private a POV claim? It is clear that Florida did not regard them as private, but is the notice actually given to people at the time they were not private an UNDUE claim? A claim intended to make Bush appear "righteous"? Is the addition of the sentence a violation of WP:NPOV?
MrX as the other editor. Collect ( talk) 00:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
References
And if the section is indeed POV, then it must to be fixed - thus getting opinions here on the whole section which was objected to. Collect ( talk) 01:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The above article and topic area was recently encouraged to have more eyes on it by the ArbCom. I have started a new thread on the talk page of that article, at Talk:Landmark Worldwide#"Comment" committee persuant to a suggestion I made during the arbitration to try to get some specific editors who might have some sort of experience in similar topics involved, and have actually already binged them in the thread. It is of course understood that none of those individuals, or any others, will have more authority than any others, but I thought their input might be welcome in drafting one or more RfCs on the topic down the road. Of course, any additional eyes would be welcome as well, particularly as I have no reason at this point to think that any of the individuals who I pinged have even responded yet. John Carter ( talk) 23:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In the arbitration case John Carter refers to above, one principle affirmed by unanimous vote of the committee was "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle." The committee reminded parties "...to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight", and they invited additional eyes to facilitate finding NPOV. These things are not happening right now in that article.
Since 15 January when John Carter brought this here, there have been over 230 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article. A significant portion of those edits have been multi-party edit warring (reverting "on sight"), or have been additions of poorly sourced material. Entire sections have been created based on synthesized claims. Multiple attempts at dispute resolution have been ignored or met with attacks. Some editors have been blocked, others have been warned. The state of the article is worse than ever.
The Landmark Worldwide article (and the entire field of "New Religious Movements") really needs additional impartial editors. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that, in Ali Khamenei's 75 years of life, he has both been involved in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Iran–Iraq War, and an unknown number of crackdowns on political opponents, is it really WP:DUE to mention a tweet he made last month in the article about him - let alone devote an entire section to it (it is also linked under " See also")? The section has previously been removed [19], but was restored [20], in good faith (per talk). I have asked what WP:LASTING effect the tweet/letter have had, but have not received any response.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 04:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the title is not suitable. We should find an encyclopedic title for the section. For example "Public diplomacy#non-Muslims" then mention this issue as an example beside the other examples. -- Seyyed( t- c) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
After a recent flurry of editing, this article has gained a number of citations to viva.org
and an external link the the Daily Mirror [22]. A wider assessment of the neutrailty of this would be welcome ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article has made a complaint about his voice intro project recording being published. Apart from that, which will be discussed elsewhere, has this made apparent that User:203.173.201.94 has removed this recording without comment twice making it very likely that this is the ip address of him or somebody very close to him. This ip address has made many edits to the article and related ones over the past months, making them biased even though there are citations to many of the edits made. 1Veertje ( talk) 07:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm that user User:203.173.201.94. I'm not the subject nor am I close to him or know him at all (although I do live in New Zealand). The changes I have made all have citations, feel free to check through them. I deleted the voice intro project recording twice because I believe it is not Wikipedia appropriate - you do not and could never see a feature like this on any notable person that has deceased, and so it is inconsistent to Wiki bio articles and feels 'gimmicky' to me, not of Wiki's standard. I have left it alone since anyhow. I am not involved (or aware) of any complaint that has been made however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarloafrd ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=646544448&oldid=646542408
I believe the lead is full of "expressions of doubt". It appears to me that it is written in a manner intended to cast doubt on all claims made by those considered to be part of the "Men's rights movement". Compare and contrast to the article on Feminism, which I believe is the closest article on a similar subject that's written in an unbiased and neutral manner.
Previous discussions on this article's neutrality: Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Please note that some of these no longer apply, but help to demonstrate the long-term NPOV issues with the article, and the lack of permanent resolution.
I feel there are multiple serious issues with the article.
One, the article appears to be written largely from an anti Men's rights perspective, not a neutral one.
Two, there is heavy usage of sources which are biased - but this bias is extensively justified in the talk pages as being "from a reliable source, regardless of any amount of bias of that source". If anti-men's-rights articles from "reliable sources" are allowed and included, then an equal amount of pro-men's-rights articles from similarly "reliable sources" should be sought out and included to provide balance.
But above all, the wording and phrasing of the article - especially the "lede" (lead?) - is written in a manner that attempts to marginalise, discredit, and is pretty much the definition of "expressions of doubt". See the first link of this section for specific examples. This i not the case in the article on Feminism - the fact that the Feminism article is written in a manner that presents all the views and claims of feminists as facts, and the Men's rights movement article is written in a manner that casts doubt on every view and claim of Men's rights activists, leads me to believe that Wikipedia officially supports Feminism at the expense of men.
In any case, I believe the Men's rights movement article should be reviewed and compared with similar articles, partially rewritten to present a neutral viewpoint (excluding the bias of so-called "reliable" sources), and the page should be permanently locked to all but a short list of editors who have shown the ability to edit the article neutrally (someone else, because I don't have time to dedicate to something like this). BrentNewland ( talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, scholars are usually the most authoritative source. On the topic of the men's rights movement, quite a few scholars have written about it, and the majority of these have portrayed the movement in a negative light. This is why there cannot be any sort of satisfaction for BrentNewland or Spudst3r in terms of 'balance'. The proper balance is achieved by portraying the topic in primarily negative terms.
The sockpuppet accusation should be put to bed. Though both BrentNewland and Spudst3r have been sporadically active, dormant until recent interest in the MRM article, the two accounts demonstrate separate styles and timings.
This intertwined edit report shows too little time passing between the activity of the two accounts; in one case edits were posted by the two accounts separated by only seven seconds.
Binksternet (
talk) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"proper balance is achieved by portraying the topic in primarily negative terms.":
"The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression."versus
"The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression."Here the first is a factual statement about what the movement focuses on, following the spirit of Wikipedia's NPOV guide showing how the statement
"The pro-life movement holds that abortion is wrong, or occasionally that it is only justified in certain special cases"is a factual statement to describe the pro-life movement, not an opinion.. Yet despite this, a small group of editors are still reverting aggressively to the latter phrasing, rejecting any attempt to remove
"what they consider to be"from the opening statement of the article. This is clear (and entirely unnecessary) NPOV WP:SUBJECTIVE framing. If I added similar language (and backed it up with reputable sources) to the feminism article, I guarantee my attempts would be heavily reverted and challenged. Indeed, BrentNewland ( talk · contribs) recent edits demonstrate very clearly the zero tolerance environment currently existing for any changes to the Feminism article. (I don't endorse disruptive edits to the Feminism page, but reverts occuring in that article clearly demonstrate the existence of a systemic double standard in the administration of these related article's that extend far beyond just trying to uphold appropriate weight to reliable sources).
"focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.", it just isn't the case that reliable sources writing about this subject consider "male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression" to exist in the way that they are considered to exist by men's rights activists. That isn't to say it's true or untrue, but looking at reliable sources it's not possible to come to another conclusion. This is what is meant by presenting views with the weight they receive in reliable sources. It doesn't mean presenting unadulterated arguments of each side as they would characterize the arguments themselves.
NOTE: I indicated that Spudst3r is either a WP:Sockpuppet or a WP:Meatpuppet, and I stand by that. Others at WP:ANI agree that Spudst3r is undoubtedly a WP:Meatpuppet, with a WP:Canvassing thread to bolster that conclusion. Nothing false at all regarding what I stated about Spudst3r. If others want to play dumb regarding that account, they are free to do so, but don't expect me to play dumb in this case. That is all. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The requirement of due weight is to present all sides clearly and proportionately. The reader should not be left with any doubt as to the opinion of the majority of reliable sources. This does not constitute a requirement for sniping at minority views with doubtful language. Rhoark ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to the article Donetsk People's Republic. There are 2 NPOV issues that I think need addressing;
1: Respect for the POV tag. [26]
2: The section "Human rights" needs more de-POVifying. (the debate can be found here). It probably qualifies as a WP:CRITICISM section. The main proponent of keeping it in the article is User:Volunteer Marek. (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount and User:KoolerStill seem to agree that this is WP:UNDUE). As has been said in another debate before, "Section totally un-encyclopedic, as its based on unreliable sources..."
Here are some example diffs of the material being added & removed:
Like any conflict it cannot be reduced to "good guys" vs "bad guys". The reality is that both parties had committed human rights abuses. Certainly some of the content here should be included, but I feel like its a bit of a WP:BITR and most definitely WP:UNDUE. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 13:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like it noted that Tobby72, when he began this discussion here, failed to notify me of it, as required per the heading on top. This brings up the question of whether the discussion was started in good faith, or just a back-door attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
As to the removal of the tag - the text within the tag itself is NOT policy. It was inserted in there arbitrarily by a grudge holding user with some sour grapes. The WP:NPOV page IS policy. And that is pretty clear on the fact that a) a spurious tag should not be inserted based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, b) the tag needs to be justified on talk page and grounded in policy and c) that yes, it's perfectly fine to remove a spurious tag. We go by NPOV policy here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and now that I thought about it for a second, I recalled that this issue already *has* been discussed on the talk page (if not this noticeboard, see talk page archives) of the article and consensus was against Tobby72. So not only are they failing to notify relevant parties of this discussion, they are also failing to disclose the fact that this has already been discussed (and of course, that the discussion didn't go their way). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tobby72 here. Unfortunately Volunteer Marek has become strongly engaged here and is pushing a very one sided POV here(minor note-I have known and was one of Polish editors who worked with editor VM for years before, until recentre). The claim that there was a discussion is a weak one, there doesn't seem to be any consensus there and besides, consensus might change.
At the moment the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides.Reliable sources like OSCE and Human Rights Watch have noted serious abuses and atrocities committed by Ukrainian side on the territory of DPR and this indeed should be noted in the article.
--
MyMoloboaccount (
talk) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Blatant POV-pushing being obstinately reintroduced without opposition -- [33], [34]. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
What can be done to prevent such behavior? -- [35], [36], [37], [38]. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 18:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A single-purpose pro-FLG user User:Aaabbb11 has been making substantial edits across multiple Falun Gong related articles for the last two months. These include trying to change the perspective on alledged organ harvesting practices to statements of fact, and obfuscating the connection between the Epoch Times and the FLG. I've cautioned this user at the Falun Gong talk page but their edits continue unabated across so many articles that I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and keep a lid on the shifts in neutral point of view. Could some uninvolved editors without an axe to grind in this never-ending conflict please step in? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Binksternet that was one of my biggest concerns. The other is the pattern of inserting dubious sources from obvious non-neutral websites as statements of fact on the various organ harvesting sources. That and the fact that all claims regarding Chinese organ transplantation are at least half a decade out of date if not more. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Aaabbb11 has also kept removing related Wikilinks in Falun Gong without giving valid reasons: [39] [40]. He/She is obviously a SPA using Wikipedia for his/her advocacy for Falun Gong. STSC ( talk) 20:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This article has a lot of opinions expressed as facts, for example, "In 1931 the Canadian Crown emerged as an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931."
While it is not sourced in the article, it appears to come from an opinion expressed by Lord Justice May in ex parte: The Indian Association of Alberta ( Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 1981):
The head of the Court,
Lord Denning, said that the Canadian Crown became separate in 1926 with the Balfour Declaration, while Lord Justice Kerr said that the Crown had been separate when a Canadian government had been established, which had occured by 1867 with Confederation. The
House of Lords, which at the time was the highest court in the U.K., would decide in 2005 in
ex parte Quark to accept Kerr's opinion and reject the other two. (Note: both these cases were requests for prorogativeprerogative writs and hence took the form of The Queen vs. the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.)
It would seem that dating the separation of the Crown to 1931 is an opinion based on one interpretation of one judge's opinion that itself is no longer accepted. I would appreciate if other editors could weigh in on this.
TFD ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Canada viewed the BNA act as being central to its history (not counting Newfoundland which was a Colony until 1949). KGVI was His Majesty George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India thus (as Canada was a Dominion) he was King of the Dominion of Canada. Not "King of Great Britain and not separately King of the Dominion of Canada". Just as QV was "Empress of India" not "Queen of Great Britain and through that 'Queen of India'" And she was never "Empress of Great Britain." Kerr's position was the best of the lot as the peers agreed.
[49] The royal official site states: As already referenced, The Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 with the passage of the British North America Act, 1867.
The constitutional act of 1867 set out executive authority vested in the Sovereign and carried out in her name at the federal level by a Governor General and Privy Council , with legislative powers exercised by a bicameral Parliament made up of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Crown.
One of the key features of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 was the separation the Crowns. As a consequence, the Crown of Canada – separate and distinct from that of the United Kingdom and the other Dominions – was defined in statute. Which appears to agree with the title before was as "King of the Dominions" and not as "King of Great Britain" with the Dominions sharing a common king and the only change being that he was now "King of Canada".
1931 did not change the position from "King of Great Britain" to "King of Canada" but rather "King of the Dominion of Canada" to "King of Canada" clearly -- as the House of Lords officially stated. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not commonly accepted to divide lists of kings and queens into before and after 1931. See "The Kings and Queens of Canada" (Government of Canada website), "Canada’s Monarchy throughout History" (Monarchist League), and even "United Kingdom Monarchs (1603-present)" (BM, the source you use for dividing the list).
In the 1981 case, all that had to be determined was whether the Canadian Crown was separate from the UK Crown in 1981. The specific date at which it became divided was irrelevant to the outcome. In the 2005 case the issue was the specific date at which the crown of an overseas territory became separate and it was decided it became separate when an administration was established. They specifically refer to the 1981 case and endorse the view that this had happened in Canada by 1867.
Due to historical reasons, the form of these cases was the Queen vs. the Secretary of State, but the Queen's side was argued by counsel for the ex parte litigants.
TFD ( talk) 20:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
When considering the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, one wonder if the British & Canadian crowns are seperate. I do believe the Act is currently being challenged on its constitutionality. GoodDay ( talk) 20:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this image with this caption at Gun show loophole undue?
It has been/is being discussed here: Image for the article.
It was originally added 8 February 2015 with the caption:
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law? Even when they sell from their private collection?
But even that's not the point. This is what a gun show looks like. A gun show where dealers and private sellers and dealers selling private collections sell. But as Darknipples asks, what image would you suggest? If we found one of a private seller selling a gun, would you then object because it might imply that he was selling illegally? If we got a hidden-camera image of someone selling illegally, would you object because it might imply that all sellers sell illegally? What image would be better than this one? Lightbreather ( talk) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That image is definitely not appropriate for the article. It does not depict the subject of the article, and it's very likely to mislead the casual reader into thinking the term "gun show loophole" applies to the many, many guns shown in the picture, but of course that's not the case, as others here have already explained. — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless an image accurately depicts a salient event to the article in which it is to be used, it ought not be used. In the case at hand, it implies that "individual private sellers" attend shows with several hundred weapons - leading to the implication that they make up most of the sales at gun shows. As it is not an apt depiction of private sales at gun shows, it is equivalent to using an irrelevant cite in any article - it fails. Collect ( talk) 15:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Per WP's MOS..."Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." The image's caption is written in a way that conveys the intent of the article. The logistics and importance being placed on obtaining an image of a "private sale" at a gun show seems to be somewhat undue, if not impossible, considering that photography is typically not allowed at gun shows. I am willing to attempt to obtain such a photograph myself, however, it would only be a last resort as it takes time and money to do so. My only wish is for a consensus, but some of our editors do not seem willing to compromise [59] [60] despite the context within the caption. Darknipples ( talk) 03:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
may sell guns from their private collections to buyers without background checksactually misrepresents the loophole, which according to the article refers only to private sellers. Finally, articles - even Good Articles like this one - are not required to have images. If no suitable images can be found, an unrepresentative image should not be used just for the sake of having an image. Ca2james ( talk) 06:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Is in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Its neutrality is at issue here, as it is almost entirely a series of claims connecting people who signed a document to a deliberate plan seeking 9/11 and designed to get the US into war, as well as promoting biological weapons and "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group" . It includes naming multiple people multiple times (wikilinking every time) in connection with that.
I consider statements that people are seeking to develop biological weapons, to promote genocide, seeking war,, and deliberately seeking 9/11, to be a "contentious claim of conspiracy" and suggest that it is,indeed, subject to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and invite eyes to look at this article (which nicely uses ALL CAPS a lot when quoting section titles from a pamphlet).
[62] is the latest such edit.
Thanks. Collect ( talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A serious NPOV discussion required here involving users who live in Crimea. This and related articles are easily influenced by propogandas from both sides. in English Wikipedia - mostly from pro-regime-in-Kiev side. In Russian Wikipedia - from regime-in-Moscow. Viktor Š 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. ( talk • contribs)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
The neutrality of Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute section contents has been disputed at Talk:Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme dispute. The dispute was announced using the "NPOV-section" template, started on 2 December 2014 and ended up finding a consensual wording of the section on 9 December 2014. After the dispute ended, the wording of the section was updated, deleting the "NPOV-section" template.
On 8 January 2014 an edit #641543166 changed the consensual wording of the section. The problematic and nonneutral aspects of the edit:
Proposal
The proposed action is to revert the edit #641543166. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
R v Morgentaler is a 1988 Canadian Supreme Court case which ruled unconstitutional the part of the criminal code concerning abortion. Back in June I noticed that someone had changed the lead from
R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
to:
R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
This struck me as quite POV. Included as a citation is a letter to the editor at The Guardian. The author of the letter is a legal authority, but nonetheless written as a letter to the editor, arguing against what for the purpose of our article seems like a strawman (i.e. there is no claim that this decision means "a constitutional right to abortion" nevermind "abortion on demand", nor is there any claim that the court had "no interest in protecting the unborn").
The text was originally added in May by 99.224.218.198 and since my first revert the same user has periodically restored the same text another five times. I hoped being a contentious subject that others would get involved, but nobody has. Uncomfortable continuing a months-long edit war, I turn here. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
following on Andy's message above - there are court cases that are widely misunderstood, especially within activist communities. In my world, the decision in India about Gleevec was touted by anti-pharma activists as a huge blow when it was a very narrow decision that grew out of weird timing (patents filed at the same time that the law was changing), and the Monsanto v Schmeiser case is widely described by anti-GMO activists to be about genetically modified seed patented by Monsanto blowing onto a farmer's field, when in reality the farmer had intentionally planted a bunch of GM seed he had intentionally saved. Court cases are "used" all the time in inappropriate ways. But the point that there should be responsible reporting in reliable sources that accurately describe the decision, and perhaps even mention the decision being widely misconstrued, is great - if those sources don't exist, that is a sign that the claim of mis-construing is not accurate, or is a fringe view. A letter to the editor is a lame source. Jytdog ( talk) 19:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I just want to note, that the source being discussed was used as follows:
"The extent and nature of the Morgentaler decision remains in popular discussion, e.g. in a recent Guardian letter [1] by Gerard Mitchell.
- ^ Mitchell, Gerard (22 May 14). "Clarifying facts on Canada's abortion law, or lack of". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 Jan 15.
{{ cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
and|date=
( help)
Content says nothing (and even that nothing is unsupported by the source) and appears to be just some kind of WP:COATRACK to bring in the source. I removed it. Jytdog ( talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Could we please get some more eyes at Economic growth? People have over the past four or five months been slowly trying to include obscure primary source studies of relatively tiny datasets to try to imply that inequality causing economic growth is still a viable theory. These studies have huge caveats that went unmentioned in the inclusions. And now User:Volunteer Marek is trying to claim that Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) aren't primary source studies, and that my insistance on agreement with secondary sources is against consensus because "at least one other user objects" to my edits. EllenCT ( talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
“studies which do not reach their conclusions based on literature reviews”← that seems like a quirky definition of what a primary source is. What (if anything) in economics is a primary source? ... if some authors produced a dataset and then did an analysis of it maybe? Or some microeconomic theory proposed from scratch? If sources are drawing on third-party material and offering commentary and analysis, then they are secondary. How much weight they should be accorded is a different question, and should be determined in the usual way (prestige of publishing venue, impact, etc.). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 07:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek is wise. bobrayner ( talk) 22:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
We could really use more eyes and help on the article. I find the situation intolerable and the other editor simply impossible to get through. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple of users, namely Tigona ( talk · contribs), Zeog ( talk · contribs), and several IPs, some or all of which may be Matthias Kuhle himself, are pushing this academic's obviously controversial idea that the Tibetan Plateau was covered almost completely by an ice sheet in the last glacial period (and probably earlier glacial periods), and that the Tibetan Plateau is itself the cause of the glacial periods, or the current ice age, on the pages Ice age, Geography of Tibet, Matthias Kuhle, and possibly elsewhere, by presenting the hypothesis as accepted, or even majority consensus, and the opponents as mere dissenters. The glaring (and formerly, when Geography of Tibet contained virtually Kuhle's whole bibliography, clearly extreme) over-reliance on Kuhle's own (numerous) publications, together with the quite apparent fact that there are numerous opponents, makes me almost certain that this narrative is wrong and biased. If it were true, it should be easy to cite supporters, instead of citing Kuhle himself dozens of times (note the borderline citebombing in Ice age#Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snowline, where all footnotes are citations to Kuhle's own publications). It appears that Kuhle is using Wikipedia to promote, and defend against criticism, his pet hypothesis to laypeople after it has been rejected by the relevant expert community (compare this dissertation), trying to short-circuit or circumvent the scientific process. This pattern is, unfortunately, all too common with cranks in academia. In this case it is difficult to see who else would have an interest in promoting this particular hypothesis – it appears too obscure and unexciting to garner much attention and fans compared to other fringe hypotheses, and outsiders would find it difficult to assemble the man's whole bibliography, so I'm hard-pressed to assume good faith. This looks like a classic case of WP:SELFPROMOTE, with the tell-tale sign being the liberal use of WP:SELFCITE. I note that Talk:Matthias Kuhle lacks a COI note currently, even though it is pretty much obvious that some Wikipedia editors have an undisclosed personal affiliation with Kuhle. (Also note that Kuhle's page has only narrowly escaped deletion, due to lack of any clear consensus on his notability.) -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are mainly based on numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique") by citing Kuhle's own work ( my revert just now). Unless, of course, those many citations cited as criticism are presented without proper context or are otherwise misrepresented (i.e. assuming there's a legitimate basis for including it -- which is to say that it's due, without issuing a scientific judgment), we'd likewise need secondary sources to counter the criticism. I also removed a glut of journal publications and conference proceedings per WP:PROMO and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a CV). Also tagged the article for expert attention, etc. because I'm not at all equipped to parse the factual content. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
After reading this section I searched for secondary literature dealing with the Tibetan glaciation theory. I found many textbooks, which described this theory as well (i. e. J. Ehlers 2011: Das Eiszeitalter, cf. http://www.springer.com/popular/book/978-3-8274-2326-9.; Anderson, Goudie, Parker (2013): Global Environments Through the Quaternary: Exploring Evironmental Change, page 86-87, cf. https://books.google.de/books?id=lFP1CdFDkIMC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Global+Environments+through+the+Quaternary+kuhle&source=bl&ots=Qrz9AuLgzQ&sig=_22DYGYmK1VJ1UqxvBDCZdnLGd8&hl=de&sa=X&ei=_fCzVP7vBYnyPPLxgNAJ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Global%20Environments%20through%20the%20Quaternary%20kuhle&f=false) and Nesje, A. & Dahl, S. O., 2000. Glaciers and Environmental Change. Arnold, pp. 1-203). Furthermore I found several articles which described the lack of calibrated numerical dating samples in High Mountain Areas (also Tibet) (i. e. Chevalier et al. (2011): Constraints on the late Quaternary glaciations in Tibet from cosmogenic exposure ages of moraine surfaces, cf. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110004014; Schröder, N. (2007): The discrepancy between the method of Cosmogenic Nuclide Exposure Dating on moraines and morphodynamics, weathering, glacierdynamics, erosion and global climate, page 369 cf. http://palaeoworks.anu.edu.au/pubs/INQUA2007abstracts.pdf). Consequently the last sentence of this author page should be corrected into: These doubts, however ignore earlier geomorphological evidences and are uncalibrated numerical datings, which up to now lack a reliable calibration technique [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. --— Tigona talk \\ 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
An i.p. is constantly adding to the lead of the article that ETA is a group "known for targeting civilians." A statement like that, besides being unsourced, is questionable. The group, I would argue, is better known for waging a violent struggle for Basque independence, during which, as always occurs in conflicts involving paramilitary groups, civilians died. In some cases, these were after explosions targeting infrastructure, where there were disputes over the customary telephone warnings given. Those attacks, while criminally reckless, are not the same as "targetting civilians." Others were politicians, members of political parties or people working on military bases, who supporters of such groups would argue were "legitimate targets" rather than "civilians." Either way, the vast majority of those killed were not civilians, using either definition. Ultimately, it's not our job at Wikipedia to decide whether they were or not, we simply state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. In the ip's edit summary, they say: "a non NPOV editor is making a concerted effort to whitewash this article as compared to the more official Spanish language version." As all I've done is revert to the longstanding consensus version of the lead, this is not correct and besides that, the Spanish language version of the article is no "more official" than ours and says nothing in the lead about the group being known for targeting civilians. Valenciano ( talk) 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This article on a 2016 presidential candidate in the U.S. has been a long-term problem with NPOV. The lede read like a campaign bio, one editor using the name Webfooter has been editing at length (including changing "politician" to "statesman"); etc. I would like some eyes on this, preferably including some that admire Webb more than I do. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Here I am with my hands up. Don't shoot! I left a message on the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard. I am now concerned that there may be a conflict of interest, since you say that you don't care for him, OrangeMike, and Jytdog describes himself as a "Clinton Democrat." Is there anyone who may be more neutral who could handle this? You have all the power, of course, and I'm just a person trying to accurately portray an individual. (By the way, I said "noted author" because it was less puffy than "Pulitzer Prize" nominated author. I said "statesman" rather than "politician" because of his career path, entering politics later. However, I can see that politician would fit at this time.) I used Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia page as a guide. Today you deleted all but a small paragraph in his introduction, Orange Mike. Hillary's introduction contains five well developed paragraphs. Nothing you deleted was fake or puffed up. He just happens to be a man who has had many accomplishments, which should noted in an introduction and then in more detail in the article. ( Webbfooter ( talk) 03:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
Content:
In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from a modernistic reading of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading. These readers cite certain lines as being questionable, including "I simply must go", "The answer is no", "I've got to go home". There is also the line "Hey, what's in this drink", which is seen as implicative of alcohol affecting the "mouse's" judgement or that they have been drugged. However, many movies, which? at the time the song was written, used a similar line to refer to someone behaving in a different manner than they expected and blaming it on the alcohol.
" ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ was once an anthem for progressive women. What happened?". The Washington Post. Hannun, Marya (11 December 2013). " 'SOUTH PARK' Takes on Bill Cosby ... BABY THERE'S AN ASSAULT OUTSIDE". TMZ (11 December 2014). " 8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape". Cracked.com (13 February 2010). " “Baby It’s Cold Outside” Isn’t About Date Rape!". Salon (website) (19 December 2012). " Is "Baby, It's Cold Outside" a date-rape anthem?". Salon (website). Deusner, Stephen (10 December 2012). " Baby, It’s Just A Song". The Federalist (website). Magness, Cheryl (3 December 2014). " Christmas songs that illustrate the worst in humanity". George Ouzounian (19 December 2012).
These are some of the proposed sources for and against the date rape implications surrounding Baby, It's Cold Outside. We are determining if these are propaganda or satire, and if so, which ones fit RS guidelines. Timeraner ( talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved from WP:RS/Noticeboard. Timeraner ( talk) 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of other sources being discussed on the article talk page. IMO the standard for inclusion here is (correctly) pretty low. We are not talking about any BLP issues, or statements of fact. Its "What are the opinions about this song". Interestingly for the federalist, their article largely argues against the "rape" interpretation, so removing them removes one of the better soured counterpoints to the controversy. This hasn't gotten "Tier 1" coverage like the other controversial Christmas song Do They Know It's Christmas which has been covered by NPR and BBC, but its still a pretty notable controversy, and there is not a really widely discussed counterargument Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia– GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 22:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The main issue I see with American Left is that it deviates from the existing left wing and left right politics articles. It defines "The left" in a different way to exclude pretty much everything but socialism, Marxism, and communism - something that deviates from the normal American sense what is left of center. It appears that it might be better titled as American Socialism since that is it main focus.
I think it would fall under POV-lead or POV-title. I haven't put up the templates but posted here first. Dairyfarmer777 ( talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Amazingly enough- this has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NPOV and thus has no place at WP:NPOV/N either. Go to mediation or the like - but the folks here can not possibly do anything as a NPOV matter. Collect ( talk) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at WP:ELN#Linking to Prager University, which addresses the allegedly non-neutral creation of external links to Prager University, a website associated with radio host Dennis Prager. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As the discussion has not reached a close I have started an RfC. You are more than welcome to participate if you have not already done so. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
146.23.68.40 Posted to this Talk page in 2011. I responded a few days ago, but it appears this contributor is no longer active. I would like to get the Neutrality issue resolved. Any help here, or am I in the wrong place. Doesn't seem like a big problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonbill ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do you think my version or the version to which the article was reverted is more neutral?
jps ( talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The "neutrality dispute" notice reads: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I placed the notice on the article "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" on January 10, and provided an explanation on the talk page. The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later [7]. It was restored today by someone else, at which point an edit war began. [8] [9] [10] It seems to me that the wording of the notice ought to be either obeyed, or the wording changed. Also, I would appreciate it if people would take a look at this article, because it seems to have a really severe neutrality problem. 55 Gators ( talk) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
55 Gators - in response to your question, this seems de facto definition, an example that removers ignore the process and then victim-blaming happens over the claim of you didn't do it perfect as judged by ... Yah, it's a largely malfunctioning process. Nobody gave acknowledgement that you posted to TALK and the deletion did not participate in TALK, it's more assertions the other way and that you didn't do everything perfect which to me reads like evidence a tag is needed and they should TALK but that behaviour is not motivated. Removal might work closer to basis of talk use if a tag was semi-protected and criteria set for admins to meet before applying or removing but that's not the way it is. Annnnnnd I expect to see complaints about the 'but he poked me first...' flavor and red herring type. You raised the issue, but should not expect all parties to play fair when they really care. Markbassett ( talk) 00:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC on Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension ( Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#habeas_corpus_section) pertaining to the section of the Lincoln article ( Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war). Piledhighandeep ( talk) 08:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
[This is copied verbatim from a query initially at the Help desk, moved per the suggestion of a fellow editor]
Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time, but I've always wondered this:
What is Wikipedia's stance on partisans?
I've read WP:REP in the past, but I've always wondered what the general community thinks of this.
(Note that the partisans that I speak of are the ones that follow the rules for the most part, but do still obfuscate information that they find unfavourable from their own edits.)
If a partisan were to edit Wikipedia within the general rules, but yet obfuscate some information or otherwise "shadow" an article, and then in the long term the information that they added ended up being reworked by future editors so that the page turned out quite well balanced, could the presence of such a person truly be seen as a problem? If the partisan added legitimate information, and then the pages were later improved upon by others to add the information that they had left out, then wouldn't "the (first-version-writing) partisan" just be another step in the life of the general creation and improvement of an article? Tharthandorf Aquanashi ( talk) 11:56 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
Is it undue weight to mention bills that do not pass in articles about the subject of the article?
These about the Gun show loophole:
Diff of the edit that removed the text - [11].
Link to discussion about bills - [12].
This one, regarding Universal background checks:
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that whether a bill passed or not is the wrong question. We should be asking whether any given bill, pass or fail, is sufficiently important to the biography of the legislator, which we can decide by considering its coverage in reliable sources. Formerip ( talk) 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Lightbreather...if the bills didn't pass them maybe the legislature failed to see that there is a problem that needs addressing. I think a brief mention of a specific bill that did not pass is probably fine...so long as most of the bill that did not pass is about the specific article and not just some pork that was attached to a larger bill.-- MONGO 20:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Is the title "Gun show loophole" contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?
It was discussed about a week ago - [13] - and then another discussion was started today - [14].
Others want to title the article "Gun show loophole controversy."
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the article's original title was "Gun show loophole" but "controversy" was tacked onto the end of it on December 2, 2014, [15] by an editor who is now topic-banned [16] from gun control articles. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
At the moment I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not this question should be discussed here. Note however that I have just added a Request For Comment to the article's talk page. -- Talk:Gun show loophole#RFC to rename article. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather -- Umm "Is the title Gun show loophole contrary to WP:POVNAMING for the article about the gun show loophole?" is kind of a leading RFC phrasing so maybe start TALK at what to look at and how the concerns might be addressed. I'll offer that there seems consensus it's a non-neutral but common name, submit it might be agreed to expect political concepts do label games, so perhaps look at Death panels which gets that title and also puts mention of title sensitivity prominent in lead section which sets context and weight. Markbassett ( talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Before being threatened with a topic ban again I would like a third opinion on the section about “Peace activities”. There are a number of links indicating that some SGI adherents like doing gymnastics and building human pyramids. I’d like a third opinion if there is enough evidence that this IS an official SGI peace activity and if the reference stated are concrete enough?-- Catflap08 ( talk) 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I was on the Talk Page of an article ( Talk:Tom Brady). Per an "Admin Help" Template request, an administrator told me that I should come to this page with my questions and concerns. There is an article ( Tom Brady) that is being edited in a very POV manner (in my opinion). Editors on that page will not allow any mention (whatsoever) of the word " Deflategate" in that article. Even though Tom Brady is a central figure in that topic; Tom Brady himself held a press conference on that very topic; and the topic has a million reliable sources. One editor in particular, in my opinion, is editing in a POV manner and interpreting Wikipedia "rules" to his convenience ( User:Calidum). He says that, per BLP, we cannot "infer guilt by association". And, on top of all that, he keeps deleting a post that I placed on that Talk Page. He has deleted my post about 3 or 4 times now. My post contains nothing but (A) factual information; and (B) my concerns for editing that specific article. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro - Deleting anothers Talk when that Talk is about the editor deleting it ("It should be noted that User Calidum") seems understandable that you would want to type that and that he would then feel free to delete material that seems just about him. Kind of two wrongs make a sorta-OK protocol item than a Neutrality topic. The positive outcome is each editor got to vent some steam out, it's in the history, and Talk winds up more polite and on topic at the end. But I'll suggest talking the article topic and ways to proceed in this at the article Talk more likely to stick and looks better. Markbassett ( talk) 13:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
incident in which "some people are suspicious of Brady" and he held a press conference to dispel accusations of alleged cheating'. People either get BLP or they don't and I rarely find that explaining it achieves anything, however, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, therefore people are not permitted to add rumors and accusations (there are some exceptions but they do not apply in this case). If a due process has found someone guilty of wrongdoing (and if it is WP:DUE), that information can included. Until then, stick to Twitter. Also, an article talk page should not be used to make proclamations about other editors, and the editor was quite correct to remove the off-topic attack. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Me and an anonymous user are having an edit dispute in regards to the display of the Iglesia ni Cristo's founder Felix Manalo as the "above=" field in the navigation template. I think it's giving him undue weight since his article is already linked. Can someone look into this? -- wL< speak· check> 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I feel guilty - but when I posted the query at BLP/N, another editor insisted it was not a BLP issue and now says the issue is that the source has a "viewpoint" rather than just giving a neutral fact - so I am having to come here for a determination as to whether the use of the CSM is POV in esse, or simply reciting a neutral fact (the precise same source is being used by him, so there is no basis to doubt reliability, but I decided to ask here to see if the claim is, indeed, POV and UNDUE:
The preceding part currently reads:
Is the fact that people sending emails were actually notified that the emails were not private a POV claim? It is clear that Florida did not regard them as private, but is the notice actually given to people at the time they were not private an UNDUE claim? A claim intended to make Bush appear "righteous"? Is the addition of the sentence a violation of WP:NPOV?
MrX as the other editor. Collect ( talk) 00:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
References
And if the section is indeed POV, then it must to be fixed - thus getting opinions here on the whole section which was objected to. Collect ( talk) 01:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The above article and topic area was recently encouraged to have more eyes on it by the ArbCom. I have started a new thread on the talk page of that article, at Talk:Landmark Worldwide#"Comment" committee persuant to a suggestion I made during the arbitration to try to get some specific editors who might have some sort of experience in similar topics involved, and have actually already binged them in the thread. It is of course understood that none of those individuals, or any others, will have more authority than any others, but I thought their input might be welcome in drafting one or more RfCs on the topic down the road. Of course, any additional eyes would be welcome as well, particularly as I have no reason at this point to think that any of the individuals who I pinged have even responded yet. John Carter ( talk) 23:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
In the arbitration case John Carter refers to above, one principle affirmed by unanimous vote of the committee was "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, poor sources, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle." The committee reminded parties "...to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight", and they invited additional eyes to facilitate finding NPOV. These things are not happening right now in that article.
Since 15 January when John Carter brought this here, there have been over 230 edits to the Landmark Worldwide article. A significant portion of those edits have been multi-party edit warring (reverting "on sight"), or have been additions of poorly sourced material. Entire sections have been created based on synthesized claims. Multiple attempts at dispute resolution have been ignored or met with attacks. Some editors have been blocked, others have been warned. The state of the article is worse than ever.
The Landmark Worldwide article (and the entire field of "New Religious Movements") really needs additional impartial editors. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that, in Ali Khamenei's 75 years of life, he has both been involved in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the Iran–Iraq War, and an unknown number of crackdowns on political opponents, is it really WP:DUE to mention a tweet he made last month in the article about him - let alone devote an entire section to it (it is also linked under " See also")? The section has previously been removed [19], but was restored [20], in good faith (per talk). I have asked what WP:LASTING effect the tweet/letter have had, but have not received any response.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 04:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the title is not suitable. We should find an encyclopedic title for the section. For example "Public diplomacy#non-Muslims" then mention this issue as an example beside the other examples. -- Seyyed( t- c) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
After a recent flurry of editing, this article has gained a number of citations to viva.org
and an external link the the Daily Mirror [22]. A wider assessment of the neutrailty of this would be welcome ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The subject of this article has made a complaint about his voice intro project recording being published. Apart from that, which will be discussed elsewhere, has this made apparent that User:203.173.201.94 has removed this recording without comment twice making it very likely that this is the ip address of him or somebody very close to him. This ip address has made many edits to the article and related ones over the past months, making them biased even though there are citations to many of the edits made. 1Veertje ( talk) 07:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm that user User:203.173.201.94. I'm not the subject nor am I close to him or know him at all (although I do live in New Zealand). The changes I have made all have citations, feel free to check through them. I deleted the voice intro project recording twice because I believe it is not Wikipedia appropriate - you do not and could never see a feature like this on any notable person that has deceased, and so it is inconsistent to Wiki bio articles and feels 'gimmicky' to me, not of Wiki's standard. I have left it alone since anyhow. I am not involved (or aware) of any complaint that has been made however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarloafrd ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=646544448&oldid=646542408
I believe the lead is full of "expressions of doubt". It appears to me that it is written in a manner intended to cast doubt on all claims made by those considered to be part of the "Men's rights movement". Compare and contrast to the article on Feminism, which I believe is the closest article on a similar subject that's written in an unbiased and neutral manner.
Previous discussions on this article's neutrality: Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Please note that some of these no longer apply, but help to demonstrate the long-term NPOV issues with the article, and the lack of permanent resolution.
I feel there are multiple serious issues with the article.
One, the article appears to be written largely from an anti Men's rights perspective, not a neutral one.
Two, there is heavy usage of sources which are biased - but this bias is extensively justified in the talk pages as being "from a reliable source, regardless of any amount of bias of that source". If anti-men's-rights articles from "reliable sources" are allowed and included, then an equal amount of pro-men's-rights articles from similarly "reliable sources" should be sought out and included to provide balance.
But above all, the wording and phrasing of the article - especially the "lede" (lead?) - is written in a manner that attempts to marginalise, discredit, and is pretty much the definition of "expressions of doubt". See the first link of this section for specific examples. This i not the case in the article on Feminism - the fact that the Feminism article is written in a manner that presents all the views and claims of feminists as facts, and the Men's rights movement article is written in a manner that casts doubt on every view and claim of Men's rights activists, leads me to believe that Wikipedia officially supports Feminism at the expense of men.
In any case, I believe the Men's rights movement article should be reviewed and compared with similar articles, partially rewritten to present a neutral viewpoint (excluding the bias of so-called "reliable" sources), and the page should be permanently locked to all but a short list of editors who have shown the ability to edit the article neutrally (someone else, because I don't have time to dedicate to something like this). BrentNewland ( talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, scholars are usually the most authoritative source. On the topic of the men's rights movement, quite a few scholars have written about it, and the majority of these have portrayed the movement in a negative light. This is why there cannot be any sort of satisfaction for BrentNewland or Spudst3r in terms of 'balance'. The proper balance is achieved by portraying the topic in primarily negative terms.
The sockpuppet accusation should be put to bed. Though both BrentNewland and Spudst3r have been sporadically active, dormant until recent interest in the MRM article, the two accounts demonstrate separate styles and timings.
This intertwined edit report shows too little time passing between the activity of the two accounts; in one case edits were posted by the two accounts separated by only seven seconds.
Binksternet (
talk) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"proper balance is achieved by portraying the topic in primarily negative terms.":
"The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression."versus
"The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression."Here the first is a factual statement about what the movement focuses on, following the spirit of Wikipedia's NPOV guide showing how the statement
"The pro-life movement holds that abortion is wrong, or occasionally that it is only justified in certain special cases"is a factual statement to describe the pro-life movement, not an opinion.. Yet despite this, a small group of editors are still reverting aggressively to the latter phrasing, rejecting any attempt to remove
"what they consider to be"from the opening statement of the article. This is clear (and entirely unnecessary) NPOV WP:SUBJECTIVE framing. If I added similar language (and backed it up with reputable sources) to the feminism article, I guarantee my attempts would be heavily reverted and challenged. Indeed, BrentNewland ( talk · contribs) recent edits demonstrate very clearly the zero tolerance environment currently existing for any changes to the Feminism article. (I don't endorse disruptive edits to the Feminism page, but reverts occuring in that article clearly demonstrate the existence of a systemic double standard in the administration of these related article's that extend far beyond just trying to uphold appropriate weight to reliable sources).
"focus on what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.", it just isn't the case that reliable sources writing about this subject consider "male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression" to exist in the way that they are considered to exist by men's rights activists. That isn't to say it's true or untrue, but looking at reliable sources it's not possible to come to another conclusion. This is what is meant by presenting views with the weight they receive in reliable sources. It doesn't mean presenting unadulterated arguments of each side as they would characterize the arguments themselves.
NOTE: I indicated that Spudst3r is either a WP:Sockpuppet or a WP:Meatpuppet, and I stand by that. Others at WP:ANI agree that Spudst3r is undoubtedly a WP:Meatpuppet, with a WP:Canvassing thread to bolster that conclusion. Nothing false at all regarding what I stated about Spudst3r. If others want to play dumb regarding that account, they are free to do so, but don't expect me to play dumb in this case. That is all. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The requirement of due weight is to present all sides clearly and proportionately. The reader should not be left with any doubt as to the opinion of the majority of reliable sources. This does not constitute a requirement for sniping at minority views with doubtful language. Rhoark ( talk) 15:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to the article Donetsk People's Republic. There are 2 NPOV issues that I think need addressing;
1: Respect for the POV tag. [26]
2: The section "Human rights" needs more de-POVifying. (the debate can be found here). It probably qualifies as a WP:CRITICISM section. The main proponent of keeping it in the article is User:Volunteer Marek. (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount and User:KoolerStill seem to agree that this is WP:UNDUE). As has been said in another debate before, "Section totally un-encyclopedic, as its based on unreliable sources..."
Here are some example diffs of the material being added & removed:
Like any conflict it cannot be reduced to "good guys" vs "bad guys". The reality is that both parties had committed human rights abuses. Certainly some of the content here should be included, but I feel like its a bit of a WP:BITR and most definitely WP:UNDUE. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 13:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like it noted that Tobby72, when he began this discussion here, failed to notify me of it, as required per the heading on top. This brings up the question of whether the discussion was started in good faith, or just a back-door attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
As to the removal of the tag - the text within the tag itself is NOT policy. It was inserted in there arbitrarily by a grudge holding user with some sour grapes. The WP:NPOV page IS policy. And that is pretty clear on the fact that a) a spurious tag should not be inserted based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, b) the tag needs to be justified on talk page and grounded in policy and c) that yes, it's perfectly fine to remove a spurious tag. We go by NPOV policy here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and now that I thought about it for a second, I recalled that this issue already *has* been discussed on the talk page (if not this noticeboard, see talk page archives) of the article and consensus was against Tobby72. So not only are they failing to notify relevant parties of this discussion, they are also failing to disclose the fact that this has already been discussed (and of course, that the discussion didn't go their way). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Tobby72 here. Unfortunately Volunteer Marek has become strongly engaged here and is pushing a very one sided POV here(minor note-I have known and was one of Polish editors who worked with editor VM for years before, until recentre). The claim that there was a discussion is a weak one, there doesn't seem to be any consensus there and besides, consensus might change.
At the moment the section was undue because it didn't represent a neutral view, which points to abuses and violations by both sides.Reliable sources like OSCE and Human Rights Watch have noted serious abuses and atrocities committed by Ukrainian side on the territory of DPR and this indeed should be noted in the article.
--
MyMoloboaccount (
talk) 01:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Blatant POV-pushing being obstinately reintroduced without opposition -- [33], [34]. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
What can be done to prevent such behavior? -- [35], [36], [37], [38]. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 18:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A single-purpose pro-FLG user User:Aaabbb11 has been making substantial edits across multiple Falun Gong related articles for the last two months. These include trying to change the perspective on alledged organ harvesting practices to statements of fact, and obfuscating the connection between the Epoch Times and the FLG. I've cautioned this user at the Falun Gong talk page but their edits continue unabated across so many articles that I have neither the time nor the inclination to try and keep a lid on the shifts in neutral point of view. Could some uninvolved editors without an axe to grind in this never-ending conflict please step in? Simonm223 ( talk) 17:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Binksternet that was one of my biggest concerns. The other is the pattern of inserting dubious sources from obvious non-neutral websites as statements of fact on the various organ harvesting sources. That and the fact that all claims regarding Chinese organ transplantation are at least half a decade out of date if not more. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Aaabbb11 has also kept removing related Wikilinks in Falun Gong without giving valid reasons: [39] [40]. He/She is obviously a SPA using Wikipedia for his/her advocacy for Falun Gong. STSC ( talk) 20:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
This article has a lot of opinions expressed as facts, for example, "In 1931 the Canadian Crown emerged as an independent entity from that of the British Crown due to the Statute of Westminster 1931."
While it is not sourced in the article, it appears to come from an opinion expressed by Lord Justice May in ex parte: The Indian Association of Alberta ( Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 1981):
The head of the Court,
Lord Denning, said that the Canadian Crown became separate in 1926 with the Balfour Declaration, while Lord Justice Kerr said that the Crown had been separate when a Canadian government had been established, which had occured by 1867 with Confederation. The
House of Lords, which at the time was the highest court in the U.K., would decide in 2005 in
ex parte Quark to accept Kerr's opinion and reject the other two. (Note: both these cases were requests for prorogativeprerogative writs and hence took the form of The Queen vs. the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.)
It would seem that dating the separation of the Crown to 1931 is an opinion based on one interpretation of one judge's opinion that itself is no longer accepted. I would appreciate if other editors could weigh in on this.
TFD ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Canada viewed the BNA act as being central to its history (not counting Newfoundland which was a Colony until 1949). KGVI was His Majesty George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India thus (as Canada was a Dominion) he was King of the Dominion of Canada. Not "King of Great Britain and not separately King of the Dominion of Canada". Just as QV was "Empress of India" not "Queen of Great Britain and through that 'Queen of India'" And she was never "Empress of Great Britain." Kerr's position was the best of the lot as the peers agreed.
[49] The royal official site states: As already referenced, The Dominion of Canada was created in 1867 with the passage of the British North America Act, 1867.
The constitutional act of 1867 set out executive authority vested in the Sovereign and carried out in her name at the federal level by a Governor General and Privy Council , with legislative powers exercised by a bicameral Parliament made up of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Crown.
One of the key features of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 was the separation the Crowns. As a consequence, the Crown of Canada – separate and distinct from that of the United Kingdom and the other Dominions – was defined in statute. Which appears to agree with the title before was as "King of the Dominions" and not as "King of Great Britain" with the Dominions sharing a common king and the only change being that he was now "King of Canada".
1931 did not change the position from "King of Great Britain" to "King of Canada" but rather "King of the Dominion of Canada" to "King of Canada" clearly -- as the House of Lords officially stated. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not commonly accepted to divide lists of kings and queens into before and after 1931. See "The Kings and Queens of Canada" (Government of Canada website), "Canada’s Monarchy throughout History" (Monarchist League), and even "United Kingdom Monarchs (1603-present)" (BM, the source you use for dividing the list).
In the 1981 case, all that had to be determined was whether the Canadian Crown was separate from the UK Crown in 1981. The specific date at which it became divided was irrelevant to the outcome. In the 2005 case the issue was the specific date at which the crown of an overseas territory became separate and it was decided it became separate when an administration was established. They specifically refer to the 1981 case and endorse the view that this had happened in Canada by 1867.
Due to historical reasons, the form of these cases was the Queen vs. the Secretary of State, but the Queen's side was argued by counsel for the ex parte litigants.
TFD ( talk) 20:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
When considering the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, one wonder if the British & Canadian crowns are seperate. I do believe the Act is currently being challenged on its constitutionality. GoodDay ( talk) 20:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this image with this caption at Gun show loophole undue?
It has been/is being discussed here: Image for the article.
It was originally added 8 February 2015 with the caption:
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
All dealers have to do background checks on all private buyers by Federal Law? Even when they sell from their private collection?
But even that's not the point. This is what a gun show looks like. A gun show where dealers and private sellers and dealers selling private collections sell. But as Darknipples asks, what image would you suggest? If we found one of a private seller selling a gun, would you then object because it might imply that he was selling illegally? If we got a hidden-camera image of someone selling illegally, would you object because it might imply that all sellers sell illegally? What image would be better than this one? Lightbreather ( talk) 22:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That image is definitely not appropriate for the article. It does not depict the subject of the article, and it's very likely to mislead the casual reader into thinking the term "gun show loophole" applies to the many, many guns shown in the picture, but of course that's not the case, as others here have already explained. — Mudwater ( Talk) 12:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless an image accurately depicts a salient event to the article in which it is to be used, it ought not be used. In the case at hand, it implies that "individual private sellers" attend shows with several hundred weapons - leading to the implication that they make up most of the sales at gun shows. As it is not an apt depiction of private sales at gun shows, it is equivalent to using an irrelevant cite in any article - it fails. Collect ( talk) 15:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Per WP's MOS..."Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals." The image's caption is written in a way that conveys the intent of the article. The logistics and importance being placed on obtaining an image of a "private sale" at a gun show seems to be somewhat undue, if not impossible, considering that photography is typically not allowed at gun shows. I am willing to attempt to obtain such a photograph myself, however, it would only be a last resort as it takes time and money to do so. My only wish is for a consensus, but some of our editors do not seem willing to compromise [59] [60] despite the context within the caption. Darknipples ( talk) 03:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
may sell guns from their private collections to buyers without background checksactually misrepresents the loophole, which according to the article refers only to private sellers. Finally, articles - even Good Articles like this one - are not required to have images. If no suitable images can be found, an unrepresentative image should not be used just for the sake of having an image. Ca2james ( talk) 06:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Is in the realm of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Its neutrality is at issue here, as it is almost entirely a series of claims connecting people who signed a document to a deliberate plan seeking 9/11 and designed to get the US into war, as well as promoting biological weapons and "the targeted extermination of a specific ethnic group" . It includes naming multiple people multiple times (wikilinking every time) in connection with that.
I consider statements that people are seeking to develop biological weapons, to promote genocide, seeking war,, and deliberately seeking 9/11, to be a "contentious claim of conspiracy" and suggest that it is,indeed, subject to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and invite eyes to look at this article (which nicely uses ALL CAPS a lot when quoting section titles from a pamphlet).
[62] is the latest such edit.
Thanks. Collect ( talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A serious NPOV discussion required here involving users who live in Crimea. This and related articles are easily influenced by propogandas from both sides. in English Wikipedia - mostly from pro-regime-in-Kiev side. In Russian Wikipedia - from regime-in-Moscow. Viktor Š 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. ( talk • contribs)