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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Hello everyone,
I've noticed what appears to be a prevailing precedent in Wikipedia articles pertaining to shootings, wherein the respective races of the victim and the shooter are specified in the lead. This is especially true for cases of law enforcement shootings, most notably those of black individuals and white police officers. You can see for yourself.
The following are instances wherein the precedent is present:
The following are instances wherein this precedent is not present:
As you can see in most of the instances wherein this precedent is present, the respective races of those involved are specified in the lead, the case was that of a black man being shot by one or more officers, the vast majority of whom are white. I consider this a problem for a number of reasons, most notably being that it perpetuates an unnecessary racial divide by pointing out the event as white-on-black crime, despite how there is no justified reason to do so. It is true that white-cop-on-black-man crime is unfortunately disproportionately common (or, at least, more reported by the media), but there is no need for us to mimic the sensationalist reporting methods of our media sources. We are an encyclopedia, which strives to be objective and neutral; any implied racial undertones, real or perceived, undermine these core principles.
As you can see in the instances wherein this precedent is not present, the victims are not black nor African American, and the race of the officer (or officers) is not always white, if even specified. In my opinion, however, the respective races of those involved should not be specified in the lead unless crucial to the context, or unless it is not provided anywhere else in the article, since the information is inessential and may be misinterpreted as implying something greater by the reader.
In particular, the problem I've noticed is that:
the specification of the individuals' races outside of the biography section, without any justification for doing so, appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it connotes that race is meaningful in the context. In other words, the context in which the races of those involved are specified gives the impression that their races are important to note in that context. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to document all important or notable information, but if it is already documented in the biography section of those involved within the article, why is it necessary to specify it in the lead, or anywhere else where it is not crucial to the sentence or context? ... Basically, this information is inessential to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed.
This is what I argued in the talk page of the Shooting of Walter Scott, and I believe this best summarizes my position. The reason why I argued this in the Shooting of Walter Scott article was because (and this can also be found in the talk page):
I believe specifying the races of those involved is just normal documentation; however, I'm concerned that the instances in which race is mentioned is problematic. In particular, I was concerned about racial specification in the lead, which I believe gives the impression that the races involved are meaningful, which in turn violates WP:NPOV because it superimposes racial undertones which may otherwise not be there. For example, it is still unclear, if not discredited altogether, that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin or that race was a factor at any point. It was widely discussed, but from my understanding there is no evidence that race was a factor in Zimmerman's decision. As for the case of Michael Brown, it is unclear whether Wilson was racially motivated, though there isn't really any evidence of it of which I am aware. Despite this, their races are specified in the lead in a way which, I believe, connotes that their races are meaningful in the context of the shooting and what occurred.
Feel free to peruse the talk page section pertaining to this issue for the rest of the discussion.
Having said that, I propose that we change this precedent by omitting the race specifications of those involved in the lead. I don't think it's important or essential to the leads of any of the articles I mentioned above, and a simple rewording could both improve flow and remove any potential for misinterpretation of the lead. Naturally, any race specifications located in the article which are crucial to the context in which they are specified should remain, just as should the race specifications in the biography (where applicable); however, outside of those two instances, I believe any and all race specifications should be removed per WP:NPOV, so long as the race(s) is specified elsewhere in the article. Even if the article does not actually imply any racial undertones, and even if the editors who originally put and kept this information in did not intend for any (I doubt they did), it's important to consider how the reader might interpret what is being stated. Since race specifications like those shown above are unnecessary and liable to be misconstrued, why not eliminate this possibility by omitting them?
Even simply omitting the races of the officer(s) and/or shooter(s) would improve the neutrality of the article and largely resolve this issue, since one could argue that the race specification of the victim is important to the flow. Omitting the race specification of the shooter, especially in cases wherein the shooter is an officer, would help to eliminate any perceived racial tensions implied between the victim and the shooter. The information in the biography (where applicable) should suffice for any interested reader; no need to state both races outright and risk misunderstanding.
Feel free to respond with your thoughts, whether they be criticisms, opposition, or support. I want what's best for Wikipedia, and I personally believe eliminating the race specifications in the lead and elsewhere in the article per criteria stated above would improve all affected articles. Sorry about the length, by the way, but I wanted to make my case as clear and cogent as possible, seeing as I'm suggesting a change, however minor, to a number of articles (and future articles).
As a courtesy, I'll alert Mandruss, NeilN, Lklundin, Mattscards, Cwobeel, Ian.thomson, all of whom were active participants in the previous discussion from which this sprang.
Oh, and should I notify the talk pages of each one of these articles? If so, then... Uh, how do I? Sorry, kind of new here. – Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
What is or isn't appropriate article content is determined by policy and guidelines, and not by precedent. As for the specific issue, whether such matters are discussed in the lede or not is a matter of WP:WEIGHT - if the sources we cite suggest that it is relevant, then so should we. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't that be covered within the article, and not implied in the lead through mere race specifications, which run the risk of readers presuming the importance of race in the case is fact, and not just the opinions of the sources? That's my entire point: how things are treated now are POV and presumptive; instead, information about race should be delegated to where the information is important to note, such as within the article and only where it is meaningful to the context. This is to prevent bias and ensure the issue is represented in as encyclopedic a manner as possible. Maybe I'm just overstating the whole issue, I don't know. It's troubling to me, though, and I think Wikipedia could do much better.The readers of these articles need to know the races of those involved to understand the significance and motivation of those reactions.
I agree with Nøkkenbuer .. Well written and a very articulated argument. Very well done. Mattscards ( talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Kokkenbuer: "Having said that, I propose that we change this precedent by omitting the race specifications of those involved in the lead. I don't think it's important or essential to the leads of any of the articles I mentioned above, and a simple rewording could both improve flow and remove any potential for misinterpretation of the lead. Naturally, any race specifications located in the article which are crucial to the context in which they are specified should remain, just as should the race specifications in the biography (where applicable); however, outside of those two instances, I believe any and all race specifications should be removed per WP:NPOV, so long as the race(s) is specified elsewhere in the article." This by far is the best compelling argument to this entire issue and agreed... I couldn't hold this man's golf clubs with the information @Nokkenbuer contributed. With the exception of Ian.Tompson, who may have decent contributions in the past, on this issue appeared as a troll most all had good contributions. @Mandrell.. I apologize... after research and reading your posts, although I disagree with your assessment of this issue, I have found a respect for your views. You appeared to be closed minded about this issue, however even though I never understood your tough support of my opposing views, I do respect your contributions to Wikipedia on many other issues after research, and it was wrong to judge you after only one encounter with you. Based on a very well respected posts of @Nokkenbuer, Mandrell, I am respectfully requesting the changes that he has proposed be changed by you. Thank you Mattscards ( talk) 04:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Neil... How old are you? We all got our asses kicked by @Nokkenbuer in this discussion including myself. I see you are possibly taking this personal, and you should voluntarily remove yourself from this issue if this is the case. I understand you may even have something personal against me, which may be a contributing factor on your refusal to see reason on this issue. To this point, it has appeared to me your contributions have been leaning more of an "entitled" factor than any kind of base or structure. You have not impressed me as of yet. I have not checked your qualifications but if you have an administrative role this should be re-evaluated. Prove me wrong Mattscards ( talk) 04:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What everyone is missing is the elephant in the room. Some may be using Wikipedia policy to support their views, and I have to be honest, that is exactly what this appears to me. But when something is wrong it's wrong. When Rosa Parks sat on that bus and refused to go to the back of the bus because it was wrong, when she was arrested how many people here think a Wikipedia policy (or in reality actual Alabama law) would make her, or society, would think she was wrong? n fact there were millions. We are smarter than that. Guys...Not that this even matters... I am going to lose support here now.. but I am a Democrat. Big time. I fought for Obama in the 2008 elections and 2012 on a larger scale than anyone could imagine. I have been fighting for racism equality on both sides. I am a white male and I hear racism a lot on my side a lot, and it makes me sick. I also see when it works against racial equality. This does. I see issues that makes my job harder and this is one.This has nothing to do with this topic but I feel I have others questioning my motive for my issue here Mattscards ( talk) 05:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not understanding your post mandruss... do you think for one minute that I have 300 posts and you may have 12 million that your views mean more than mine or that you are more intelligent than others here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards ( talk • contribs)
Neil, I am going to have to come out and say this. First of all I have a degree from Texas A&M University I don't need you to interpret a post between me and another user. Ever. It is completely useless and you should take your grandstanding tactics elsewhere. Second of all, I asked you earlier how old you were for a reason. Judging from your threats and posts I and wondering if you should be supervised more at the computer perhaps even take away your screen time. Mattscards ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to say I was expecting more input from NPOV experts, here on the NPOV noticeboard. This thread is now at 6,859 words and counting, and, with several brief exceptions, has been an extension of article talk. We could have stayed home. Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in persuading anyone one way or the other, I just seek some consensus of expert opinions (I'd be happy with three in agreement and no more than one dissenter). I'm more than willing, nay, eager, to accept that as a community consensus and implement it in Walter Scott. To me, the question is not complicated, and can be concisely stated thusly:
Is any further information necessary to get a clear expert yes or no? ― Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 08:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought Nøkkenbuer had some really good data to at least look into considering this change, I am kind of disappointed it did not go further. I know it would not appear in a real encyclopedia this way. Mattscards ( talk) 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
perhaps, but I think Nøkkenbuer said it best:
"In particular, the problem I've noticed is that: the specification of the individuals' races outside of the biography section, without any justification for doing so, appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it connotes that race is meaningful in the context. In other words, the context in which the races of those involved are specified gives the impression that their races are important to note in that context. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to document all important or notable information, but if it is already documented in the biography section of those involved within the article, why is it necessary to specify it in the lead, or anywhere else where it is not crucial to the sentence or context? ... Basically, this information is inessential to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed."
I think this should had more consideration than it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards ( talk • contribs)
As you know Mandruss, I could not say anything until now. If that is the way it is wanted to be left, I will not do anything. I think it takes away from the credibility of the article, though. Mattscards ( talk) 19:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess it would be worthwhile to get agreement between a few of us here on the RfC question, so as to reduce the likelihood of a derailment due to incorrect presentation. Do we agree on the following?
QUESTION: Should the article's lead mention that Scott was black and Slager is white? Regardless of the result here, that information will be included in their respective mini-bio sections.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
How should this article's lead treat the races of Slager and Scott? Is RS coverage of direct evidence of racism in this particular shooting required in order to mention races in the lead? Regardless of the result here, their races will continue to be mentioned in their respective mini-bio sections. Please !vote 1, 2, or 3, boldfaced. (Note, the terms used for Slager's and Scott's races will be white and black, per sources and prior consensus, and this RfC is not about that question.)
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Some RS coverage attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it- Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Enough waiting, I have started the RfC in article talk. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Formerly98 has just reverted an edit for the 3x in the past 24 hours and I would like to request a comment so that I do not enter an edit war. My opinion is that is trying to hide an artificial consensus when he is the only person that has advocated for his particular edit in the past week. {comments directed at editors instead of content removed by Zad68}
A recent article was published that stated the existing body of clinical trials for finasteride all have low quality study design for measuring side effects. While the study was funded with a grant from the NIH, it received a small donation from a foundation that is studying the harmful effects from taking this cosmetic hair loss drug. I believe he is trying to discredit the article's conclusions by intimating the authors received money from a group that is engaged in litigation, a claim that is definitely false. Objective feedback would be appreciated since he has entered edit warring territory.
Most recent edit warring diff is found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to protest that this was posted here without notifying me. I learned about it only because this page is on my watch list. It is well established that the conclusions of studies are affected by the funding source. In fact, the authors of the paper in question mention the fact that 56% of the studies included in their meta analysis were industry funded as part of their indictment of the reliability of their reporting of AEs. If the journal reports that the study was financed in part by an activist group, and the study authors acknowledge that funding affects study conclusions, is it reasonable for us to leave this out? Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry. From Harvard's website on research funding: "Gifts typically carry no reciprocal obligations between donor and recipient, and are often unrelated (or only indirectly related) to the business interests or mission of the donor." This is compared to grants - "In sponsored awards (which include sponsored grants and contracts), however, the business interests or mission of the source of external funds is most often related directly to the uses for which the funds are put by the recipient. Because sponsors are concerned that their funds be used to support activities that bolster the sponsor’s own mission or interests, sponsors typically provide funding for sponsored awards on the basis of a specific project or research plan and budget". This is the exact reason why the article says the funders/sponsors had no role in the design/interpretation of the study. The NIH was the one concerned with evaluating the existing body of literature on Propecia and the results speak for themselves. Doors22 ( talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia users, i would like to point out that in many Armenian articles or dealing with N/K and Azerbaijan, armenian users always alter the following names to suit their point of view on events. For example we can see such cases in Henrikh Mkhitaryan article where in his personal life they mention Artsakh Republic instead of commonly used and politically correct term of de facto independent Nagorno Karabagh which is de jure part of Azerbaijan, In general many articles use different terms which do not present the neutral point of view and already accepted political terms which are argued by both [1] in here and by Thomas De Vaal. I believe altering the terms suits interest and makes the articles biased towards Armenian point of view since most of the moderators have clear sympathy with Armenian cause, i put forward using the correct political terms to suit both parties since Armenians want to claim its independent while Azerbaijani side is clearly stating the obvious and internationally accepted term of occupied territories, in my opinion to suit both parties all N/K related articles and any mention of N/K should include the following politically accepted and commonly used term "De facto independent and de jure part of Azerbaijan Republic". From my side several attempts to correct the articles have always been reverted even though i clearly stated the reasons and also described the issue in Talk page however no issue has been ever answered and i was suspended once for this! Please i would like to know the other point of view Agulani ( talk) 08:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Do the article titles
And, to a lesser extent,
show a NPOV?
Most of these are not mentioned in our article on Jihad, which mentions many types (greater jihad, lesser jihad, educational jihad, missionary jihad, intellectual jihad, economic jihad, jihad of the heart, jihad by the tongue, jihad by the hand, jihad by the sword) which have no separate article.
In addition, the sources that supposedly show that these are WP:COMMONNAMEs are rather dodgy -- a lot of anti-islam blogs or news sources mentioning that various anti-islam groups use the term. The article titles don't seem neutral to me. Compare such neutral article titles about similar practices as as Marital conversion and Missionary dating.
Note: I know almost nothing on this topic and am not involved in editing any of these articles, so I may be walking into a minefield here... :( -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think a little context might help. So if we look at this way, what does it convey?
Take away the cache of using jihad as a buzzphrase and it puts these in a new perspective. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, why do you claim that "jihad" means "holy war" when our article on the subject clearly states (backed up by reliable sources) that it means "struggle"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Please take note of related discussions at
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gatestone_Institute_used_as_source_for_Rape_jihad.2C_WP:OR.3F and
Talk:Rape_jihad#Proposed_merge
Rhoark (
talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Good God. I really wanted to avoid these discussions and was hoping Rape Jihad's AfD would quell the likes of Freeatlast and Rhoark for a month or two, but they're both engaging in a ridiculous amount of edit wars and policy violations (such as creating false AfD discussions or repeatedly blanking articles despite being told several times that it was a violation of WP:BLANK). These guys clearly have some sort of agenda that they value far more than the procedures and policies we're supposed to follow. -- DawnDusk ( talk) 03:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
'Comment'Everywhere I see a discussion about sourcing of rape jihad or any other changes to the article, there are users DAWNDUSK and PAX arguing that the article is good in its current form, while all other editors try their best to make them understand that the article is a poorly sourced POV neologism. I can see that more than 'SIX' discussions have taken place about the sourcing of this article and each one of them says that sourcing is very very bad, and now this discussion has reached consensus that even the title is a POV(which it so blatantly IS). I hope there is some change to the article soon. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick peek for random quality control, result OR/SYNTH At Rape jihad there is a section on "justification". I clicked one of the refs, which turned out to be Katharine Lackey, " Pamphlet provides Islamic State guidelines for sex slaves," USA Today, December 13, 2014. That RS does talk about sex enslavement, but stops short of identifying the practice as "rape jihad"; saying this explains justification for something that is not even mentioned in the source is classic SYNTH/ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If we use dodgy sources, or even good sources such as this one in dodgy ways, we have bigger problems than POV titling. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Love jihad has some coverage in the Indian media, so not much an issue. AFAIK, Rape jihad is a neologism with extremely rare usage and none by reliable sources. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Repeated unsourced POV-pushing since 20th March on a BLP article, labelling a priest as "Leftist" in the lead. See article history: [10]. Even if such simplifying labels would be encyclopedic, they would need reliable sourcing from an uninvolved, neutral source. Mr. Martin already asked for assistance about this issue on the help desk in the past, but the removed phrase was repeatedly re-inserted. Could another editor please look into the situation? I have notified the 2 involved accounts Bo Smithers ( talk · contribs) and Big Bo Smithers ( talk · contribs) about this thread. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple of RfC ongoing at this BLP that need more participation. Atsme☯ Consult 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Further input is needed at Talk:Siege of Kobanî#RfC: Icons used in prose, any and all appreciated. Mlpearc ( open channel) 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been looking over the articles related to Vietnam in general and one thing I have come up (with the exact same sentence) is
"The
Cham in Vietnam are only recognized as a minority, and not as an indigenous people by the Vietnamese government despite being indigenous to the region. Both Hindu and Muslim Chams have experienced religious and ethnic persecution and restrictions on their faith under the current Vietnamese government, with the Vietnamese state confisticating Cham property and forbidding Cham from observing their religious beliefs. Hindu temples were turned into tourist sites against the wishes of the Cham Hindus. In 2010 and 2013 several incidents occurred in Thành Tín and Phươc Nhơn villages where Cham were murdered by Vietnamese. In 2012, Vietnamese police in Chau Giang village stormed into a Cham Mosque, stole the electric generator, and also raped Cham girls. Cham Muslims in the Mekong Delta have also been economically marginalized and pushed into poverty by Vietnamese policies, with ethnic
Vietnamese Kinh settling on majority Cham land with state support, and religious practices of minorities have been targeted for elimination by the Vietnamese government. The Vietnamese government fears that evidence of
Champa's influence over the
disputed area in the South China Sea would bring attention to human rights violations and killings of ethnic minorities in Vietnam such as in the 2001 and 2004 uprisings, and lead to the issue of Cham autonomy being brought into the dispute, since the Vietnamese conquered the Hindu and Muslim
Cham people in a war in 1832, and the Vietnamese continue to destroy evidence of Cham culture and artifacts left behind, plundering or building on top of Cham temples, building farms over them, banning Cham religious practices, and omitting references to the destroyed Cham capital of Song Luy in the 1832 invasion in history books and tourist guides. The situation of Cham compared to ethnic Vietnamese is substandard, lacking water and electricity and living in houses made out of mud."
This statement or something similar to it has occurred in these articles: Champa Religion in Vietnam History of Champa Southeast Asia, South China Sea
I think this is an attempt to push a nationalist POV by making one country (Vietnam) look bad and evil even though other countries have done this in the past. It doesn't matter if it is referenced, just look at the tone used in these articles. The evidence comes from the fact that the user who keeps adding this is
User:Rajmaan (
talk) and this user had been warned not to add in these kinds of edits in
another page.
I would support removing all of these statements although it would be nice if other comments from other users are available. Any comments on dealing with this issue would be welcomed. Thanks.
Ssbbplayer (
talk) 13:27, 13 April 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 Donetsk People's Republic on February 7, ( diff) and provided an explanation on the talk page ( diff, diff). The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later by User:Volunteer Marek ( diff). It was restored, at which point an edit war began diff, diff, diff, diff.
It was also discussed here. User:Rhoark wrote: "The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus." (see diff, diff)
This article (specifically " Human rights" section), which has obvious POV issues, has been jealously guarded to preserve it's content. The article itself is a WP:COATRACK. Any attempt to improve has been blocked by WP:ACTIVIST editors who have it as a WP:SOAPBOX (see diff, diff, diff)
The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves. We need editors to help repair this problem by moving and merging excessive content to the relevant articles.
Other users who disagreed with the current state of the article: ( diff - 18 May 2014), ( diff - 12 June 2014), ( diff - 7 September 2014), ( diff - 3 November 2015), ( diff - 1 February 2015), ( diff - 8 February 2015)
Please see the discussion at /info/en/?search=Talk:Donetsk_People%27s_Republic#POV_tag_re-removed
Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Tobby72 has been on this POV-tag pushing bender for awhile. They were even brought to AN/I for it [16] [17], but the request was closed as stale because Tobby72 stopped editing Wikipedia when the AN/I report was made. The closure of the AN/I request stated: "Tobby72 hasn't edited in 2 days, so this might be closed as stale. We'll just have to see if he resumes the pushing of that POV tag." and "It's been about 3 days, so closing as stale. If reported user returns, a new report filing is advised".
And guess what? As soon as the AN/I report was closed, Tobby72 returned and immediately started the same disruptive behavior again. The filing on this noticeboard is just another instance of it, where he's forum shopping since his proposals were repeatedly rejected. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
1) We should take inspiration from Northern Cyprus#Human rights and law or Kosovo#Society. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#Trends in local vs global inequality. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I write to request a comment about this edit [18]. User:Kiwirigi keeps adding a debt figure in the net income section of the infobox. First of all, that is not the appropriate place to put that information. Moreover, the figure is cited from an estimate done by a newspaper. It seems to me that this is a very non NPOV edit and I think it should be removed. I appreciate any comment on this. Thank you. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 09:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Repeated promotional fluff additions and external link spam. Currently cleaned up again (no immediate action needed), but I would appreciate an additional editor keeping an eye on this article. I am not sure, why so many schools and universities confuse Wikipedia with their own web host, but have left some standard infos on the involved IPs' talkpages. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (3rd nomination). Should the article The Myth of Islamic Tolerance be deleted, as I believe the article fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. As of yet, no editor has indicated how it meets WP:NBOOK, however consensus cannot be reached AusLondonder ( talk) 15:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have the impression that the discussion on the talk page for the article veganism is going nowhere and a bunch of reverts have been made, so I'm asking others to have an outside look and possibly make changes. Please see Talk:Veganism#Veganism and cancer and try to be as neutral as you can, no matter what you think of veganism as a whole. -- Rose ( talk) 13:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous reliable secondary sources which claim that vegetarians (at least in the U.S.) tend to have a reduced risk of cancer. This includes vegans. At least one study [19] showed that vegans have a lower overall cancer incidence than lacto-ovo-vegetarians. There are of course nuances - vegetarianism reduces the risk of some types of cancer but not others, and the risk varies depending on individual dietary habits - but the claim is objective and verifiable. If there's an issue here, it's one that can be resolved by minor tweaks to the wording. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Again I don't think we want to word it too strongly as these are not randomised trials. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| Proud of my new COI 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The two on-point secondary sources for vegan diets being cited are PMID 19279075 and PMID 24871675.
To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer. Although plant foods contain many chemopreventive factors, most of the research data comes from cellular biochemical studies.
While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes.
These sources both say the reduction of cancer risk, if any, is not significant. This in my view accords with the current wording of the article that there is no good evidence of risk reduction. (Though saying there's no "clear" or "conclusive" evidence may be better I think; and maybe we could say "meaningful risk reduction"?). Alexbrn ( talk) 09:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Martin, I don't think we want"a good authoritative secondary source" to tell us the generally accepted view so much as to follow WP:NPOV, presenting various viewpoints per their prominence in reliable sources. We have one secondary source that seems to say the evidence is sufficient and three that day it is not. So my understanding is that we write something that includes the minority view while giving it less weight. Rose, what is your objection to the language suggested by Alexbrn?
My impression is that most authorities see some evidence of benefit and most agree it is not conclusive. Can we agree on this and build language around it that also acknowledges the existence of minority viewpoints? Or have I misunderstood? Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Vegans consume considerably more legumes, total fruit and vegetables, tomatoes, allium vegetables, fiber, and vitamin C than do omnivores (14–16, 20, 23). All those foods and nutrients are protective against cancer (25)
Overall, vegans experienced modest risks reduction (14%) for all-cancer
When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence
If, as you claim, leather belts don't "have anything to do with the definition of veganism", why does https://www.vegansociety.com/try-vegan/definition-veganism say
And why does http://www.americanvegan.org/vegan.htm say
(Emphasis added.)
According to WP:COMMONNAME, those who avoid meat, eggs and milk in their diet should be called "strict vegetarians" or "dietary vegans" while "vegan" should be reserved for those who avoid any use of animal products. That's what the word means to most people. -- Guy Macon ( talk)
I see no problem in giving more information about different levels/types of vegans/vegetarians but let us just be sure to maintain a NPOV. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm lost guys. I don't recall seeing any source state that "there are no significant health effects of a vegan diet". I saw
Vegan diets are a form of vegetarian diet (per the position statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietics above), and no papers I have seen state that veganism is exempt from the benefits that accrue to vegetarian diets in general.
Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 13:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu: I have no idea how those citations support your POV. Only one of them mentions the word "vegan". Two are not WP:MEDRS compliant. And the one (The NCI page) MEDRS compliant source that does mention veganism supports my POV that there is permissive evidence for health benefits. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 16:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Honest question (as I have not been following the discussion closely): do any of the available RS's say that there is no consensus that vegan diets are protective against cancer? If not, we can't just make that up. Contrary to Formerly98's assertion that WP:CONSENSUS calls for us to seek compromise, it actually only calls for compromise between editors with legitimate concerns. Feeling that a POV should be represented in the article which is not represented in any RS is not a legitimate concern, and should be ignored. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello
I have already raised a discussion concerning this article " /info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad" It violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
I filed a report about it via the "Biography of living persons noticeboard" because the article was created to defame the man "Shunaid Qureshi""Joseph2302" responded and place a tag for discussion on cleaning up the article.
Now, one "Insider99" was hired by the sponsors of the article to update it and deal with the tag.
"Insider99" came up with other controversial and non-neutral points on the article. later on, some of those parts were cleared. Later on the tag on violation of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy was removed.
Now, the truth is that, the article "
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad" still violates the rule on (NPOV) policy.
Earlier on, a similar bio article was created to defame "Shunaid Qureshi" The link was "
/info/en/?search=Shunaid_Qureshi"
I reported it on the "Biography for living persons" noticeboard for violating the wiki rules. It was a clear case of WP Attack and WP Crime. Now, the admin that responded redirected the link to
"
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad"
So, when you click "
/info/en/?search=Shunaid_Qureshi", it redirects to ""
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad"
Now, the issue is that, this page "
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad" still violates (NPOV) policy after raising it for discussion among editors. The same group that created "
/info/en/?search=Shunaid_Qureshi" are also behind the other one.
The (NPOV) Policy violation is seen under this heading "Chemical Dump" in the article "
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad".
Here are the lines:
"A case was filed in the Sindh High Court (SHC) against the Naya Nazimabad residential scheme near Manghopir, claiming that the area has been used dumping ground for dangerous chemicals.[3] A Supreme Court of Pakistan study found that the populations residing in Gadap Town and nearby areas such as Naya Nazimabad are prone to cancer-like diseases through Asbestos.[4][5][6]
Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman of Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[7] The Javedan Cement Limited (JCL) was privatized, which is estimated to cost Rs. 100 billion ($1 billion),[8] and also Pakistan government $ 6 million annually.[9]"
So, since the discussion could not solve the issue, I advise the article should be completely deleted. It is created purely to defame "Shunaid Quresh". It was also created to defame "Naya Nazimabad" and its owners and little population.
The person involved and the entire Naya Nazimabad" are not happy about this development. Someone is using wikipedia to defame.
Thanks
Rosemaryujoh (
talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Maurice Flesier ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding Turkish language to the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which have no Turkish community, on the conclusion that "Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!!", however, Turkish is not the only regional language, so are Bosniak, Romani, and others — adding any regional language to articles of settlements which have less than 0.1% of said community is extremely redundant and unconstructive, which I have commented in edit summaries, as well as on his talk page. Btw, the user is Turkish (hence his POV-pushing). Maurice Flesier: "The presence or absence of the Turkish population must not be considered as a reference point. Well, why give place to Armenian pronunciations in Turkish cities such as Erzurum, Bitlis, Sivas? Armenian is not even recognized as an official language and Armenian population does not live here! I see it as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT! " Again, it is extremely redundant — a Turkish community does not exist in Gračanica, and furthermore, the Turkish spelling is only a transliteration of the actual name (the toponym did not originate in Turkish — also in this respect, redundant). The definition of "reference point" is "a fact forming the basis of an evaluation or assessment" — no connection to this case. Turkish should without a doubt be used in the introduction of Mamuša, inhabited by 93% Turks, and other Turkish-inhabited settlements. Gračanica is inhabited by Serbs, and 0% of the population is Turks — redundant. I fail to see Maurice Flesier's connection with Armenian place names in Turkey (though the comment again shows Turkish POV). Turkish has no official status in Kosovo, it is neither the lingua franca or a second language in schools in Kosovo.-- Zoupan 15:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Article: National Rifle Association. (Sub) Section: Finances.
Statement:
1. Is the "A considerable amount" part of this statement a neutral summary of the sources' reports on how much/what part of the NRA's income is from the gun industry? -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: there is a discussion on this at the article talk page. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Is the "which the NSSF says" part of the statement undue for the article/section in question? -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: there is a discussion on this at the article talk page. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
References
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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Hello everyone,
I've noticed what appears to be a prevailing precedent in Wikipedia articles pertaining to shootings, wherein the respective races of the victim and the shooter are specified in the lead. This is especially true for cases of law enforcement shootings, most notably those of black individuals and white police officers. You can see for yourself.
The following are instances wherein the precedent is present:
The following are instances wherein this precedent is not present:
As you can see in most of the instances wherein this precedent is present, the respective races of those involved are specified in the lead, the case was that of a black man being shot by one or more officers, the vast majority of whom are white. I consider this a problem for a number of reasons, most notably being that it perpetuates an unnecessary racial divide by pointing out the event as white-on-black crime, despite how there is no justified reason to do so. It is true that white-cop-on-black-man crime is unfortunately disproportionately common (or, at least, more reported by the media), but there is no need for us to mimic the sensationalist reporting methods of our media sources. We are an encyclopedia, which strives to be objective and neutral; any implied racial undertones, real or perceived, undermine these core principles.
As you can see in the instances wherein this precedent is not present, the victims are not black nor African American, and the race of the officer (or officers) is not always white, if even specified. In my opinion, however, the respective races of those involved should not be specified in the lead unless crucial to the context, or unless it is not provided anywhere else in the article, since the information is inessential and may be misinterpreted as implying something greater by the reader.
In particular, the problem I've noticed is that:
the specification of the individuals' races outside of the biography section, without any justification for doing so, appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it connotes that race is meaningful in the context. In other words, the context in which the races of those involved are specified gives the impression that their races are important to note in that context. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to document all important or notable information, but if it is already documented in the biography section of those involved within the article, why is it necessary to specify it in the lead, or anywhere else where it is not crucial to the sentence or context? ... Basically, this information is inessential to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed.
This is what I argued in the talk page of the Shooting of Walter Scott, and I believe this best summarizes my position. The reason why I argued this in the Shooting of Walter Scott article was because (and this can also be found in the talk page):
I believe specifying the races of those involved is just normal documentation; however, I'm concerned that the instances in which race is mentioned is problematic. In particular, I was concerned about racial specification in the lead, which I believe gives the impression that the races involved are meaningful, which in turn violates WP:NPOV because it superimposes racial undertones which may otherwise not be there. For example, it is still unclear, if not discredited altogether, that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin or that race was a factor at any point. It was widely discussed, but from my understanding there is no evidence that race was a factor in Zimmerman's decision. As for the case of Michael Brown, it is unclear whether Wilson was racially motivated, though there isn't really any evidence of it of which I am aware. Despite this, their races are specified in the lead in a way which, I believe, connotes that their races are meaningful in the context of the shooting and what occurred.
Feel free to peruse the talk page section pertaining to this issue for the rest of the discussion.
Having said that, I propose that we change this precedent by omitting the race specifications of those involved in the lead. I don't think it's important or essential to the leads of any of the articles I mentioned above, and a simple rewording could both improve flow and remove any potential for misinterpretation of the lead. Naturally, any race specifications located in the article which are crucial to the context in which they are specified should remain, just as should the race specifications in the biography (where applicable); however, outside of those two instances, I believe any and all race specifications should be removed per WP:NPOV, so long as the race(s) is specified elsewhere in the article. Even if the article does not actually imply any racial undertones, and even if the editors who originally put and kept this information in did not intend for any (I doubt they did), it's important to consider how the reader might interpret what is being stated. Since race specifications like those shown above are unnecessary and liable to be misconstrued, why not eliminate this possibility by omitting them?
Even simply omitting the races of the officer(s) and/or shooter(s) would improve the neutrality of the article and largely resolve this issue, since one could argue that the race specification of the victim is important to the flow. Omitting the race specification of the shooter, especially in cases wherein the shooter is an officer, would help to eliminate any perceived racial tensions implied between the victim and the shooter. The information in the biography (where applicable) should suffice for any interested reader; no need to state both races outright and risk misunderstanding.
Feel free to respond with your thoughts, whether they be criticisms, opposition, or support. I want what's best for Wikipedia, and I personally believe eliminating the race specifications in the lead and elsewhere in the article per criteria stated above would improve all affected articles. Sorry about the length, by the way, but I wanted to make my case as clear and cogent as possible, seeing as I'm suggesting a change, however minor, to a number of articles (and future articles).
As a courtesy, I'll alert Mandruss, NeilN, Lklundin, Mattscards, Cwobeel, Ian.thomson, all of whom were active participants in the previous discussion from which this sprang.
Oh, and should I notify the talk pages of each one of these articles? If so, then... Uh, how do I? Sorry, kind of new here. – Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
What is or isn't appropriate article content is determined by policy and guidelines, and not by precedent. As for the specific issue, whether such matters are discussed in the lede or not is a matter of WP:WEIGHT - if the sources we cite suggest that it is relevant, then so should we. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't that be covered within the article, and not implied in the lead through mere race specifications, which run the risk of readers presuming the importance of race in the case is fact, and not just the opinions of the sources? That's my entire point: how things are treated now are POV and presumptive; instead, information about race should be delegated to where the information is important to note, such as within the article and only where it is meaningful to the context. This is to prevent bias and ensure the issue is represented in as encyclopedic a manner as possible. Maybe I'm just overstating the whole issue, I don't know. It's troubling to me, though, and I think Wikipedia could do much better.The readers of these articles need to know the races of those involved to understand the significance and motivation of those reactions.
I agree with Nøkkenbuer .. Well written and a very articulated argument. Very well done. Mattscards ( talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Kokkenbuer: "Having said that, I propose that we change this precedent by omitting the race specifications of those involved in the lead. I don't think it's important or essential to the leads of any of the articles I mentioned above, and a simple rewording could both improve flow and remove any potential for misinterpretation of the lead. Naturally, any race specifications located in the article which are crucial to the context in which they are specified should remain, just as should the race specifications in the biography (where applicable); however, outside of those two instances, I believe any and all race specifications should be removed per WP:NPOV, so long as the race(s) is specified elsewhere in the article." This by far is the best compelling argument to this entire issue and agreed... I couldn't hold this man's golf clubs with the information @Nokkenbuer contributed. With the exception of Ian.Tompson, who may have decent contributions in the past, on this issue appeared as a troll most all had good contributions. @Mandrell.. I apologize... after research and reading your posts, although I disagree with your assessment of this issue, I have found a respect for your views. You appeared to be closed minded about this issue, however even though I never understood your tough support of my opposing views, I do respect your contributions to Wikipedia on many other issues after research, and it was wrong to judge you after only one encounter with you. Based on a very well respected posts of @Nokkenbuer, Mandrell, I am respectfully requesting the changes that he has proposed be changed by you. Thank you Mattscards ( talk) 04:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Neil... How old are you? We all got our asses kicked by @Nokkenbuer in this discussion including myself. I see you are possibly taking this personal, and you should voluntarily remove yourself from this issue if this is the case. I understand you may even have something personal against me, which may be a contributing factor on your refusal to see reason on this issue. To this point, it has appeared to me your contributions have been leaning more of an "entitled" factor than any kind of base or structure. You have not impressed me as of yet. I have not checked your qualifications but if you have an administrative role this should be re-evaluated. Prove me wrong Mattscards ( talk) 04:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What everyone is missing is the elephant in the room. Some may be using Wikipedia policy to support their views, and I have to be honest, that is exactly what this appears to me. But when something is wrong it's wrong. When Rosa Parks sat on that bus and refused to go to the back of the bus because it was wrong, when she was arrested how many people here think a Wikipedia policy (or in reality actual Alabama law) would make her, or society, would think she was wrong? n fact there were millions. We are smarter than that. Guys...Not that this even matters... I am going to lose support here now.. but I am a Democrat. Big time. I fought for Obama in the 2008 elections and 2012 on a larger scale than anyone could imagine. I have been fighting for racism equality on both sides. I am a white male and I hear racism a lot on my side a lot, and it makes me sick. I also see when it works against racial equality. This does. I see issues that makes my job harder and this is one.This has nothing to do with this topic but I feel I have others questioning my motive for my issue here Mattscards ( talk) 05:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not understanding your post mandruss... do you think for one minute that I have 300 posts and you may have 12 million that your views mean more than mine or that you are more intelligent than others here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards ( talk • contribs)
Neil, I am going to have to come out and say this. First of all I have a degree from Texas A&M University I don't need you to interpret a post between me and another user. Ever. It is completely useless and you should take your grandstanding tactics elsewhere. Second of all, I asked you earlier how old you were for a reason. Judging from your threats and posts I and wondering if you should be supervised more at the computer perhaps even take away your screen time. Mattscards ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I have to say I was expecting more input from NPOV experts, here on the NPOV noticeboard. This thread is now at 6,859 words and counting, and, with several brief exceptions, has been an extension of article talk. We could have stayed home. Speaking only for myself, I'm not interested in persuading anyone one way or the other, I just seek some consensus of expert opinions (I'd be happy with three in agreement and no more than one dissenter). I'm more than willing, nay, eager, to accept that as a community consensus and implement it in Walter Scott. To me, the question is not complicated, and can be concisely stated thusly:
Is any further information necessary to get a clear expert yes or no? ― Mandruss ☎ 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 08:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought Nøkkenbuer had some really good data to at least look into considering this change, I am kind of disappointed it did not go further. I know it would not appear in a real encyclopedia this way. Mattscards ( talk) 17:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
perhaps, but I think Nøkkenbuer said it best:
"In particular, the problem I've noticed is that: the specification of the individuals' races outside of the biography section, without any justification for doing so, appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it connotes that race is meaningful in the context. In other words, the context in which the races of those involved are specified gives the impression that their races are important to note in that context. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to document all important or notable information, but if it is already documented in the biography section of those involved within the article, why is it necessary to specify it in the lead, or anywhere else where it is not crucial to the sentence or context? ... Basically, this information is inessential to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed."
I think this should had more consideration than it did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattscards ( talk • contribs)
As you know Mandruss, I could not say anything until now. If that is the way it is wanted to be left, I will not do anything. I think it takes away from the credibility of the article, though. Mattscards ( talk) 19:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess it would be worthwhile to get agreement between a few of us here on the RfC question, so as to reduce the likelihood of a derailment due to incorrect presentation. Do we agree on the following?
QUESTION: Should the article's lead mention that Scott was black and Slager is white? Regardless of the result here, that information will be included in their respective mini-bio sections.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
How should this article's lead treat the races of Slager and Scott? Is RS coverage of direct evidence of racism in this particular shooting required in order to mention races in the lead? Regardless of the result here, their races will continue to be mentioned in their respective mini-bio sections. Please !vote 1, 2, or 3, boldfaced. (Note, the terms used for Slager's and Scott's races will be white and black, per sources and prior consensus, and this RfC is not about that question.)
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Some RS coverage attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it- Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Enough waiting, I have started the RfC in article talk. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Formerly98 has just reverted an edit for the 3x in the past 24 hours and I would like to request a comment so that I do not enter an edit war. My opinion is that is trying to hide an artificial consensus when he is the only person that has advocated for his particular edit in the past week. {comments directed at editors instead of content removed by Zad68}
A recent article was published that stated the existing body of clinical trials for finasteride all have low quality study design for measuring side effects. While the study was funded with a grant from the NIH, it received a small donation from a foundation that is studying the harmful effects from taking this cosmetic hair loss drug. I believe he is trying to discredit the article's conclusions by intimating the authors received money from a group that is engaged in litigation, a claim that is definitely false. Objective feedback would be appreciated since he has entered edit warring territory.
Most recent edit warring diff is found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to protest that this was posted here without notifying me. I learned about it only because this page is on my watch list. It is well established that the conclusions of studies are affected by the funding source. In fact, the authors of the paper in question mention the fact that 56% of the studies included in their meta analysis were industry funded as part of their indictment of the reliability of their reporting of AEs. If the journal reports that the study was financed in part by an activist group, and the study authors acknowledge that funding affects study conclusions, is it reasonable for us to leave this out? Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry. From Harvard's website on research funding: "Gifts typically carry no reciprocal obligations between donor and recipient, and are often unrelated (or only indirectly related) to the business interests or mission of the donor." This is compared to grants - "In sponsored awards (which include sponsored grants and contracts), however, the business interests or mission of the source of external funds is most often related directly to the uses for which the funds are put by the recipient. Because sponsors are concerned that their funds be used to support activities that bolster the sponsor’s own mission or interests, sponsors typically provide funding for sponsored awards on the basis of a specific project or research plan and budget". This is the exact reason why the article says the funders/sponsors had no role in the design/interpretation of the study. The NIH was the one concerned with evaluating the existing body of literature on Propecia and the results speak for themselves. Doors22 ( talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia users, i would like to point out that in many Armenian articles or dealing with N/K and Azerbaijan, armenian users always alter the following names to suit their point of view on events. For example we can see such cases in Henrikh Mkhitaryan article where in his personal life they mention Artsakh Republic instead of commonly used and politically correct term of de facto independent Nagorno Karabagh which is de jure part of Azerbaijan, In general many articles use different terms which do not present the neutral point of view and already accepted political terms which are argued by both [1] in here and by Thomas De Vaal. I believe altering the terms suits interest and makes the articles biased towards Armenian point of view since most of the moderators have clear sympathy with Armenian cause, i put forward using the correct political terms to suit both parties since Armenians want to claim its independent while Azerbaijani side is clearly stating the obvious and internationally accepted term of occupied territories, in my opinion to suit both parties all N/K related articles and any mention of N/K should include the following politically accepted and commonly used term "De facto independent and de jure part of Azerbaijan Republic". From my side several attempts to correct the articles have always been reverted even though i clearly stated the reasons and also described the issue in Talk page however no issue has been ever answered and i was suspended once for this! Please i would like to know the other point of view Agulani ( talk) 08:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
References
Do the article titles
And, to a lesser extent,
show a NPOV?
Most of these are not mentioned in our article on Jihad, which mentions many types (greater jihad, lesser jihad, educational jihad, missionary jihad, intellectual jihad, economic jihad, jihad of the heart, jihad by the tongue, jihad by the hand, jihad by the sword) which have no separate article.
In addition, the sources that supposedly show that these are WP:COMMONNAMEs are rather dodgy -- a lot of anti-islam blogs or news sources mentioning that various anti-islam groups use the term. The article titles don't seem neutral to me. Compare such neutral article titles about similar practices as as Marital conversion and Missionary dating.
Note: I know almost nothing on this topic and am not involved in editing any of these articles, so I may be walking into a minefield here... :( -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think a little context might help. So if we look at this way, what does it convey?
Take away the cache of using jihad as a buzzphrase and it puts these in a new perspective. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, why do you claim that "jihad" means "holy war" when our article on the subject clearly states (backed up by reliable sources) that it means "struggle"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Please take note of related discussions at
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gatestone_Institute_used_as_source_for_Rape_jihad.2C_WP:OR.3F and
Talk:Rape_jihad#Proposed_merge
Rhoark (
talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Good God. I really wanted to avoid these discussions and was hoping Rape Jihad's AfD would quell the likes of Freeatlast and Rhoark for a month or two, but they're both engaging in a ridiculous amount of edit wars and policy violations (such as creating false AfD discussions or repeatedly blanking articles despite being told several times that it was a violation of WP:BLANK). These guys clearly have some sort of agenda that they value far more than the procedures and policies we're supposed to follow. -- DawnDusk ( talk) 03:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
'Comment'Everywhere I see a discussion about sourcing of rape jihad or any other changes to the article, there are users DAWNDUSK and PAX arguing that the article is good in its current form, while all other editors try their best to make them understand that the article is a poorly sourced POV neologism. I can see that more than 'SIX' discussions have taken place about the sourcing of this article and each one of them says that sourcing is very very bad, and now this discussion has reached consensus that even the title is a POV(which it so blatantly IS). I hope there is some change to the article soon. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Quick peek for random quality control, result OR/SYNTH At Rape jihad there is a section on "justification". I clicked one of the refs, which turned out to be Katharine Lackey, " Pamphlet provides Islamic State guidelines for sex slaves," USA Today, December 13, 2014. That RS does talk about sex enslavement, but stops short of identifying the practice as "rape jihad"; saying this explains justification for something that is not even mentioned in the source is classic SYNTH/ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If we use dodgy sources, or even good sources such as this one in dodgy ways, we have bigger problems than POV titling. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Love jihad has some coverage in the Indian media, so not much an issue. AFAIK, Rape jihad is a neologism with extremely rare usage and none by reliable sources. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Repeated unsourced POV-pushing since 20th March on a BLP article, labelling a priest as "Leftist" in the lead. See article history: [10]. Even if such simplifying labels would be encyclopedic, they would need reliable sourcing from an uninvolved, neutral source. Mr. Martin already asked for assistance about this issue on the help desk in the past, but the removed phrase was repeatedly re-inserted. Could another editor please look into the situation? I have notified the 2 involved accounts Bo Smithers ( talk · contribs) and Big Bo Smithers ( talk · contribs) about this thread. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple of RfC ongoing at this BLP that need more participation. Atsme☯ Consult 03:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Further input is needed at Talk:Siege of Kobanî#RfC: Icons used in prose, any and all appreciated. Mlpearc ( open channel) 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been looking over the articles related to Vietnam in general and one thing I have come up (with the exact same sentence) is
"The
Cham in Vietnam are only recognized as a minority, and not as an indigenous people by the Vietnamese government despite being indigenous to the region. Both Hindu and Muslim Chams have experienced religious and ethnic persecution and restrictions on their faith under the current Vietnamese government, with the Vietnamese state confisticating Cham property and forbidding Cham from observing their religious beliefs. Hindu temples were turned into tourist sites against the wishes of the Cham Hindus. In 2010 and 2013 several incidents occurred in Thành Tín and Phươc Nhơn villages where Cham were murdered by Vietnamese. In 2012, Vietnamese police in Chau Giang village stormed into a Cham Mosque, stole the electric generator, and also raped Cham girls. Cham Muslims in the Mekong Delta have also been economically marginalized and pushed into poverty by Vietnamese policies, with ethnic
Vietnamese Kinh settling on majority Cham land with state support, and religious practices of minorities have been targeted for elimination by the Vietnamese government. The Vietnamese government fears that evidence of
Champa's influence over the
disputed area in the South China Sea would bring attention to human rights violations and killings of ethnic minorities in Vietnam such as in the 2001 and 2004 uprisings, and lead to the issue of Cham autonomy being brought into the dispute, since the Vietnamese conquered the Hindu and Muslim
Cham people in a war in 1832, and the Vietnamese continue to destroy evidence of Cham culture and artifacts left behind, plundering or building on top of Cham temples, building farms over them, banning Cham religious practices, and omitting references to the destroyed Cham capital of Song Luy in the 1832 invasion in history books and tourist guides. The situation of Cham compared to ethnic Vietnamese is substandard, lacking water and electricity and living in houses made out of mud."
This statement or something similar to it has occurred in these articles: Champa Religion in Vietnam History of Champa Southeast Asia, South China Sea
I think this is an attempt to push a nationalist POV by making one country (Vietnam) look bad and evil even though other countries have done this in the past. It doesn't matter if it is referenced, just look at the tone used in these articles. The evidence comes from the fact that the user who keeps adding this is
User:Rajmaan (
talk) and this user had been warned not to add in these kinds of edits in
another page.
I would support removing all of these statements although it would be nice if other comments from other users are available. Any comments on dealing with this issue would be welcomed. Thanks.
Ssbbplayer (
talk) 13:27, 13 April 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 Donetsk People's Republic on February 7, ( diff) and provided an explanation on the talk page ( diff, diff). The neutrality notice was reverted slightly over an hour later by User:Volunteer Marek ( diff). It was restored, at which point an edit war began diff, diff, diff, diff.
It was also discussed here. User:Rhoark wrote: "The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed. An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus." (see diff, diff)
This article (specifically " Human rights" section), which has obvious POV issues, has been jealously guarded to preserve it's content. The article itself is a WP:COATRACK. Any attempt to improve has been blocked by WP:ACTIVIST editors who have it as a WP:SOAPBOX (see diff, diff, diff)
The subject is already covered elsewhere and given more than the weight it deserves. We need editors to help repair this problem by moving and merging excessive content to the relevant articles.
Other users who disagreed with the current state of the article: ( diff - 18 May 2014), ( diff - 12 June 2014), ( diff - 7 September 2014), ( diff - 3 November 2015), ( diff - 1 February 2015), ( diff - 8 February 2015)
Please see the discussion at /info/en/?search=Talk:Donetsk_People%27s_Republic#POV_tag_re-removed
Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Tobby72 has been on this POV-tag pushing bender for awhile. They were even brought to AN/I for it [16] [17], but the request was closed as stale because Tobby72 stopped editing Wikipedia when the AN/I report was made. The closure of the AN/I request stated: "Tobby72 hasn't edited in 2 days, so this might be closed as stale. We'll just have to see if he resumes the pushing of that POV tag." and "It's been about 3 days, so closing as stale. If reported user returns, a new report filing is advised".
And guess what? As soon as the AN/I report was closed, Tobby72 returned and immediately started the same disruptive behavior again. The filing on this noticeboard is just another instance of it, where he's forum shopping since his proposals were repeatedly rejected. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
1) We should take inspiration from Northern Cyprus#Human rights and law or Kosovo#Society. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States#Trends in local vs global inequality. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I write to request a comment about this edit [18]. User:Kiwirigi keeps adding a debt figure in the net income section of the infobox. First of all, that is not the appropriate place to put that information. Moreover, the figure is cited from an estimate done by a newspaper. It seems to me that this is a very non NPOV edit and I think it should be removed. I appreciate any comment on this. Thank you. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 09:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Repeated promotional fluff additions and external link spam. Currently cleaned up again (no immediate action needed), but I would appreciate an additional editor keeping an eye on this article. I am not sure, why so many schools and universities confuse Wikipedia with their own web host, but have left some standard infos on the involved IPs' talkpages. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (3rd nomination). Should the article The Myth of Islamic Tolerance be deleted, as I believe the article fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. As of yet, no editor has indicated how it meets WP:NBOOK, however consensus cannot be reached AusLondonder ( talk) 15:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I have the impression that the discussion on the talk page for the article veganism is going nowhere and a bunch of reverts have been made, so I'm asking others to have an outside look and possibly make changes. Please see Talk:Veganism#Veganism and cancer and try to be as neutral as you can, no matter what you think of veganism as a whole. -- Rose ( talk) 13:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous reliable secondary sources which claim that vegetarians (at least in the U.S.) tend to have a reduced risk of cancer. This includes vegans. At least one study [19] showed that vegans have a lower overall cancer incidence than lacto-ovo-vegetarians. There are of course nuances - vegetarianism reduces the risk of some types of cancer but not others, and the risk varies depending on individual dietary habits - but the claim is objective and verifiable. If there's an issue here, it's one that can be resolved by minor tweaks to the wording. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Again I don't think we want to word it too strongly as these are not randomised trials. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| Proud of my new COI 02:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The two on-point secondary sources for vegan diets being cited are PMID 19279075 and PMID 24871675.
To date, epidemiologic studies have not provided convincing evidence that a vegan diet provides significant protection against cancer. Although plant foods contain many chemopreventive factors, most of the research data comes from cellular biochemical studies.
While lacto-ovo-vegetarians have lower risk of cancer of the gastrointestinal tract, vegans experience a higher risk for cancer of the urinary tract. For other-cancer sites, the risk is slightly but not significantly lower for both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared to non-vegetarians. Subsequent reports with longer follow-up time and more cancer cases will help clarify the role of specific vegetarian diets with cancer outcomes.
These sources both say the reduction of cancer risk, if any, is not significant. This in my view accords with the current wording of the article that there is no good evidence of risk reduction. (Though saying there's no "clear" or "conclusive" evidence may be better I think; and maybe we could say "meaningful risk reduction"?). Alexbrn ( talk) 09:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Martin, I don't think we want"a good authoritative secondary source" to tell us the generally accepted view so much as to follow WP:NPOV, presenting various viewpoints per their prominence in reliable sources. We have one secondary source that seems to say the evidence is sufficient and three that day it is not. So my understanding is that we write something that includes the minority view while giving it less weight. Rose, what is your objection to the language suggested by Alexbrn?
My impression is that most authorities see some evidence of benefit and most agree it is not conclusive. Can we agree on this and build language around it that also acknowledges the existence of minority viewpoints? Or have I misunderstood? Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Vegans consume considerably more legumes, total fruit and vegetables, tomatoes, allium vegetables, fiber, and vitamin C than do omnivores (14–16, 20, 23). All those foods and nutrients are protective against cancer (25)
Overall, vegans experienced modest risks reduction (14%) for all-cancer
When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence
If, as you claim, leather belts don't "have anything to do with the definition of veganism", why does https://www.vegansociety.com/try-vegan/definition-veganism say
And why does http://www.americanvegan.org/vegan.htm say
(Emphasis added.)
According to WP:COMMONNAME, those who avoid meat, eggs and milk in their diet should be called "strict vegetarians" or "dietary vegans" while "vegan" should be reserved for those who avoid any use of animal products. That's what the word means to most people. -- Guy Macon ( talk)
I see no problem in giving more information about different levels/types of vegans/vegetarians but let us just be sure to maintain a NPOV. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm lost guys. I don't recall seeing any source state that "there are no significant health effects of a vegan diet". I saw
Vegan diets are a form of vegetarian diet (per the position statement of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietics above), and no papers I have seen state that veganism is exempt from the benefits that accrue to vegetarian diets in general.
Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 13:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu: I have no idea how those citations support your POV. Only one of them mentions the word "vegan". Two are not WP:MEDRS compliant. And the one (The NCI page) MEDRS compliant source that does mention veganism supports my POV that there is permissive evidence for health benefits. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 16:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Honest question (as I have not been following the discussion closely): do any of the available RS's say that there is no consensus that vegan diets are protective against cancer? If not, we can't just make that up. Contrary to Formerly98's assertion that WP:CONSENSUS calls for us to seek compromise, it actually only calls for compromise between editors with legitimate concerns. Feeling that a POV should be represented in the article which is not represented in any RS is not a legitimate concern, and should be ignored. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello
I have already raised a discussion concerning this article " /info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad" It violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
I filed a report about it via the "Biography of living persons noticeboard" because the article was created to defame the man "Shunaid Qureshi""Joseph2302" responded and place a tag for discussion on cleaning up the article.
Now, one "Insider99" was hired by the sponsors of the article to update it and deal with the tag.
"Insider99" came up with other controversial and non-neutral points on the article. later on, some of those parts were cleared. Later on the tag on violation of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy was removed.
Now, the truth is that, the article "
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad" still violates the rule on (NPOV) policy.
Earlier on, a similar bio article was created to defame "Shunaid Qureshi" The link was "
/info/en/?search=Shunaid_Qureshi"
I reported it on the "Biography for living persons" noticeboard for violating the wiki rules. It was a clear case of WP Attack and WP Crime. Now, the admin that responded redirected the link to
"
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad"
So, when you click "
/info/en/?search=Shunaid_Qureshi", it redirects to ""
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad"
Now, the issue is that, this page "
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad" still violates (NPOV) policy after raising it for discussion among editors. The same group that created "
/info/en/?search=Shunaid_Qureshi" are also behind the other one.
The (NPOV) Policy violation is seen under this heading "Chemical Dump" in the article "
/info/en/?search=Naya_Nazimabad".
Here are the lines:
"A case was filed in the Sindh High Court (SHC) against the Naya Nazimabad residential scheme near Manghopir, claiming that the area has been used dumping ground for dangerous chemicals.[3] A Supreme Court of Pakistan study found that the populations residing in Gadap Town and nearby areas such as Naya Nazimabad are prone to cancer-like diseases through Asbestos.[4][5][6]
Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman of Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[7] The Javedan Cement Limited (JCL) was privatized, which is estimated to cost Rs. 100 billion ($1 billion),[8] and also Pakistan government $ 6 million annually.[9]"
So, since the discussion could not solve the issue, I advise the article should be completely deleted. It is created purely to defame "Shunaid Quresh". It was also created to defame "Naya Nazimabad" and its owners and little population.
The person involved and the entire Naya Nazimabad" are not happy about this development. Someone is using wikipedia to defame.
Thanks
Rosemaryujoh (
talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Maurice Flesier ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding Turkish language to the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which have no Turkish community, on the conclusion that "Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!!", however, Turkish is not the only regional language, so are Bosniak, Romani, and others — adding any regional language to articles of settlements which have less than 0.1% of said community is extremely redundant and unconstructive, which I have commented in edit summaries, as well as on his talk page. Btw, the user is Turkish (hence his POV-pushing). Maurice Flesier: "The presence or absence of the Turkish population must not be considered as a reference point. Well, why give place to Armenian pronunciations in Turkish cities such as Erzurum, Bitlis, Sivas? Armenian is not even recognized as an official language and Armenian population does not live here! I see it as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT! " Again, it is extremely redundant — a Turkish community does not exist in Gračanica, and furthermore, the Turkish spelling is only a transliteration of the actual name (the toponym did not originate in Turkish — also in this respect, redundant). The definition of "reference point" is "a fact forming the basis of an evaluation or assessment" — no connection to this case. Turkish should without a doubt be used in the introduction of Mamuša, inhabited by 93% Turks, and other Turkish-inhabited settlements. Gračanica is inhabited by Serbs, and 0% of the population is Turks — redundant. I fail to see Maurice Flesier's connection with Armenian place names in Turkey (though the comment again shows Turkish POV). Turkish has no official status in Kosovo, it is neither the lingua franca or a second language in schools in Kosovo.-- Zoupan 15:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Article: National Rifle Association. (Sub) Section: Finances.
Statement:
1. Is the "A considerable amount" part of this statement a neutral summary of the sources' reports on how much/what part of the NRA's income is from the gun industry? -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: there is a discussion on this at the article talk page. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Is the "which the NSSF says" part of the statement undue for the article/section in question? -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: there is a discussion on this at the article talk page. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 02:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
References