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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.
The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.
My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff
Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff
This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)
And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff
For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".
Bloomberg article says:
Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.
I am not a big fan of Putin / his authoritarian rule or Soviet / Russian imperialism (see some of my past edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), but neither am I suffering from Russophobia.
Everything is not always black and white, and WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.
I completely agree with User:Herzen: "It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV." [17]
Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Tobby72 ( talk) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
At this point, there is ample evidence that Russia is both providing material support to the rebels as well as engaging its own regular troops. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Reliable sources report on Russian objections, but take the assumption that the overall conflict is driven by Russia as the ground truth. [25] [26] [27] [28]. Given Russian admissions of false denials and false flag operations [29], along with the well-known unreliability of Russian-controlled media [30], there is at this point no justification for any ongoing complicity of Wikipedia with Russia's maskirovka campagin. Any passage not specifically pertaining to conflicts between points of view should dispense with any qualifiers like "disputed" or "according to some". That Russia is involved with, controlling, and responsible for the conflict in Ukraine should be assumed and asserted.
That said, Russian denials are a significant point of view that we have a responsibility to report proportionately. Any editors that have an issue with the way in which that PoV is included, such as its wording or whether it belongs in a different section or different article, they should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE reliably sourced content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If they feel unable to do this, they should present the problem and recommendations on the talk page rather than removing the material. Rhoark ( talk) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What materials, exactly? For example:
For his role of a "super hawk" regarding the Russian military intervention in Ukraine NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans. "Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015.
Removed, Restored, Removed – "Kremlin point of view"?
On 24 July, Human Rights Watch accused Ukrainian government forces and pro-government volunteer battalions of indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, stating that "The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes." Human Rights Watch also accused the pro-Russian fighters of not taking measures to avoid encamping in densely populated civilian areas." Human Rights Watch: Ukrainian forces are rocketing civilians". The Washington Post. 25 July 2014." Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians Stop Use of Grads in Populated Areas". Human Rights Watch. 24 July 2014.
Removed, Restored, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and thus demographically possessed one of the Ukraine's largest Russian populations. A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News.
Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Социально-политические настроения жителей Крыма" (PDF). GfK Ukraine (in Russian). Retrieved 12 March 2015.82% крымчан полностью поддерживают присоединение Крыма к России, 11% - скорее поддерживают, и 4% высказались против этого. Среди тех, кто не поддерживает присоединение Крыма к России, больше половины считают, что присоединение было не полностью законным и его нужно провести в соответствии с международным правом"Poll: 82% of Crimeans support annexation". UNIAN. 4 February 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015.A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it.Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages."
Restored, Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy. Kiev. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
- 16.6% Donetsk Oblast
- 16.8% Luhansk Oblast
- 33.4% Kharkiv Oblast
- 35.0% Zaporizhia Oblast
- 40.8% Odessa Oblast
- 47.6% Dnipropetrovsk Oblast
Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
Mykhailo Chechetov, former deputy head of the Party of Regions, committed suicide by jumping from the window of his apartment in Kiev." Ukraine's former ruling party hit by spate of apparent suicides". The Guardian. 23 March 2015.
Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
On 10th February 2015, Amnesty International reported that an Ukrainian journalists called Ruslan Kotsaba was jailed by Ukrainian authorities for 15 years for "treason and obstructing the military" in reaction to his statement that he would rather go to prison than be drafted by Ukrianian Army. Amnesty International has appealed to Ukrainian authorities to free him immediately and declared Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience. Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine stated that "the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan” .In response Ukrainian SBU declared that they have found “evidence of serious crimes” but declined to elaborate." Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters ". The Guardian. 10 February 2015.
Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
Relevant images - Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek continues his rampage: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. What can be done to prevent such behaviour? -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Tendentious editing continues unchallenged. Same POV pushing, removal of sourced material: diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
And, of course, blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
Further discussion here: Talk:War in Donbass, and here: Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.
Excuses for POV-blanking: diff, diff, diff, diff.
No clear consensus was reached. See examples here: MyMoloboaccount: Restored, Tobby72: Restored, Darouet: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.
and here: Tobby72: Restored, Anonimski: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.
Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans. "Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015.
For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.
A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News. Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."
The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy. Kiev. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
"Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine"in this article? There is already an article specifically dealing with the history of Crimea: which happens to be called Crimea. The text carrying exactly the same information is right next to the image. Please explain what you appear to feel is being censored by the removal of image clutter. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: Please explain how the diffs you've provided - pointing to one-off IP WP:BATTLEGROUND changes, followed by further refactoring of content, followed by a clean-up of content flying in the face of WP:WORDS - somehow reflects WP:CON? While we're about it, I'd be interested to have you clarify how this latest entry by you qualifies as being a response (according to your ES) to my response directly above. Are you simply ignoring my observation that the discussions are taking place on the relevant article's talk page, and/or are you ignoring the fact that you haven't responded to my query regarding the pertinence of the images removed that have riled you so? This 'discussion' smacks of being one-sided in your favour. Either you discuss the issues you are presenting as being problematic, or this is a completely disingenuous use of this noticeboard. You'd like to have your cake and eat it, too... but that's not quite how consensus or the NPOVN work. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
"Comment on content not the contributor" - Toby72. Toby72, when an editor behaves so disruptively that they end up wasting endless amount of other people's time, it is impossible NOT to comment on the contributor. This has been discussed. Consensus was against inclusion. You are ignoring this consensus and trying to cram this stuff into multiple articles in order to push a POV. And you freakin' wonder why you get reverted? And you're trying to blame OTHERS here? Stop. Playing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.
Darouet, what are you talking about? What "themself describe" (sic)? You are also insulting several other editors like RGloucester, raynor and Tlsandy without any basis by accusing them of trying to exclude "other perspectives". The exclusion of opinion polls was discussed. What's intolerable is the sheer tendentiousness of Toby72's (and a few other) editing style, as well as the not letting go of the POV pushing. There's no need to encourage and enable more of that. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I should also point out Toby72, that all that your diffs above show is that you are constantly edit warring against multiple editors. You might want to stop that. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a controversy at Talk:Deaths in 2015 that may interest some watchers here. In a nutshell, those called "Sir" or "Dame" are having their listings piped from the article name to include their title. Those with military, political, religious or medical titles are not. It's a longstanding practice, but seems unfair to hold one select group in higher esteem.
Had an RFC, opinions were split and it seems we've defaulted back to the way it was. Your input may help get a decisive answer, whichever one it is. Weigh in here or there, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the difference here. Use them consistently or don't use them at all. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Sur_Baher#Occupied.. Debresser ( talk) 19:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The Abiogenesis article lacks completely a neutral point of view and looking at what the NPOV policy means, some of its clauses are clearly broken by the current editors. Concretely, the abiogenesis is presented as fact and that is obvious starting with the leading definition: ...is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds Actually abiogenesis is a very controversial hypothesis, qualified by Encyclopedia Britannica as no more than an "idea" and along the time, many scientists questioned it. In no way it can be considered "a fact". In addition, the many critics in relation to this hypothesis are completely missing from the article.
In an attempt to fix this issue, I opened two sections on the article's Talk page, one called False definition of abiogenesis and the other, Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner.
Here I pointed the following aspects:
Surprisingly I faced an open hostility and aggressiveness from some of the editors. None of them was willing to address any of my points, on the contrary they falsely claimed that my points were addressed in the FAQ section of the Talk page. Actually the FAQ section contains some false statements by its own (e.g. claiming that abiogenesis is proven because of an illogical and unscientific reason, namely No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging).
After several comments, my section False definition of abiogenesis, in the Talk page, was closed, for false reasons (as can be seen in the content of my section) like no specific change to the article proposed, no attempt at actual discussion. The only justification that I got was that the consensus view of editors supports the notion that the abiogenesis article considers abiogenesis a fact, which in no case can be considered as a solid argument of why the abiogenesis is presented as a fact. My section Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner was closed very quickly after I got several comments related strictly to my supposed bad attitude (it seems that a second attempt to collaborative discussion was not something good, in the editors' opinion) but again not addressing any of my points. Actually, as can be seen in the history, the thread was initially marked as a hidden archive, then it "reappeared" as a closed thread.
Briefly, I consider that very clearly the clauses of NPOV are broken by the current editors, specifically:
The aggressive editors, behaving incredibly abusive, like they have the ownership of Abiogensis article, are the following: User:Apokryltaros User:Drbogdan User:BatteryIncluded User:Sarr Cat Epetre ( talk) 12:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It might be more accurate for the lede to read "is the confidently conjectured natural process of life arising from non-living matter ..." (italic phrase added.) I would be against including criticism of the idea as this is a fringe view which is necessarily based on creationism. If life didn't naturally emerge from nonliving matter, aren't we to infer that it emerged supernaturally? This type of speculation does not belong in the article. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 16:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: You will have to prove what makes you claim that I have a "creationist" POV. In the Talk:Abiogenesis I asked to have a neutral point of view (that is why I opened a NPOV, I never asked to state in the article that Abiogenesis is false and a creationist view is true. Epetre ( talk) 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
All, Sorry I was unable to post for a while. The neutrality issue associated with the Souther Strategy article is still on going /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Southern_Strategy_-_removal_of_sources_which_don.27t_support_opening_section.
I would like some moderation input from others. It's clear that we have some who are not happy about adding a more balanced POV to the article as can be seen in the above link. How do we bring this topic back to the front page? Thanks Getoverpops ( talk) 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, Scubby seems unable to provide a non-baised review of the information that was provided. Sammy, please forgive me but your opening remarks sound biased from the word go. I will leave it at a few things. The article and the editors who are trying to protect it are unwilling to add a section which disputes several claims associated with the article. The biggest issue is the idea that there was some racist southern plan that is why the southern states changed from blue to red. Many of the pier reviewed articles I provided show evidence that the transformation was not related to any racist appeal but instead based the socio-economic outlook of many southern voters better aligning with the GOP. The "racist" part appears to be the notion that the GOP wanted to avoid offending moderate souterners rather than appealing to hard core racists. Scooby, a come lately editor to the article, refuses to allow such information into the article. He also seems to demand a high standard for any source that doesn't fully embrace yet is perfectly OK with low quality material in other parts of the article. Getoverpops ( talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You don't even understand the point I'm making. As someone who was never an editor before I posted here why are you even in this discussion? So on to your "points", some sources say the points were appeals to racism. Other peer reviewed sources say the points were attempts to avoid upsetting voters but were not appeals to racism. Furthermore, you need to scope the duration and extends of this souther strategy. If one politician does something that could be seen as racism is that enough proof for you? I addressed your references last time. It seems your intent this time is to again so muddy the waters as to make this neutrality dispute all but unreadable. That was the extent of your contribution last time. Please don't try to cloud the issue as was your previous strategy.
Getoverpops (
talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@
Sammy1339: Sorry for the delay.
Gerard Alexander: [2] This is an opinion article by an academic researcher in the field. The article questions the GOP's need to court southern voters at any cost. Thus the same candidates who were fighting for civil rights in the late 50s and early to mid 60s were unlikely to quickly change their tack to appeal to a segment if the need wasn't as critical. This supports the claims by other sources that claim the GOP was race sensitive to the south but did not (at least at the presidential level) play to racist fears or make promises that would specifically target racists (the general thrust of some tellings of the southern strategy).
Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.
Sean Trende: [3] Author is opinion writer. Includes the claim that McGovern was too liberal to get strong southern support and hence Nixon got much of the vote by default. This again supports the notion that a southern strategy was one which avoided antagonizing rather than appealing to racial feelings.
Kevin Williamson: [4]Another article supporting the theory that GOP successes in the south started prior to '68 and during a time when the GOP was pushing for more civil rights protections than the Democrats. This is yet another source that says the shift wasn't based on race. That doesn't prove no racist plans were laid but again, it supports the idea that the GOP was more likely to try to walk a fine line (not antagonize) vs appeal to. Note that in searching the reliable source archives I've found that NR is considered a reliable source even though it is a right leaning source.
Gerard Alexander: [5] I have been accused of cherry picking from this article. However, if the wiki article is about presidential campaigns only then, no, no cherry picking here. The author (same as WP author above) says that the repubs in the south had to engage in nasty politics to win elections, that was political expedience.
The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.
The bolded text (my emphasis) hits the key point. What ever the "southern strategy" was the key point of the strategy towards the south at the time, according to a number of authors, was not to appeal to racism. It seems instead they were racially cognizant and crafted a message not to offend. This also aligns with the previous comments that Nixon was not interested in offering much to southern politicians in exchange for support.
[Later in the original discussion Neutrality dispute]
Here is a peer reviewed article that denounces the idea,
http://miranda.revues.org/2243, Michelle Brattain, Foretting the South and the Southern Strategy (Published in Miranda, author is Department Chair of History at Georgia State University)
Wrapped up in this narrative of party realignment is the most “modern” article of faith behind Southern exceptionalism: the Republican “Southern strategy.” Richard Nixon and his advisors, the story goes, stole a page from the Goldwater and Wallace playbooks and wooed white Southern voters into the Republican party with appeals to festering racial resentments.
... Thus contributors to The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism frequently turn their gaze elsewhere—reminding us not only that whites rioted against housing integration in Pennsylvania, but that segregation (of the Chinese) existed out west, and that NY prisons could be as brutal as Mississippi's notorious Parchman Farm. ... To those who are tempted to draw a straight line from Goldwater, through Wallace, to Nixon and beyond as evidence of Republicans manipulating white Southerners through carefully coded appeals to their racism, the new critics of Southern exceptionalism point to other, less-well-known forces working at the grassroots of Southern politics and culture—namely, moderation. This was true, as historian Joseph Crespino shows, even in the “most Southern place on earth”: Mississippi. ... By 1970, Lassiter argues, white Southerners preferred moderate policies and candidates who employed a language of abstract principles over open defiance and political extremists—a lesson that Nixon learned the hard way. One of the few “genuine” incarnations of the Southern strategy, Lassiter argues, was Nixon's decision in the 1970 midterm elections to lend his support to the Southern Republican candidates who represented the most extreme racial backlash to court-ordered school desegregation and busing. In theory (Kevin Phillip's theory to be precise) such a strategy would have hastened Southern partisan realignment. However, centrist Democrats triumphed over race-baiting Republicans in several key gubernatorial and Congressional elections. ... The national success of Nixon's appeal to middle-class whites who disdained social engineering in the name of racial equality is an extraordinarily important historical insight that challenges myths about American racial innocence. The similarity of white responses to busing across regions, for example, and the hypocrisy of Hubert Humphrey and other non-Southern Democratic liberals who resisted the application of integrationist remedies in their own backyards has newly exposed the emptiness of distinctions between de jure and de facto segregation (Crespino 178-180).
And another book that doesn't agree... Matthew Lassiter, "The Silent Majority" Princeton University Press. Page 232:
The three-way contest allowed Nixon to stake out the political center, by design and by default, as the respectable choice for middle-class voters who rejected the Great Society liberalism of Hubert Humphrey and the reactionary racial populism of George Wallace. In the first national election in which suburban residents constituted a plurality of the electorate, the Nixon campaign reached out to disaffected blue-collar Democrats but aimed primarily at white-collar Republicans and moderate swing voters in the metropolitan centers of the Sunbelt South and West and the upwardly mobile suburbs of the Midwest and Northeast. Nixon forfeited the African-American vote to the Democratic party and conceded the Deep South to the Wallace insurgency, in recognition that the Goldwater debacle of 1964 had reversed Republican trends in the high-growth states of the Outer South.
Melvin Small, "A Companion to Richard M. Nixon", John Wiley and Sons.
This "Southern Strategy/civil-rights retreat" thesis became the first, and thus the orthodox, interpretation of the administration's policies. It would be sustained in the years immediately after Nixon left office, by two groups of writers. The first were those who used the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal as their points of reference for understanding Nixon's presidency. ...
This claim that Nixon's policies rested on liberal words and conservative deeds was exactly the opposite of what later scholars would argue.
...
There was other evidence that Nixon was not very interested in civil rights - he devoted ten pages of his nearly 1,100-page memoir to the subject. Yet, what he wrote suggested statesmanship, not sacrificing civil-rights enforcement for southern votes. Nixon expressed "justifiable price" in "peacefully desegregating schools in the South".
Many of Nixon's advisers agreed and emphasized the desegregation of school in their memoirs. "Nixon inherited a dual school system declared unconstitutional fifteen years earlier," the speechwriter Raymond Price noted in "With Nixon, "He quietly engineered its dismantling." With respect to politics, Price reiterated a line used by Nixon, that the administration had no Southern Strategy but a national strategy that included the South and that it had desegregated schools "cooperatively rather than punitively". In Before the Fall, another speechwriter, William Safire, described the president's approach to desegregation as genuinely moderate and extremely skillful - a policy of "make-it-happen, but don't make it seam like Appomattox."
...
In Nixon Reconsidered, Joan Hoff warned against "aprincipled behavior by purely ambition-driven politicians" in the United State, with its toxic mix of powerful government and superficial "media politics." In this setting, Nixon was no worse and , according to Hoff, a bit better in terms of what he achieved than other recent chief executives. She even insisted that, "most of his lasting achievements are in domestic, rather than foreign, affairs." Civil rights was a case in point. In a rejoinder to the orthodox school, Hoff defended Nixon's record as superior to that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ during the 1950s and as better than any candidate he ran against, save Hubert Humphrey in 1968. She dismissed Nixon's Southern Strategy as "short-lived"; praised his effective, albeit, "reluctant," desegregation of Southern schools; noted that it was Nixon, not Kennedy or Johnson, who put the "bite" into affirmative action; and chronicled the administration's efforts to expand opportunities for women, especially with respect to employment, despite the fact that Nixon's support of the Equal Rights Amendment was never terribly strong.
[some important points here]
The scholarly literature on the Nixon administration and civil rights has evolved in two directions. At one level , early students of this presidency established an orthodox interpretation of his policies , one that stressed the administration's conservatism and shortcomings in pursuit of a "Southern Strategy." As time passed, and as documentary evidence became available and passions cooled, scholars revised this argument and depicted the Nixon administration's civil-rights policies as complex, in terms of motivation, accomplishment, and affect. At another level, understanding of specific aspects of Nixon's rights policies has deepened , as they became the subjects of articles, book chapters, and monographs. As a result, the historiography on this subject has reached a high level of maturity and sophistication . And, yet, much remains to be studied.
So what is the bar to show that the "southern strategy" was an appeal to racism? Is being anti-bussing racism or people who feel like they put their tax dollars into their local school and they don't want to pay for kids who's parents didn't pay the local taxes to attend nor do they want their kids sent to a distant school? If we think Nixon's plan was to use racist policies can we point to any under his watch? Part of the Southern Stategy wiki article talks about the impact of the "strategy". The sources I've cited generally disagree with the idea of a southern strategy. They don't argue that some things said or done by the administration were based on race but if that is the standard do we really think any campaign is 100% clear? They also argue that the overall objective was to play the middle ground. The articles are far stronger in their idea that it was the average southern voter who's views were better represented by the Republicans and less by an increasingly progressive Democratic party that was the real cause of the shift. Hence any discussion of the "Southern Strategy" would, if they are correct, reach the conclusion that the strategy had at best a minimal impact.
Regardless, there is a clear body of evidence that does not support the telling in the current Wiki. I'm not saying the wiki needs to be changed to this version of events, only that we have enough to state this version of events should be included. -- Getoverpops ( talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the article should handle this topic in two parts. First, we should have the Nixon era information. That should be followed with information supporting the claims of later elections. For example, as I mentioned earlier, Atwater talks about the GOP NOT using a "southern strategy" during Regan's election because it wasn't needed. Regan's message was the same as he would deliver to the southern states, a message he was using previously to win the governorship in his state. The article suggests this was a "strategy" that was carried on past the 80s but offers no real evidence of such. Even the claims that Nixon used such a strategy are questionable. Not that such a strategy was considered but when Nixon's records are reviewed (see my references above) it's clear he was not bending over to appeal to the racist voters. Note, one reference did say that the GOP did try a few racist appeals during a mid-term election during the Nixon presidency.
Finally, it should be noted that we are talking about a political topic. What is the motive for many of those who promote the "GOP won the south through appeal to racism" narrative? It would seem obvious that they are trying to taint the political waters. It also appears that they have some success. This is perhaps one of the largest flaws of the article. It seems to take the most negative telling of the narrative as gospel without acknowledging the motives of those who are telling the tail. This is why it's important that the article give space to reliable sources which argue the scope and impact of the claimed southern strategy was not what popular mythology has created. One last thing, I would ask that so long as this is an on going conversation, SD and NS refrain from provocation such as removing the article dispute tag. Getoverpops ( talk) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Hi all. On Dru yoga there's a whole bunch of new editors making edits that are in my opinion "activist" in nature. The sources added are all cult awareness websites. I re-wrote the Dutch article, after checking on anonymous changes, and then the English one. An extra pair of eyes is always welcome. Honestly, it may just be a cult, though I'm not certain the reliable sources support that enough to put it in the article. Our new colleagues are becoming a bit of a nuisance, since they don't participate on the talk page. Being accused of acting for the Life Foundation I can live with/laugh at. Thanks, Sander1453 ( talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Contentwise resolved by Sammy1339, nice and short. Disruptive editing (imho) continues, by some of the same users, over here and on Dutch Wikipedia, where a CU found a positive match between four of them. Will file an SPI later today, depending: my fellow Dutch admin Natuur12 thinks it's for the stewards. Regards, Sander1453 ( talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Once the edit-warring is under control, the article needs reworking, maybe a complete rewrite. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The Ford Pinto article has been the subject of a long-simmering dispute over the amount of weight to give a paper by an attorney who says that the Pinto's dangerous reputation is overblown (and how to interpret that paper, since there's some dispute over what it says and what that means.) There haven't been very many users involved (and most of them only edit the article sporadically), which has, I think, made it somewhat harder to reach a resolution, but you can see a lot of the older discussions on the talk page. Describing the whole controversy is complex, but mostly the issue is that the paper has not been mentioned in many reliable sources (and those that do often seem to refer to it in a way that I feel implies that it's a WP:FRINGE view.) Regardless, it has at times had an entire section of the article devoted to it, been given equal weight in the lead with all alternative views, and so on. The Pinto is a very famous case and has had a huge amount written about it from various perspectives, so I feel that all of this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions and interpretations of a single attorney. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21#Butcher_of_Gujarat discussion going on here there has been alleged canvassing ,edit warring and claims of WP:BLP violation as it redirects to Narendra Modi which in turn is rebutted by claims of WP:RNEUTRAL. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
User:FacultiesIntact has asked me to review their Draft for the article Honeywell. Their Draft can be found here. They have a COI on the topic and thus would like outside review and implementation of the draft. I've looked it over and it looks fine to me. There has been a significant expansion of the history section and the various divisions of the company. While there has been some minor reformatting of the Environmental record and Criticism sections, no content appears to have been lost, so no issues regarding the COI there.
Can I get some confirmation from 1 or 2 other people that the draft looks good? Then i'll go ahead and implement it. Silver seren C 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A Wikipedia administrator inserted a fly-by POV tag into an article. I thought that the POV tag cast doubt on the factual accuracy of the article and so I objected to it. Another editor removed it. The administrator reinstated it, and so on, resulting in an edit war. I took the question of biased use of a POV tag to dispute resolution but that got nowhere because all concerned where attacking each other's POV (not surprisingly in my POV). My straightforward question is, can a POV tag be placed in an article without subtstantiation and, if disputed, for how long and under what circumstances may it remain there?
My question is a general one but should you want background information in this specific case then please see the Giuliano Mignini article, its recent history, and its associated talk page.
Thank you. I want to know. JoeMCMXLVII ( talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I am writing to complain about the lack of neutrality in this article:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
I have posted extensive comments on the article's talk page detailing multiple instances of bias, lack of fairness, and lack of proportion in this piece, but so far, this locked page has not been revised.
I will not repeat all the points that I posted here:
Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
But the main point is this: A wide range of hostile opinions about the organization are quoted, especially in the introduction and the two concluding sections. There are virtually no counterbalancing opinions from outside the organization's leadership, even though it has many, many prominent members and supporters. Also, there is no section currently about the group's rescues of animals from roadside zoos and other sorry facilities where animals are abused incessantly. This is a topic that is far more central to the subject than much of what currently appears on the page. A section that explores the group's substantial impact on changing public opinion and the way that many companies conduct their business would also be extremely appropriate.
Please ensure that this article is brought in line with your standards of neutrality and fairness. 174.22.190.144 ( talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Folks from this noticeboard may want to add their two cents at Talk:Indigo children. Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 16:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A new editor, User:Gregcollins11, has been adding material to this article in what I believe is a violation of NPOV. I tried to explain on his talk page but to no avail. He's referring to two people, a medical doctor and a journalist who is also a senior distinguished fellow at Rosenwald's [{Gatestone Institute]] as "Practicing Muslim scholars and journalists affiliated with the Gatestone Institute" (at least he now makes that clear). However, it is still only 2 people, one not a scholar, and there is no evidence that Khaled Abu Toameh is a practising Muslim so this is a BLP violation. You can see at [42] that he removed the fact that Toameh is a fellow at the GI and that Jasser (whose name he changed in the link so it's now red) received funds from GI. It's still better than his original edit, but as I seem to be the only person commenting and reverting this new editor, rather than edit again I'm bringing it here. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Craig Unger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The section titled "Career" doesn't really discuss the subject's career, but rather a back-and-forth exchange (built on primary sources) between Craig Unger and Michael Isikoff regarding criticism and defense of actions George W. Bush may have taken in regards to the Saudi royal family around the time of 9/11. I'm hoping a fresh set of eyes can take a look at this section and find an appropriately worded title. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Contras are rebels not terrorists and want he TERM REBELS to be used for them further 1973 Chilean coup d'état is not terrorism but a coup.United States support to non-state terrorists has been prominent in Latin America, the Middle-East, and Southern Africa implies that all those mentioned in the article are terrorists which is wrong. Praguegirl ( talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ned Touchstone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm quite concerned about the article on Ned Touchstone. It cites no reliable sources at all, and contains a large number of statements that seem quite biased in favor of Touchstone, including that he published "the most detailed, fact-proven essay on the conspiracy that planned and hid the truth of Kennedy's murder in Dallas" and many similar, some of which seem to defend or explain away Touchstone's inflammatory views on race. Rewriting this article neutrally would require a fair amount of research, which I do not have time to do, unfortunately, so I am at a loss. Chick Bowen 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
An editor has argued for adding to the lead section of this article that Oral Roberts was seen as a "con man", based on a newspaper editorial that used that term. This article has been a subject of contention for a long time. Additional views about the lead, and perhaps about the rest of the article, would be helpful. See Talk:Oral Roberts#This article is a joke. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, if this is all done incorrectly, I've never had to come the the noticeboards before. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cite specific users or just address the general nature of my concern. If I am supposed to cite specific users, I tried to read the instructions for doing so but don't really understand them. Help on this would be appreciated. I will be more than willing to bring this up to standards if it falls short.
I've notice across several women's suffrage articles ( Women's suffrage, Women's suffrage in Switzerland, Women's suffrage in the United States) the Feminist Portal has attached their sidebar. While I can sympathize with the Feminist portal and what (I believe) they are doing, this seems entirely inappropriate for these articles. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope the discussion of other Wikipedia editors will help resolve this, but it seems to me that any primarily historical article should not be linked in any way to a portal dealing with a political philosophy (another user used the term "ideology") that has obvious and inherent bias.
While I am not accusing members of the Feminist portal of exhibiting any such bias, my assertion is that linking this sidebar to Women's suffrage articles is no more appropriate than linking the Communism sidebar to these articles (while they are separate philosophies, both advocate for women's suffrage). In this, I mean that by including this sidebar in historical articles not directly related to Feminism (such as the history of Feminism itself, or the history of some particular Feminist theory) it colors the article in the same way that linking the Communist, Libertarian, or Anarchist sidebars would; i.e. it implies that the article is told from or related to a certain ideology or a particular political point of view. I believe if we allow the feminist sidebar on this article, we can only maintain WP:NPOV by adding all sidebars of all ideologies that advocate women's suffrage.
I discussed this with another user on the Women's suffrage talk page who effectively stone-walled me and engaged in a revert war until an admin showed up and basically decreed that the sidebar will remain a part of the article. If the community feels this is appropriate and I am being unreasonable, that's fine. I am only here because discussion on this issue seems to have been shut down entirely.
Thank you. A dc zero ( talk) 21:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As an aside (since I think numerous people have covered how centrally feminism and woman's suffrage are connected), what do you mean by 'brigading?' I'm only familiar with the term in two contexts (I believe it's Reddit slang for when people are directed to another reddit or comment to spam it with votes, a common problem when dealing with controversy-heavy or politically-active subreddits; it might also be a reference to the Web brigades employed by Russian government?) Either way it strikes me as a fairly accusatory way to frame a dispute over whether or not a sidebar belongs on an article, and I don't quite see how it applies. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I will not be back here; but posting notice here of my restoration of illicitly-removed POV, ESSAY and SYNTH tags on Chinese Canadians in British Columbia, which were removed almost exactly a month after a non-consensus block was imposed on me for getting in the way of the OWNership and POV behaviour and content created by User:WhisperToMe; and I have added them to his 'new' split of it, Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver, which has all the same problems, which include systemic bias and the scholarly sources fallacy. I argued myself blue in the wiki-face trying to explain all that is wrong with his 'contributions' and his ongoing AGF attitude and got blocked for it by people who refused to read anything I had explained about the POV and SYNTH problems. It's not just these two articles either; he's created others with the same biased tone and soapbox agenda as spin-offs and also on parallel ones like Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and related articles.
He's in violation also of SYNTH and ESSAY and TRIVIA and OWN, but NPOV is policy and per its own wording is not negotiable. It's also laid out in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork that using behavioural guidelines against editors frustrated by POV edit/content disputes is against policy but that's exactlywhat was done to me. The upshot is that the Wikipedian who created vast amounts of British Columbia content was blocked by a newbie int he subject area who did not want to be 'interfered with' and asked for me to be blocked without an ANI so he could 'get on with it'. No don't ask me for edit-links I've wasted too much of my life and energy pandering to instruction creepery and won't be back. but if there are responsible admins and editors out there capable of and willing to undertake reading the arguments since last fall on this page and others he's created (the Indo-Canadians one just one of many; he'd wanted to call it "Asian Indians" and argued against Canadian English irrespective of ENGVAR) then please do; I have no more time for this and was condemned for being 'controversial' and confrontational - but what else to do with lies and distortions and gamesmahship than confront it? Go along with it??
Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia and various links in now-archived sections on my talkpage and around those of the "interfering" admins/editors can be found by reviewing my usercontributions; I will not name them as though they have a lot to do with giving his POV carte blanche as they have done, they each one refused to read anything I said, but listened to anything he said; and condemned me for the length of my talkpage items while ignoring thet length (and illogic and contrarian nature) of his, or of the NOR and RS discussion board 'rants' he engaged in whiel trying to end-run me and not have to address the issues of content I raised.
There was a lot he could have learned from me about BC history and about Chinese history in BC; instead he sought to ahve me blocked to protect thte POV content he was building, and has been allowed. Part of the problem here is also systemic bias as noted, and his own treatment of obscure academic opinions in the course of building POV essays. Note the difference between teh two "Hongcouver" sections on both pages; he may have amended mine, so go back into March to see what I had added to balance the biased, hate-mongering POV tract he composed using single-adjectives condeming the term and/or white people (he uses "White" which is against ENGVAR but he uses cherrypicked sources to do that).
I'm done, done, done; my block happened to end today, but I don't care; Wikipedia has shown itself inept and inadequate in policing its own policies, and too many rankly POV editors are free to game the system including blocking editors who point out their violations of policy.
Maybe there is one editor out there who will take me seriously instead of like the French knights in the Holy Grail, "blow snot in my general direction" as so many have done. Too many.
I should have posted the POV issue here long ago, long before an admin who wouldn't even research the background to the dispute singled me out as the problem without ever lifting a finger to understand or read up on the content.
Maybe one of you will. I doubt it, but I'm posting this as 'one last try' to see if there is any decency left here. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS has been used to condemn my responses to; but that essay doesn't mean that great wrongs should bd perpetrated much less mollycoddled and encouraged. There are other POV disputes out there I could have posted about in the past, I have never come here before with any; I dislike the wiki-bureaucracy, being so much victimized and harassed by it.
So many specific lines in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork have been violated that it would take all day to write them out, nevefr mind find the diffs to demonstrate them; but my provision of cites and sources were all ignored too, and anything I said; so looking up diffs that will also be ignored seems pointless; read the Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia talkpage and 'listen up'. If you don't, don't fire in my general direction, I don't care; but someone here should. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated to the immediately preceding section that I started, FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position (of candidate Jeb Bush) before giving a chronological discussion of how that position may have evolved or changed over the years. I'm mentioning this RFC here because there are weighting issues, such as whether to give primary placement to views that are the most outdated. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Getoverpops has recently returned from a one-month topic ban after failing to get consensus for proposed changes to Southern strategy aimed at discrediting the idea that the GOP made appeals to racism in order to win over Southern white voters who were disaffected by the civil rights movement. The relevant discussions are here and here. After coming back from the break he has several more sources which may support his position. I'm trying to give the subject a fair treatment, however, it's just too much for me to read and I am not an expert. This could use more eyes. The affected articles are Southern strategy, Southernization, and Solid South. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is the RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Having looked over the edit in question as well as the relevant discussion, I agree with Flyt35 that that text is unnecessary, poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Suppose Wikipedian "A" says that NPOV requires treating reliable sources according to their prominence, but Wikipedian "B" says that the degree of reliability should also impact how reliable sources are treated. What is the proper response to Wikipedian "B"? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I am also a bit concerned about
David Eppstein's ability to maintain an NPOV in this situation. The reason for this is the his comment "...insisting on adding a long paragraph based on a Wall Street Journal editorial to our article..."
[43] (emp. mine). This declaration of
ownership is in the same edit where he tries to justify exclusion of content because he says the Wall Street Journal is
WP:FRINGE. The WSJ may have gone through the looking-glass in the last decade or so but it is still considered a respectable mainstream paper and calling it
WP:FRINGE is not supportable.
The current version of the article at this time seems OK with the exception of the NY Magazine bit I noted above. Jbh Talk 14:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, since obviously the commentary above is based on the specific case, and others here may wonder, it is: Talk:When contact changes minds. In a nutshell, we have a case about a technical issue (a case of academic dishonesty) that has been used as the jumping-off point for at least one prominent editorial by a group with no particular expertise in this subject. Because of the lack of expertise, this editorial makes some obvious mistakes in its description of what happened and jumps to some unlikely conclusions about why it happened. We also have a reliable but less-prominently-published editorial pointing all of this out and offering a more likely explanation. Factchecker and friends want to use NPOV as a cudgel, to include these sources "in proportion to their prominence", which is to say to include much of the uninformed editorial but significantly cut back its refutation. Is this an appropriate reading of policy? Additionally, Factchecker seems to be unwilling to accept reasoned argument for why one source might be presenting a more accurate view of the case, instead repeatedly insisting that the only bases for choice among sources is prominence and mischaracterizing all argument to the contrary as being purely personal preference. Obviously, NPOV favors prominence and disallows personal preference, but does NPOV require us to blindly ignore all other characteristics of a source (such as how mistake-ridden it might be, how much sourced criticism it has come under, or how plausible it is) and use only prominence as the criterion when choosing editorial opinions to include in an article? — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
"more likely explanation"does not make it so. My issue with the NY Mag piece is that it is an article about the WSJ piece and it seems to be used only to call the WSJ piece "silly". This is quite simply POV. If the article has something useful to say about the subject that is not covered elsewhere fine if not it should go. It would also be possible to use it in a section dedicated to the social and political fall-out of the misconduct but as a source for an inappropriate one-liner with no context it fails NPOV. Jbh Talk 17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there is some nuance between why the article was published by Science and why the press and others latched on to the purported results. In my opinion that is pretty important. There is a huge difference between how right-wing ideologues, scientists and "normal" people consider science, evidence and the purpose and results of scientific investigation. This article is not the place to go into that in detail but that difference needs to be recognized when we consider media reactions and how to balance viewpoints. It is key to remember that much of the population does not understand science, and so many people now think that ideology trumps facts that they are starting to make it so. Where we are writing about public reactions those people's point of view matters too. Jbh Talk 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I sourced the following:
to this reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996900000673
which states:
another review that says the same thing is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.12073/full
which states:
It was reverted as being a violation of NPOV. I wanted to get the views of a wider group of editors. Thanks, petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Alexbrn here and also the comments at the article Talk page
here that
this edit Alex made, changing the wording to the tea was highly valued because it was thought to be an "energizing" and "detoxifying" agent
solves the problem.
Zad
68
02:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and advice. Hugh ( talk) 05:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Current article content of the Founding and growth section of article Americans for Prosperity :
The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries.
(Supported by multiple, highly reliable source references.)
Proposed additional clause shown in bold:
The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the U.S.
Supported by reference already in the article (no new refs needed):
The charitable arm of David Koch, the more overtly and actively libertarian brother of Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the nation, shows up as a significant funder of Americans for Prosperity, though the number here understates its importance to the organization.emphasis added
Talk page discussion: Koch Industries is the largest privately held energy company in the US, owned by the founders of the subject of this article
Our manual of style at WP:LINKSTYLE says "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so", "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence," and "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all."
Koch Industries is not a household word. Every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries includes at least a few words of description, and usually more, see for example:
With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country...So far in 2010, Koch Industries leads all other energy companies in political contributions, as it has since 2006.
The environmental impact of the Koch family is not entirely an abstract question. Koch Industries is the second-largest private company in the country, and its holdings include oil refineries, oil-services companies and one of the nation's biggest fertilizer manufacturers.
Multiple reliable sources even report one of the owners of Koch Industries stating the obscurity of Koch Industries, see for example:
In time, his family's business became the largest private concern in the U.S., if not the world. "My joke is that we're the biggest company you've never heard of," Koch says.
"...Kansas-based Koch Industries. It operates oil refineries, makes chemicals and asphalt, controls pipelines and owns a wide range of consumer products, including Stainmaster carpet and Angel Soft toilet paper..."My joke is that we're the biggest company you've never heard of," David Koch said in a 2008 interview
Summarizing arguments in opposition of inclusion: Some editors seem to be invoking WP:UNDUE in support of the position that while we may mention in the article that David and Charles Koch, the founders of the subject of the article, are from Koch Industries, it is non-neutral to offer our readers any context, even to the extent of including a very few neutral words on first mention saying what Koch Industries is, and that the appropriate level of detail with respect to the nature of Koch Industries is none. Some editors express the view that a wikilink is sufficient context.
Collaborative work-shopping on the consensus wording of a brief, neutral, in-text definition of Koch Industries is currently stymied by a misapplication of WP:NPOV to frustrate compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE and clarity.
I am seeking comment from editors experienced with WP:NPOV issues, less on the precise wording, but rather on whether:
Thank you for your attention. Hugh ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Hugh cannot accuse anyone of NPOV issues on these pages. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest creating a distinct subsection of the article that neutrally but explicitly treats the apparently controversial relationship or lack of relationship between these organizations. That would be better than lots of MOS-based proxy disputes all over the article. Rhoark ( talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, if people wanted to know more about the Koch Industries page, they can read about it there. The content proposed to be added does not speak directly about the organization Americans for Prosperity. While the Koch brothers maybe part of the organization, the company Koch Industries are not. Therefore I agree with Arthur Rubin on his assessment that additional information about the Koch brothers, and their companies in this article would fall under WP:COATRACK.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Obvious coatrack. Even without the issue of Koch Industries and David Koch not being the same thing, clearly the choice of "...the largest privately held energy company in the U.S." and not "...the largest privately held paper manufacturer in the U.S." (Unless I got my numbers wrong in my quick search. both are true statements), is clearly designed to put Americans for Prosperity in a particular light. And mentioning the some supporters of a political organization will gain financially if the organization achieves its goals clearly fails NPOV. Name a political organization that accepts donations where this is not true. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, Please forgive me if this is not the right place for this question. I'm not that experienced in the Neutral POV rules and I've come here to ask for information after not finding what I wanted to know on the Help pages.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/TransPerfect-Reviews-E32824.htm
Edward Snowden could use more eyes. There is an longstanding, ongoing dispute scattered across many discussions about whether the lead section is neutral and what specific material should be included or excluded. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope there are some knowledgeable editors here who are willing to have a look at these two articles, which read like promotional pieces and have, besides tone, other serious problems with sourcing, much of which is from primary or otherwise associated/COI sources. Have a look at the history. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The Israel Defense Forces article is bias and not neutral because it focuses on positive sides of the topic .To ensure the article is neutral i added links to other articles that are directly related to the subject .These links have been removed. the diff is : Line 703:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Fadel ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 June 2015
So... there is apparently a group called Stop Educational Discrimination Against Iranians (SEDAI) and they have come to Wikipedia to advocate with regard to their issue. Orland, Nicky mathew have been trying to work with them. I've also left messages for all the editors listed above that Wikipedia is not a place for SOAPBOXing or campaigns of any kind. I just wanted to make sure the wider community is aware of this nest of advocacy and to get more eyes on the articles and deletion discussions, and make sure the people listed above can come here and get wider community feedback - this isn't personal. Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 02:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a disagreement as to whether the the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry (the Palmer Report) on the Gaza Flotilla Raid should be removed from the lead.
Currently the UNHRC's rebuttal ( http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 - note that the term "UN Independent Experts" is how the UNHRC describes individuals working on its behalf) is included as a rebuttal of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry. However rebuttals of the UNHRC's report (from the United States and the European Union) have all been removed from the lead leaving a situation in which one "side" is permitted to have rebuttals in the lead, and the other is not. It is my opinion that all rebuttals should be moved to the relevant body paragraphs as they clutter up the lead, but to have rebuttals of one report and not the other in the lead is POV. Drsmoo ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The UNHRC later also set up a panel of five human rights experts to examine the conclusions of the Palmer report. The panel stated that Israel's blockade of Gaza amounted to collective punishment and was unlawful.
On the talk page I found Talk:Detroit_Public_Schools#Snippet_on_charter_schools where an IP editor believes that the section on University Prep High School in the article Detroit Public Schools "reads as an ad". He made it back in 2013 and maybe things changed since then, but it would be nice if somebody can review it.
Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello all,
There's a disagreement about whether our article on
Kosovo belongs in
Category:Countries in Europe. Like most Kosovo NPOV problems, the usual people on each side have said their piece and we've ground to a halt. Outside views would be very welcome. Any suggestions?
bobrayner (
talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Bobrainer has been for long time a partisan promoter of Kosovo independence on Wikipedia articles and his intentional unwillingness to understand the complexity is disruptive.
— User:FkpCascais
Yes, escape... You don't have any maps or articles because Albania was never big or shrinked or blabla... You just talk bullshit, go to school pal and learn some history. Good bye you nationalist dreamer and keep on hating Serbs, good for you, do whatever. If something shrinked it was not Albania for sure, but your brain...
— User:FkpCascais
One sincere question: you are so partisan allways about it, are you being payed for editing Kosovo subjects just the way Albanian nationalist want? Because if you are you should step out of this subjects right away.
— User:FkpCascais
I agree with Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe being in violation of NPOV. Many editors aspire to elevate Kosovo's independence status to equal with Romania or Germany, but that category is not the place to begin. If we cannot agree that the opening line should be "Kosovo is a country" for any reason then it is illogical to follow suit with other listings. For example, attempting an indirect precedent on a category page is like moving Kosovo from the second list to the first at Template:Vehicle registration plates of Europe. It would be pointless to do that unless you moved them all and abolished the "States with limited recognition" cell. -- Vrhunski ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Could it please be noted by contributors/editors that Bobrayner has requested input on the relevant article's talk page, not for subjective arguments to be conducted on this noticeboard. Relevant policy and guideline based discussions would be appreciated in the appropriate venue as opposed to spreading deliberations across various Wikipedia venues. Thank you. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone should notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about this discussion. Anyway, I think this is a no-brainer. Yes, Kosovo is a country in Europe. That's how various international organizations, like the World Bank classify it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF so you don't need to fix the broken link. This one is on the knife edge. We've already established things need to be looked into case by case. But all parties are guilty of introducing OTHERSTUFF elements to the discussion (mainly at Talk:Kosovo, not here). I have likened Kosovo to the other entities featured in this list, those to support the category have been providing comparison with entities in that list. One need only see for himself where Kosovo lies, therefore to suddenly grind it into top level over all else (particularly of all on account of sources from recognising bodies) truly returns us to the seminal question, does the category violate NPOV?. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem we have here is that we are talking about a category, not a passage, template, infobox or caption note. This is probably the one thing for which neutrality is in all honesty impossible. In the aforementioned circumstances, editors from two sides of a dispute have the freedom to dress the presentation so that all aspects are observed. For instance in mainspace there is the option of the Kosovo note template to reflect parity. But a category, well either it is there or it is not, sadly there is no middle road. In this case, the "reliable source" is taken by its subscribers to serve as some kind of trump card that ranks higher than all disputes, impartiality and objective editing. Yet if it were that simple, if an acknowledgement from the website of an organisation that has admitted the subject as a member was so reliable as to be conclusive then there would have been no dispute from editors because there would have been no dispute from the real life players. The governments of Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Belarus would only need to be delivered a reference from the source and all would realise they were wrong to refuse recognition and would subsequently reverse their positions. We would never have articles such as Kosovo status process, International recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Steering Group for Kosovo, Ahtisaari Plan and Brussels Agreement (2013) if it were that simple as to behave in such a way as to ignore the problem. You do not have anything like this for South Sudan yet that country broke away three years after Kosovo. Curiously, this conversation is happening on the NPOV noticeboard though I'd question whether the OP has ever read the conditions. Per WP:WIKIVOICE (which would without doubt define a category listing since it is inflexible), there is one essential point relevant to this debate (the rest largely pertain to mainspace writing but even they could be said to be relevant):
"Category" is mentioned once in WP:WEIGHT and this says:
Obviously there are no competing views since even a source to refer to Kosovo or Somaliland as "a country" would not do so in a way that would not address the wider issues of the dispute were they to be extended articles rather than fact-boxes.
So if 80 world states continue to recognise Kosovo as subject to Serbian territorial integrity, that cannot be classed as WP:FRINGE. As such, reliable sources do indeed cite the divided opinion over what Kosovo is according to which party. So I say finally, I have seen many editors accused of "Serbian nationalist fantasy" for their opposition to this category, and yet nobody has these past two months inserted, or proposed to include Kosovo in Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia alongside Vojvodina, and this is the polar opposite to the country category.
Now you'll realise that balancing the scales is impossible and not simply down to the words of a source. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note to clarify that the matter is resolved. I as main opponent of the category have amended my position based partly on the discussions at Talk:Kosovo and partly on other examples as set on other articles. I believe this conversation can now be archived to make space for the newer issues. Regards to all. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Opinions were sought here over whether wording within a reliable source warranted Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe. Arguments to oppose the inclusion were based on the practice across the site where other partially recognised disputed territories were concerned. Arguments, or should I say, the argument for inclusion of the category on the article rested solely on the source. Accepting the high figure of states recognising Kosovo (which is actually what led to the source in question, rather than the source being a conclusive reference) coupled with the realisation that other entities with slightly higher or lower recognition (and to some extent disputed territories also) had contained their relative Countries in categories, I stumbled across the rival entity Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija only to find it was drafted in asymmetrical contrast to Kosovo. I edited the article as best I could to rephrase the dubious lede and then proceeded to boldly restore the category I originally opposed, but only after consulting two or three of the editors to originally oppose the category. None objected. I believe that is the core explanation less the usual insults thrown about! :))) -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per Wikipedia:SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The article on Disqus may have been targeted to increase the amount of criticism in it. Currently, Disqus#Criticism and privacy concerns is abnormally long compared to the rest of the article.
Some groups of edits in time gone past, featuring lots of IPs and (at a brief check) possible SPAs:
Perhaps I'm making this overblown, but it seems a bit suspicious to me.
— George8211 / T 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Would somebody please look over the recent actions regarding the article Proposals for a Palestinian state's former grammo/typo prone biased lead section (yes, that includes my actions ;) Why? I feel that a non-legitimate edit war accusation was forced on me through an involved non-contributing (probably uncivil) editor. I am calm and am open for constructive critiques, though. Plus, I feel that the two-sidedness of the article was not addressed properly, what I had documented in the ongoing TP discussion. I do not edit war and am not a vandal! There already is a constructive coop in effect between 3 contributing editors. Thank you for your help -- Miraclexix ( talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Almost every time I have attempted to edit articles related to the conflict in Ukraine, my additions have been removed. Certain users are constantly involved in edit warring over this issue. User:Volunteer Marek seems to be the most aggressive.
The main issue is the removal of well sourced material.
My recent edits (April 2015): diff, diff, diff diff
Removed (April 2015): diff, diff, diff, diff
This disruptive behaviour has been going on, and on, and on, and on... diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff. Diff speaks for itself (other editors, User:MyMoloboaccount, User:Leftcry, User:Herzen, User:Haberstr, and User:HCPUNXKID seem to agree with me)
And, of course, there is a blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff
For example, I've tried to add the latest Crimean public opinion poll, but was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek and User: RGloucester (see diff, and diff) − "not adhering to NPOV". And User:Tlsandy joined here − "Poll in wrong article because article about annexation exists".
Bloomberg article says:
Everything has been discussed here, and clearly no consensus was reached.
I am not a big fan of Putin / his authoritarian rule or Soviet / Russian imperialism (see some of my past edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), but neither am I suffering from Russophobia.
Everything is not always black and white, and WP:NPOV says clearly include fairly all significant views published by reliable sources. This means the article should not be trying to argue for one view or another, but simply representing them proportionately.
I completely agree with User:Herzen: "It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV." [17]
Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Tobby72 ( talk) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
At this point, there is ample evidence that Russia is both providing material support to the rebels as well as engaging its own regular troops. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Reliable sources report on Russian objections, but take the assumption that the overall conflict is driven by Russia as the ground truth. [25] [26] [27] [28]. Given Russian admissions of false denials and false flag operations [29], along with the well-known unreliability of Russian-controlled media [30], there is at this point no justification for any ongoing complicity of Wikipedia with Russia's maskirovka campagin. Any passage not specifically pertaining to conflicts between points of view should dispense with any qualifiers like "disputed" or "according to some". That Russia is involved with, controlling, and responsible for the conflict in Ukraine should be assumed and asserted.
That said, Russian denials are a significant point of view that we have a responsibility to report proportionately. Any editors that have an issue with the way in which that PoV is included, such as its wording or whether it belongs in a different section or different article, they should endeavor to WP:PRESERVE reliably sourced content and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. If they feel unable to do this, they should present the problem and recommendations on the talk page rather than removing the material. Rhoark ( talk) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What materials, exactly? For example:
For his role of a "super hawk" regarding the Russian military intervention in Ukraine NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans. "Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015.
Removed, Restored, Removed – "Kremlin point of view"?
On 24 July, Human Rights Watch accused Ukrainian government forces and pro-government volunteer battalions of indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas, stating that "The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes." Human Rights Watch also accused the pro-Russian fighters of not taking measures to avoid encamping in densely populated civilian areas." Human Rights Watch: Ukrainian forces are rocketing civilians". The Washington Post. 25 July 2014." Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians Stop Use of Grads in Populated Areas". Human Rights Watch. 24 July 2014.
Removed, Restored, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, and thus demographically possessed one of the Ukraine's largest Russian populations. A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News.
Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it."Социально-политические настроения жителей Крыма" (PDF). GfK Ukraine (in Russian). Retrieved 12 March 2015.82% крымчан полностью поддерживают присоединение Крыма к России, 11% - скорее поддерживают, и 4% высказались против этого. Среди тех, кто не поддерживает присоединение Крыма к России, больше половины считают, что присоединение было не полностью законным и его нужно провести в соответствии с международным правом"Poll: 82% of Crimeans support annexation". UNIAN. 4 February 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015.A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it.Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages."
Restored, Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy. Kiev. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
- 16.6% Donetsk Oblast
- 16.8% Luhansk Oblast
- 33.4% Kharkiv Oblast
- 35.0% Zaporizhia Oblast
- 40.8% Odessa Oblast
- 47.6% Dnipropetrovsk Oblast
Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
Mykhailo Chechetov, former deputy head of the Party of Regions, committed suicide by jumping from the window of his apartment in Kiev." Ukraine's former ruling party hit by spate of apparent suicides". The Guardian. 23 March 2015.
Added, Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
On 10th February 2015, Amnesty International reported that an Ukrainian journalists called Ruslan Kotsaba was jailed by Ukrainian authorities for 15 years for "treason and obstructing the military" in reaction to his statement that he would rather go to prison than be drafted by Ukrianian Army. Amnesty International has appealed to Ukrainian authorities to free him immediately and declared Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience. Tetiana Mazur, director of Amnesty International in Ukraine stated that "the Ukrainian authorities are violating the key human right of freedom of thought, which Ukrainians stood up for on the Maidan” .In response Ukrainian SBU declared that they have found “evidence of serious crimes” but declined to elaborate." Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters ". The Guardian. 10 February 2015.
Removed, Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
Relevant images - Removed – Kremlin propaganda?
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 13:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek continues his rampage: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. What can be done to prevent such behaviour? -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Tendentious editing continues unchallenged. Same POV pushing, removal of sourced material: diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
And, of course, blatant double standard: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.
Further discussion here: Talk:War in Donbass, and here: Talk:2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine.
Excuses for POV-blanking: diff, diff, diff, diff.
No clear consensus was reached. See examples here: MyMoloboaccount: Restored, Tobby72: Restored, Darouet: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.
and here: Tobby72: Restored, Anonimski: Restored, Volunteer Marek: Removed.
Thanks for taking a look. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
NATO's top commander in Europe General Philip M. Breedlove has been criticized by European politicians and diplomats as spreading "dangerous propaganda" by constantly inflating the figures of Russian military involvement in an attempt to subvert the diplomatic solution of the War in Donbass spearheaded by Europeans. "Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine". Der Spiegel. March 6, 2015.
For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.
A poll of the Crimean public was taken by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on 16–22 January 2015. According to its results: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."Bershidsky, Leonid (February 6, 2015). "One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia". Bloomberg News. Bloomberg's Leonid Bershidsky noted that "The calls were made on Jan. 16-22 to people living in towns with a population of 20,000 or more, which probably led to the peninsula's native population, the Tatars, being underrepresented because many of them live in small villages. On the other hand, no calls were placed in Sevastopol, the most pro-Russian city in Crimea. Even with these limitations, it was the most representative independent poll taken on the peninsula since its annexation."
The poll determined that 33.3% of those polled in southern and eastern Ukraine had considered Ukraine's interim government of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to be legitimate:Babiak, Mat (19 April 2014). "Southeast Statistics". Kyiv International Institute of Sociology; Ukrainian Policy. Kiev. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
"Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine"in this article? There is already an article specifically dealing with the history of Crimea: which happens to be called Crimea. The text carrying exactly the same information is right next to the image. Please explain what you appear to feel is being censored by the removal of image clutter. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Tobby72: Please explain how the diffs you've provided - pointing to one-off IP WP:BATTLEGROUND changes, followed by further refactoring of content, followed by a clean-up of content flying in the face of WP:WORDS - somehow reflects WP:CON? While we're about it, I'd be interested to have you clarify how this latest entry by you qualifies as being a response (according to your ES) to my response directly above. Are you simply ignoring my observation that the discussions are taking place on the relevant article's talk page, and/or are you ignoring the fact that you haven't responded to my query regarding the pertinence of the images removed that have riled you so? This 'discussion' smacks of being one-sided in your favour. Either you discuss the issues you are presenting as being problematic, or this is a completely disingenuous use of this noticeboard. You'd like to have your cake and eat it, too... but that's not quite how consensus or the NPOVN work. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
"Comment on content not the contributor" - Toby72. Toby72, when an editor behaves so disruptively that they end up wasting endless amount of other people's time, it is impossible NOT to comment on the contributor. This has been discussed. Consensus was against inclusion. You are ignoring this consensus and trying to cram this stuff into multiple articles in order to push a POV. And you freakin' wonder why you get reverted? And you're trying to blame OTHERS here? Stop. Playing. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.
Darouet, what are you talking about? What "themself describe" (sic)? You are also insulting several other editors like RGloucester, raynor and Tlsandy without any basis by accusing them of trying to exclude "other perspectives". The exclusion of opinion polls was discussed. What's intolerable is the sheer tendentiousness of Toby72's (and a few other) editing style, as well as the not letting go of the POV pushing. There's no need to encourage and enable more of that. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I should also point out Toby72, that all that your diffs above show is that you are constantly edit warring against multiple editors. You might want to stop that. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a controversy at Talk:Deaths in 2015 that may interest some watchers here. In a nutshell, those called "Sir" or "Dame" are having their listings piped from the article name to include their title. Those with military, political, religious or medical titles are not. It's a longstanding practice, but seems unfair to hold one select group in higher esteem.
Had an RFC, opinions were split and it seems we've defaulted back to the way it was. Your input may help get a decisive answer, whichever one it is. Weigh in here or there, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the difference here. Use them consistently or don't use them at all. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 13:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Sur_Baher#Occupied.. Debresser ( talk) 19:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The Abiogenesis article lacks completely a neutral point of view and looking at what the NPOV policy means, some of its clauses are clearly broken by the current editors. Concretely, the abiogenesis is presented as fact and that is obvious starting with the leading definition: ...is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds Actually abiogenesis is a very controversial hypothesis, qualified by Encyclopedia Britannica as no more than an "idea" and along the time, many scientists questioned it. In no way it can be considered "a fact". In addition, the many critics in relation to this hypothesis are completely missing from the article.
In an attempt to fix this issue, I opened two sections on the article's Talk page, one called False definition of abiogenesis and the other, Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner.
Here I pointed the following aspects:
Surprisingly I faced an open hostility and aggressiveness from some of the editors. None of them was willing to address any of my points, on the contrary they falsely claimed that my points were addressed in the FAQ section of the Talk page. Actually the FAQ section contains some false statements by its own (e.g. claiming that abiogenesis is proven because of an illogical and unscientific reason, namely No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging).
After several comments, my section False definition of abiogenesis, in the Talk page, was closed, for false reasons (as can be seen in the content of my section) like no specific change to the article proposed, no attempt at actual discussion. The only justification that I got was that the consensus view of editors supports the notion that the abiogenesis article considers abiogenesis a fact, which in no case can be considered as a solid argument of why the abiogenesis is presented as a fact. My section Need for presenting the abiogenesis in an objective manner was closed very quickly after I got several comments related strictly to my supposed bad attitude (it seems that a second attempt to collaborative discussion was not something good, in the editors' opinion) but again not addressing any of my points. Actually, as can be seen in the history, the thread was initially marked as a hidden archive, then it "reappeared" as a closed thread.
Briefly, I consider that very clearly the clauses of NPOV are broken by the current editors, specifically:
The aggressive editors, behaving incredibly abusive, like they have the ownership of Abiogensis article, are the following: User:Apokryltaros User:Drbogdan User:BatteryIncluded User:Sarr Cat Epetre ( talk) 12:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It might be more accurate for the lede to read "is the confidently conjectured natural process of life arising from non-living matter ..." (italic phrase added.) I would be against including criticism of the idea as this is a fringe view which is necessarily based on creationism. If life didn't naturally emerge from nonliving matter, aren't we to infer that it emerged supernaturally? This type of speculation does not belong in the article. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 16:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Guy Macon: You will have to prove what makes you claim that I have a "creationist" POV. In the Talk:Abiogenesis I asked to have a neutral point of view (that is why I opened a NPOV, I never asked to state in the article that Abiogenesis is false and a creationist view is true. Epetre ( talk) 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
All, Sorry I was unable to post for a while. The neutrality issue associated with the Souther Strategy article is still on going /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Southern_Strategy_-_removal_of_sources_which_don.27t_support_opening_section.
I would like some moderation input from others. It's clear that we have some who are not happy about adding a more balanced POV to the article as can be seen in the above link. How do we bring this topic back to the front page? Thanks Getoverpops ( talk) 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, Scubby seems unable to provide a non-baised review of the information that was provided. Sammy, please forgive me but your opening remarks sound biased from the word go. I will leave it at a few things. The article and the editors who are trying to protect it are unwilling to add a section which disputes several claims associated with the article. The biggest issue is the idea that there was some racist southern plan that is why the southern states changed from blue to red. Many of the pier reviewed articles I provided show evidence that the transformation was not related to any racist appeal but instead based the socio-economic outlook of many southern voters better aligning with the GOP. The "racist" part appears to be the notion that the GOP wanted to avoid offending moderate souterners rather than appealing to hard core racists. Scooby, a come lately editor to the article, refuses to allow such information into the article. He also seems to demand a high standard for any source that doesn't fully embrace yet is perfectly OK with low quality material in other parts of the article. Getoverpops ( talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You don't even understand the point I'm making. As someone who was never an editor before I posted here why are you even in this discussion? So on to your "points", some sources say the points were appeals to racism. Other peer reviewed sources say the points were attempts to avoid upsetting voters but were not appeals to racism. Furthermore, you need to scope the duration and extends of this souther strategy. If one politician does something that could be seen as racism is that enough proof for you? I addressed your references last time. It seems your intent this time is to again so muddy the waters as to make this neutrality dispute all but unreadable. That was the extent of your contribution last time. Please don't try to cloud the issue as was your previous strategy.
Getoverpops (
talk) 07:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@
Sammy1339: Sorry for the delay.
Gerard Alexander: [2] This is an opinion article by an academic researcher in the field. The article questions the GOP's need to court southern voters at any cost. Thus the same candidates who were fighting for civil rights in the late 50s and early to mid 60s were unlikely to quickly change their tack to appeal to a segment if the need wasn't as critical. This supports the claims by other sources that claim the GOP was race sensitive to the south but did not (at least at the presidential level) play to racist fears or make promises that would specifically target racists (the general thrust of some tellings of the southern strategy).
Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP's terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private "desegregation academies" to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.
Sean Trende: [3] Author is opinion writer. Includes the claim that McGovern was too liberal to get strong southern support and hence Nixon got much of the vote by default. This again supports the notion that a southern strategy was one which avoided antagonizing rather than appealing to racial feelings.
Kevin Williamson: [4]Another article supporting the theory that GOP successes in the south started prior to '68 and during a time when the GOP was pushing for more civil rights protections than the Democrats. This is yet another source that says the shift wasn't based on race. That doesn't prove no racist plans were laid but again, it supports the idea that the GOP was more likely to try to walk a fine line (not antagonize) vs appeal to. Note that in searching the reliable source archives I've found that NR is considered a reliable source even though it is a right leaning source.
Gerard Alexander: [5] I have been accused of cherry picking from this article. However, if the wiki article is about presidential campaigns only then, no, no cherry picking here. The author (same as WP author above) says that the repubs in the south had to engage in nasty politics to win elections, that was political expedience.
The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.
The bolded text (my emphasis) hits the key point. What ever the "southern strategy" was the key point of the strategy towards the south at the time, according to a number of authors, was not to appeal to racism. It seems instead they were racially cognizant and crafted a message not to offend. This also aligns with the previous comments that Nixon was not interested in offering much to southern politicians in exchange for support.
[Later in the original discussion Neutrality dispute]
Here is a peer reviewed article that denounces the idea,
http://miranda.revues.org/2243, Michelle Brattain, Foretting the South and the Southern Strategy (Published in Miranda, author is Department Chair of History at Georgia State University)
Wrapped up in this narrative of party realignment is the most “modern” article of faith behind Southern exceptionalism: the Republican “Southern strategy.” Richard Nixon and his advisors, the story goes, stole a page from the Goldwater and Wallace playbooks and wooed white Southern voters into the Republican party with appeals to festering racial resentments.
... Thus contributors to The Myth of Southern Exceptionalism frequently turn their gaze elsewhere—reminding us not only that whites rioted against housing integration in Pennsylvania, but that segregation (of the Chinese) existed out west, and that NY prisons could be as brutal as Mississippi's notorious Parchman Farm. ... To those who are tempted to draw a straight line from Goldwater, through Wallace, to Nixon and beyond as evidence of Republicans manipulating white Southerners through carefully coded appeals to their racism, the new critics of Southern exceptionalism point to other, less-well-known forces working at the grassroots of Southern politics and culture—namely, moderation. This was true, as historian Joseph Crespino shows, even in the “most Southern place on earth”: Mississippi. ... By 1970, Lassiter argues, white Southerners preferred moderate policies and candidates who employed a language of abstract principles over open defiance and political extremists—a lesson that Nixon learned the hard way. One of the few “genuine” incarnations of the Southern strategy, Lassiter argues, was Nixon's decision in the 1970 midterm elections to lend his support to the Southern Republican candidates who represented the most extreme racial backlash to court-ordered school desegregation and busing. In theory (Kevin Phillip's theory to be precise) such a strategy would have hastened Southern partisan realignment. However, centrist Democrats triumphed over race-baiting Republicans in several key gubernatorial and Congressional elections. ... The national success of Nixon's appeal to middle-class whites who disdained social engineering in the name of racial equality is an extraordinarily important historical insight that challenges myths about American racial innocence. The similarity of white responses to busing across regions, for example, and the hypocrisy of Hubert Humphrey and other non-Southern Democratic liberals who resisted the application of integrationist remedies in their own backyards has newly exposed the emptiness of distinctions between de jure and de facto segregation (Crespino 178-180).
And another book that doesn't agree... Matthew Lassiter, "The Silent Majority" Princeton University Press. Page 232:
The three-way contest allowed Nixon to stake out the political center, by design and by default, as the respectable choice for middle-class voters who rejected the Great Society liberalism of Hubert Humphrey and the reactionary racial populism of George Wallace. In the first national election in which suburban residents constituted a plurality of the electorate, the Nixon campaign reached out to disaffected blue-collar Democrats but aimed primarily at white-collar Republicans and moderate swing voters in the metropolitan centers of the Sunbelt South and West and the upwardly mobile suburbs of the Midwest and Northeast. Nixon forfeited the African-American vote to the Democratic party and conceded the Deep South to the Wallace insurgency, in recognition that the Goldwater debacle of 1964 had reversed Republican trends in the high-growth states of the Outer South.
Melvin Small, "A Companion to Richard M. Nixon", John Wiley and Sons.
This "Southern Strategy/civil-rights retreat" thesis became the first, and thus the orthodox, interpretation of the administration's policies. It would be sustained in the years immediately after Nixon left office, by two groups of writers. The first were those who used the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal as their points of reference for understanding Nixon's presidency. ...
This claim that Nixon's policies rested on liberal words and conservative deeds was exactly the opposite of what later scholars would argue.
...
There was other evidence that Nixon was not very interested in civil rights - he devoted ten pages of his nearly 1,100-page memoir to the subject. Yet, what he wrote suggested statesmanship, not sacrificing civil-rights enforcement for southern votes. Nixon expressed "justifiable price" in "peacefully desegregating schools in the South".
Many of Nixon's advisers agreed and emphasized the desegregation of school in their memoirs. "Nixon inherited a dual school system declared unconstitutional fifteen years earlier," the speechwriter Raymond Price noted in "With Nixon, "He quietly engineered its dismantling." With respect to politics, Price reiterated a line used by Nixon, that the administration had no Southern Strategy but a national strategy that included the South and that it had desegregated schools "cooperatively rather than punitively". In Before the Fall, another speechwriter, William Safire, described the president's approach to desegregation as genuinely moderate and extremely skillful - a policy of "make-it-happen, but don't make it seam like Appomattox."
...
In Nixon Reconsidered, Joan Hoff warned against "aprincipled behavior by purely ambition-driven politicians" in the United State, with its toxic mix of powerful government and superficial "media politics." In this setting, Nixon was no worse and , according to Hoff, a bit better in terms of what he achieved than other recent chief executives. She even insisted that, "most of his lasting achievements are in domestic, rather than foreign, affairs." Civil rights was a case in point. In a rejoinder to the orthodox school, Hoff defended Nixon's record as superior to that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ during the 1950s and as better than any candidate he ran against, save Hubert Humphrey in 1968. She dismissed Nixon's Southern Strategy as "short-lived"; praised his effective, albeit, "reluctant," desegregation of Southern schools; noted that it was Nixon, not Kennedy or Johnson, who put the "bite" into affirmative action; and chronicled the administration's efforts to expand opportunities for women, especially with respect to employment, despite the fact that Nixon's support of the Equal Rights Amendment was never terribly strong.
[some important points here]
The scholarly literature on the Nixon administration and civil rights has evolved in two directions. At one level , early students of this presidency established an orthodox interpretation of his policies , one that stressed the administration's conservatism and shortcomings in pursuit of a "Southern Strategy." As time passed, and as documentary evidence became available and passions cooled, scholars revised this argument and depicted the Nixon administration's civil-rights policies as complex, in terms of motivation, accomplishment, and affect. At another level, understanding of specific aspects of Nixon's rights policies has deepened , as they became the subjects of articles, book chapters, and monographs. As a result, the historiography on this subject has reached a high level of maturity and sophistication . And, yet, much remains to be studied.
So what is the bar to show that the "southern strategy" was an appeal to racism? Is being anti-bussing racism or people who feel like they put their tax dollars into their local school and they don't want to pay for kids who's parents didn't pay the local taxes to attend nor do they want their kids sent to a distant school? If we think Nixon's plan was to use racist policies can we point to any under his watch? Part of the Southern Stategy wiki article talks about the impact of the "strategy". The sources I've cited generally disagree with the idea of a southern strategy. They don't argue that some things said or done by the administration were based on race but if that is the standard do we really think any campaign is 100% clear? They also argue that the overall objective was to play the middle ground. The articles are far stronger in their idea that it was the average southern voter who's views were better represented by the Republicans and less by an increasingly progressive Democratic party that was the real cause of the shift. Hence any discussion of the "Southern Strategy" would, if they are correct, reach the conclusion that the strategy had at best a minimal impact.
Regardless, there is a clear body of evidence that does not support the telling in the current Wiki. I'm not saying the wiki needs to be changed to this version of events, only that we have enough to state this version of events should be included. -- Getoverpops ( talk) 04:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the article should handle this topic in two parts. First, we should have the Nixon era information. That should be followed with information supporting the claims of later elections. For example, as I mentioned earlier, Atwater talks about the GOP NOT using a "southern strategy" during Regan's election because it wasn't needed. Regan's message was the same as he would deliver to the southern states, a message he was using previously to win the governorship in his state. The article suggests this was a "strategy" that was carried on past the 80s but offers no real evidence of such. Even the claims that Nixon used such a strategy are questionable. Not that such a strategy was considered but when Nixon's records are reviewed (see my references above) it's clear he was not bending over to appeal to the racist voters. Note, one reference did say that the GOP did try a few racist appeals during a mid-term election during the Nixon presidency.
Finally, it should be noted that we are talking about a political topic. What is the motive for many of those who promote the "GOP won the south through appeal to racism" narrative? It would seem obvious that they are trying to taint the political waters. It also appears that they have some success. This is perhaps one of the largest flaws of the article. It seems to take the most negative telling of the narrative as gospel without acknowledging the motives of those who are telling the tail. This is why it's important that the article give space to reliable sources which argue the scope and impact of the claimed southern strategy was not what popular mythology has created. One last thing, I would ask that so long as this is an on going conversation, SD and NS refrain from provocation such as removing the article dispute tag. Getoverpops ( talk) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
Hi all. On Dru yoga there's a whole bunch of new editors making edits that are in my opinion "activist" in nature. The sources added are all cult awareness websites. I re-wrote the Dutch article, after checking on anonymous changes, and then the English one. An extra pair of eyes is always welcome. Honestly, it may just be a cult, though I'm not certain the reliable sources support that enough to put it in the article. Our new colleagues are becoming a bit of a nuisance, since they don't participate on the talk page. Being accused of acting for the Life Foundation I can live with/laugh at. Thanks, Sander1453 ( talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Contentwise resolved by Sammy1339, nice and short. Disruptive editing (imho) continues, by some of the same users, over here and on Dutch Wikipedia, where a CU found a positive match between four of them. Will file an SPI later today, depending: my fellow Dutch admin Natuur12 thinks it's for the stewards. Regards, Sander1453 ( talk) 18:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Once the edit-warring is under control, the article needs reworking, maybe a complete rewrite. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The Ford Pinto article has been the subject of a long-simmering dispute over the amount of weight to give a paper by an attorney who says that the Pinto's dangerous reputation is overblown (and how to interpret that paper, since there's some dispute over what it says and what that means.) There haven't been very many users involved (and most of them only edit the article sporadically), which has, I think, made it somewhat harder to reach a resolution, but you can see a lot of the older discussions on the talk page. Describing the whole controversy is complex, but mostly the issue is that the paper has not been mentioned in many reliable sources (and those that do often seem to refer to it in a way that I feel implies that it's a WP:FRINGE view.) Regardless, it has at times had an entire section of the article devoted to it, been given equal weight in the lead with all alternative views, and so on. The Pinto is a very famous case and has had a huge amount written about it from various perspectives, so I feel that all of this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions and interpretations of a single attorney. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21#Butcher_of_Gujarat discussion going on here there has been alleged canvassing ,edit warring and claims of WP:BLP violation as it redirects to Narendra Modi which in turn is rebutted by claims of WP:RNEUTRAL. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 15:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
User:FacultiesIntact has asked me to review their Draft for the article Honeywell. Their Draft can be found here. They have a COI on the topic and thus would like outside review and implementation of the draft. I've looked it over and it looks fine to me. There has been a significant expansion of the history section and the various divisions of the company. While there has been some minor reformatting of the Environmental record and Criticism sections, no content appears to have been lost, so no issues regarding the COI there.
Can I get some confirmation from 1 or 2 other people that the draft looks good? Then i'll go ahead and implement it. Silver seren C 16:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A Wikipedia administrator inserted a fly-by POV tag into an article. I thought that the POV tag cast doubt on the factual accuracy of the article and so I objected to it. Another editor removed it. The administrator reinstated it, and so on, resulting in an edit war. I took the question of biased use of a POV tag to dispute resolution but that got nowhere because all concerned where attacking each other's POV (not surprisingly in my POV). My straightforward question is, can a POV tag be placed in an article without subtstantiation and, if disputed, for how long and under what circumstances may it remain there?
My question is a general one but should you want background information in this specific case then please see the Giuliano Mignini article, its recent history, and its associated talk page.
Thank you. I want to know. JoeMCMXLVII ( talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I am writing to complain about the lack of neutrality in this article:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
I have posted extensive comments on the article's talk page detailing multiple instances of bias, lack of fairness, and lack of proportion in this piece, but so far, this locked page has not been revised.
I will not repeat all the points that I posted here:
Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
But the main point is this: A wide range of hostile opinions about the organization are quoted, especially in the introduction and the two concluding sections. There are virtually no counterbalancing opinions from outside the organization's leadership, even though it has many, many prominent members and supporters. Also, there is no section currently about the group's rescues of animals from roadside zoos and other sorry facilities where animals are abused incessantly. This is a topic that is far more central to the subject than much of what currently appears on the page. A section that explores the group's substantial impact on changing public opinion and the way that many companies conduct their business would also be extremely appropriate.
Please ensure that this article is brought in line with your standards of neutrality and fairness. 174.22.190.144 ( talk) 21:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Folks from this noticeboard may want to add their two cents at Talk:Indigo children. Thanks! Skyerise ( talk) 16:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A new editor, User:Gregcollins11, has been adding material to this article in what I believe is a violation of NPOV. I tried to explain on his talk page but to no avail. He's referring to two people, a medical doctor and a journalist who is also a senior distinguished fellow at Rosenwald's [{Gatestone Institute]] as "Practicing Muslim scholars and journalists affiliated with the Gatestone Institute" (at least he now makes that clear). However, it is still only 2 people, one not a scholar, and there is no evidence that Khaled Abu Toameh is a practising Muslim so this is a BLP violation. You can see at [42] that he removed the fact that Toameh is a fellow at the GI and that Jasser (whose name he changed in the link so it's now red) received funds from GI. It's still better than his original edit, but as I seem to be the only person commenting and reverting this new editor, rather than edit again I'm bringing it here. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Craig Unger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The section titled "Career" doesn't really discuss the subject's career, but rather a back-and-forth exchange (built on primary sources) between Craig Unger and Michael Isikoff regarding criticism and defense of actions George W. Bush may have taken in regards to the Saudi royal family around the time of 9/11. I'm hoping a fresh set of eyes can take a look at this section and find an appropriately worded title. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Contras are rebels not terrorists and want he TERM REBELS to be used for them further 1973 Chilean coup d'état is not terrorism but a coup.United States support to non-state terrorists has been prominent in Latin America, the Middle-East, and Southern Africa implies that all those mentioned in the article are terrorists which is wrong. Praguegirl ( talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ned Touchstone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm quite concerned about the article on Ned Touchstone. It cites no reliable sources at all, and contains a large number of statements that seem quite biased in favor of Touchstone, including that he published "the most detailed, fact-proven essay on the conspiracy that planned and hid the truth of Kennedy's murder in Dallas" and many similar, some of which seem to defend or explain away Touchstone's inflammatory views on race. Rewriting this article neutrally would require a fair amount of research, which I do not have time to do, unfortunately, so I am at a loss. Chick Bowen 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
An editor has argued for adding to the lead section of this article that Oral Roberts was seen as a "con man", based on a newspaper editorial that used that term. This article has been a subject of contention for a long time. Additional views about the lead, and perhaps about the rest of the article, would be helpful. See Talk:Oral Roberts#This article is a joke. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, if this is all done incorrectly, I've never had to come the the noticeboards before. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to cite specific users or just address the general nature of my concern. If I am supposed to cite specific users, I tried to read the instructions for doing so but don't really understand them. Help on this would be appreciated. I will be more than willing to bring this up to standards if it falls short.
I've notice across several women's suffrage articles ( Women's suffrage, Women's suffrage in Switzerland, Women's suffrage in the United States) the Feminist Portal has attached their sidebar. While I can sympathize with the Feminist portal and what (I believe) they are doing, this seems entirely inappropriate for these articles. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope the discussion of other Wikipedia editors will help resolve this, but it seems to me that any primarily historical article should not be linked in any way to a portal dealing with a political philosophy (another user used the term "ideology") that has obvious and inherent bias.
While I am not accusing members of the Feminist portal of exhibiting any such bias, my assertion is that linking this sidebar to Women's suffrage articles is no more appropriate than linking the Communism sidebar to these articles (while they are separate philosophies, both advocate for women's suffrage). In this, I mean that by including this sidebar in historical articles not directly related to Feminism (such as the history of Feminism itself, or the history of some particular Feminist theory) it colors the article in the same way that linking the Communist, Libertarian, or Anarchist sidebars would; i.e. it implies that the article is told from or related to a certain ideology or a particular political point of view. I believe if we allow the feminist sidebar on this article, we can only maintain WP:NPOV by adding all sidebars of all ideologies that advocate women's suffrage.
I discussed this with another user on the Women's suffrage talk page who effectively stone-walled me and engaged in a revert war until an admin showed up and basically decreed that the sidebar will remain a part of the article. If the community feels this is appropriate and I am being unreasonable, that's fine. I am only here because discussion on this issue seems to have been shut down entirely.
Thank you. A dc zero ( talk) 21:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As an aside (since I think numerous people have covered how centrally feminism and woman's suffrage are connected), what do you mean by 'brigading?' I'm only familiar with the term in two contexts (I believe it's Reddit slang for when people are directed to another reddit or comment to spam it with votes, a common problem when dealing with controversy-heavy or politically-active subreddits; it might also be a reference to the Web brigades employed by Russian government?) Either way it strikes me as a fairly accusatory way to frame a dispute over whether or not a sidebar belongs on an article, and I don't quite see how it applies. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I will not be back here; but posting notice here of my restoration of illicitly-removed POV, ESSAY and SYNTH tags on Chinese Canadians in British Columbia, which were removed almost exactly a month after a non-consensus block was imposed on me for getting in the way of the OWNership and POV behaviour and content created by User:WhisperToMe; and I have added them to his 'new' split of it, Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver, which has all the same problems, which include systemic bias and the scholarly sources fallacy. I argued myself blue in the wiki-face trying to explain all that is wrong with his 'contributions' and his ongoing AGF attitude and got blocked for it by people who refused to read anything I had explained about the POV and SYNTH problems. It's not just these two articles either; he's created others with the same biased tone and soapbox agenda as spin-offs and also on parallel ones like Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and related articles.
He's in violation also of SYNTH and ESSAY and TRIVIA and OWN, but NPOV is policy and per its own wording is not negotiable. It's also laid out in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork that using behavioural guidelines against editors frustrated by POV edit/content disputes is against policy but that's exactlywhat was done to me. The upshot is that the Wikipedian who created vast amounts of British Columbia content was blocked by a newbie int he subject area who did not want to be 'interfered with' and asked for me to be blocked without an ANI so he could 'get on with it'. No don't ask me for edit-links I've wasted too much of my life and energy pandering to instruction creepery and won't be back. but if there are responsible admins and editors out there capable of and willing to undertake reading the arguments since last fall on this page and others he's created (the Indo-Canadians one just one of many; he'd wanted to call it "Asian Indians" and argued against Canadian English irrespective of ENGVAR) then please do; I have no more time for this and was condemned for being 'controversial' and confrontational - but what else to do with lies and distortions and gamesmahship than confront it? Go along with it??
Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia and various links in now-archived sections on my talkpage and around those of the "interfering" admins/editors can be found by reviewing my usercontributions; I will not name them as though they have a lot to do with giving his POV carte blanche as they have done, they each one refused to read anything I said, but listened to anything he said; and condemned me for the length of my talkpage items while ignoring thet length (and illogic and contrarian nature) of his, or of the NOR and RS discussion board 'rants' he engaged in whiel trying to end-run me and not have to address the issues of content I raised.
There was a lot he could have learned from me about BC history and about Chinese history in BC; instead he sought to ahve me blocked to protect thte POV content he was building, and has been allowed. Part of the problem here is also systemic bias as noted, and his own treatment of obscure academic opinions in the course of building POV essays. Note the difference between teh two "Hongcouver" sections on both pages; he may have amended mine, so go back into March to see what I had added to balance the biased, hate-mongering POV tract he composed using single-adjectives condeming the term and/or white people (he uses "White" which is against ENGVAR but he uses cherrypicked sources to do that).
I'm done, done, done; my block happened to end today, but I don't care; Wikipedia has shown itself inept and inadequate in policing its own policies, and too many rankly POV editors are free to game the system including blocking editors who point out their violations of policy.
Maybe there is one editor out there who will take me seriously instead of like the French knights in the Holy Grail, "blow snot in my general direction" as so many have done. Too many.
I should have posted the POV issue here long ago, long before an admin who wouldn't even research the background to the dispute singled me out as the problem without ever lifting a finger to understand or read up on the content.
Maybe one of you will. I doubt it, but I'm posting this as 'one last try' to see if there is any decency left here. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS has been used to condemn my responses to; but that essay doesn't mean that great wrongs should bd perpetrated much less mollycoddled and encouraged. There are other POV disputes out there I could have posted about in the past, I have never come here before with any; I dislike the wiki-bureaucracy, being so much victimized and harassed by it.
So many specific lines in WP:NPOV and WP:POV fork have been violated that it would take all day to write them out, nevefr mind find the diffs to demonstrate them; but my provision of cites and sources were all ignored too, and anything I said; so looking up diffs that will also be ignored seems pointless; read the Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia talkpage and 'listen up'. If you don't, don't fire in my general direction, I don't care; but someone here should. Skookum1 ( talk) 02:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Unrelated to the immediately preceding section that I started, FYI, there's an RFC here about whether to summarize each present political position (of candidate Jeb Bush) before giving a chronological discussion of how that position may have evolved or changed over the years. I'm mentioning this RFC here because there are weighting issues, such as whether to give primary placement to views that are the most outdated. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Getoverpops has recently returned from a one-month topic ban after failing to get consensus for proposed changes to Southern strategy aimed at discrediting the idea that the GOP made appeals to racism in order to win over Southern white voters who were disaffected by the civil rights movement. The relevant discussions are here and here. After coming back from the break he has several more sources which may support his position. I'm trying to give the subject a fair treatment, however, it's just too much for me to read and I am not an expert. This could use more eyes. The affected articles are Southern strategy, Southernization, and Solid South. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Here is the RfC. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Having looked over the edit in question as well as the relevant discussion, I agree with Flyt35 that that text is unnecessary, poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Suppose Wikipedian "A" says that NPOV requires treating reliable sources according to their prominence, but Wikipedian "B" says that the degree of reliability should also impact how reliable sources are treated. What is the proper response to Wikipedian "B"? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I am also a bit concerned about
David Eppstein's ability to maintain an NPOV in this situation. The reason for this is the his comment "...insisting on adding a long paragraph based on a Wall Street Journal editorial to our article..."
[43] (emp. mine). This declaration of
ownership is in the same edit where he tries to justify exclusion of content because he says the Wall Street Journal is
WP:FRINGE. The WSJ may have gone through the looking-glass in the last decade or so but it is still considered a respectable mainstream paper and calling it
WP:FRINGE is not supportable.
The current version of the article at this time seems OK with the exception of the NY Magazine bit I noted above. Jbh Talk 14:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, since obviously the commentary above is based on the specific case, and others here may wonder, it is: Talk:When contact changes minds. In a nutshell, we have a case about a technical issue (a case of academic dishonesty) that has been used as the jumping-off point for at least one prominent editorial by a group with no particular expertise in this subject. Because of the lack of expertise, this editorial makes some obvious mistakes in its description of what happened and jumps to some unlikely conclusions about why it happened. We also have a reliable but less-prominently-published editorial pointing all of this out and offering a more likely explanation. Factchecker and friends want to use NPOV as a cudgel, to include these sources "in proportion to their prominence", which is to say to include much of the uninformed editorial but significantly cut back its refutation. Is this an appropriate reading of policy? Additionally, Factchecker seems to be unwilling to accept reasoned argument for why one source might be presenting a more accurate view of the case, instead repeatedly insisting that the only bases for choice among sources is prominence and mischaracterizing all argument to the contrary as being purely personal preference. Obviously, NPOV favors prominence and disallows personal preference, but does NPOV require us to blindly ignore all other characteristics of a source (such as how mistake-ridden it might be, how much sourced criticism it has come under, or how plausible it is) and use only prominence as the criterion when choosing editorial opinions to include in an article? — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
"more likely explanation"does not make it so. My issue with the NY Mag piece is that it is an article about the WSJ piece and it seems to be used only to call the WSJ piece "silly". This is quite simply POV. If the article has something useful to say about the subject that is not covered elsewhere fine if not it should go. It would also be possible to use it in a section dedicated to the social and political fall-out of the misconduct but as a source for an inappropriate one-liner with no context it fails NPOV. Jbh Talk 17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there is some nuance between why the article was published by Science and why the press and others latched on to the purported results. In my opinion that is pretty important. There is a huge difference between how right-wing ideologues, scientists and "normal" people consider science, evidence and the purpose and results of scientific investigation. This article is not the place to go into that in detail but that difference needs to be recognized when we consider media reactions and how to balance viewpoints. It is key to remember that much of the population does not understand science, and so many people now think that ideology trumps facts that they are starting to make it so. Where we are writing about public reactions those people's point of view matters too. Jbh Talk 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I sourced the following:
to this reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996900000673
which states:
another review that says the same thing is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.12073/full
which states:
It was reverted as being a violation of NPOV. I wanted to get the views of a wider group of editors. Thanks, petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Alexbrn here and also the comments at the article Talk page
here that
this edit Alex made, changing the wording to the tea was highly valued because it was thought to be an "energizing" and "detoxifying" agent
solves the problem.
Zad
68
02:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and advice. Hugh ( talk) 05:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Current article content of the Founding and growth section of article Americans for Prosperity :
The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries.
(Supported by multiple, highly reliable source references.)
Proposed additional clause shown in bold:
The founding of AFP was funded by businessmen and philanthropist brothers David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the U.S.
Supported by reference already in the article (no new refs needed):
The charitable arm of David Koch, the more overtly and actively libertarian brother of Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately held energy company in the nation, shows up as a significant funder of Americans for Prosperity, though the number here understates its importance to the organization.emphasis added
Talk page discussion: Koch Industries is the largest privately held energy company in the US, owned by the founders of the subject of this article
Our manual of style at WP:LINKSTYLE says "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so", "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence," and "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all."
Koch Industries is not a household word. Every reliable source that mentions Koch Industries includes at least a few words of description, and usually more, see for example:
With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country...So far in 2010, Koch Industries leads all other energy companies in political contributions, as it has since 2006.
The environmental impact of the Koch family is not entirely an abstract question. Koch Industries is the second-largest private company in the country, and its holdings include oil refineries, oil-services companies and one of the nation's biggest fertilizer manufacturers.
Multiple reliable sources even report one of the owners of Koch Industries stating the obscurity of Koch Industries, see for example:
In time, his family's business became the largest private concern in the U.S., if not the world. "My joke is that we're the biggest company you've never heard of," Koch says.
"...Kansas-based Koch Industries. It operates oil refineries, makes chemicals and asphalt, controls pipelines and owns a wide range of consumer products, including Stainmaster carpet and Angel Soft toilet paper..."My joke is that we're the biggest company you've never heard of," David Koch said in a 2008 interview
Summarizing arguments in opposition of inclusion: Some editors seem to be invoking WP:UNDUE in support of the position that while we may mention in the article that David and Charles Koch, the founders of the subject of the article, are from Koch Industries, it is non-neutral to offer our readers any context, even to the extent of including a very few neutral words on first mention saying what Koch Industries is, and that the appropriate level of detail with respect to the nature of Koch Industries is none. Some editors express the view that a wikilink is sufficient context.
Collaborative work-shopping on the consensus wording of a brief, neutral, in-text definition of Koch Industries is currently stymied by a misapplication of WP:NPOV to frustrate compliance with our manual of style WP:LINKSTYLE and clarity.
I am seeking comment from editors experienced with WP:NPOV issues, less on the precise wording, but rather on whether:
Thank you for your attention. Hugh ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Hugh cannot accuse anyone of NPOV issues on these pages. DaltonCastle ( talk) 21:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest creating a distinct subsection of the article that neutrally but explicitly treats the apparently controversial relationship or lack of relationship between these organizations. That would be better than lots of MOS-based proxy disputes all over the article. Rhoark ( talk) 21:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, if people wanted to know more about the Koch Industries page, they can read about it there. The content proposed to be added does not speak directly about the organization Americans for Prosperity. While the Koch brothers maybe part of the organization, the company Koch Industries are not. Therefore I agree with Arthur Rubin on his assessment that additional information about the Koch brothers, and their companies in this article would fall under WP:COATRACK.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Obvious coatrack. Even without the issue of Koch Industries and David Koch not being the same thing, clearly the choice of "...the largest privately held energy company in the U.S." and not "...the largest privately held paper manufacturer in the U.S." (Unless I got my numbers wrong in my quick search. both are true statements), is clearly designed to put Americans for Prosperity in a particular light. And mentioning the some supporters of a political organization will gain financially if the organization achieves its goals clearly fails NPOV. Name a political organization that accepts donations where this is not true. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, Please forgive me if this is not the right place for this question. I'm not that experienced in the Neutral POV rules and I've come here to ask for information after not finding what I wanted to know on the Help pages.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/TransPerfect-Reviews-E32824.htm
Edward Snowden could use more eyes. There is an longstanding, ongoing dispute scattered across many discussions about whether the lead section is neutral and what specific material should be included or excluded. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope there are some knowledgeable editors here who are willing to have a look at these two articles, which read like promotional pieces and have, besides tone, other serious problems with sourcing, much of which is from primary or otherwise associated/COI sources. Have a look at the history. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The Israel Defense Forces article is bias and not neutral because it focuses on positive sides of the topic .To ensure the article is neutral i added links to other articles that are directly related to the subject .These links have been removed. the diff is : Line 703:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq Fadel ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 June 2015
So... there is apparently a group called Stop Educational Discrimination Against Iranians (SEDAI) and they have come to Wikipedia to advocate with regard to their issue. Orland, Nicky mathew have been trying to work with them. I've also left messages for all the editors listed above that Wikipedia is not a place for SOAPBOXing or campaigns of any kind. I just wanted to make sure the wider community is aware of this nest of advocacy and to get more eyes on the articles and deletion discussions, and make sure the people listed above can come here and get wider community feedback - this isn't personal. Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 02:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a disagreement as to whether the the UNHRC's rebuttal of the Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry (the Palmer Report) on the Gaza Flotilla Raid should be removed from the lead.
Currently the UNHRC's rebuttal ( http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 - note that the term "UN Independent Experts" is how the UNHRC describes individuals working on its behalf) is included as a rebuttal of the Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry. However rebuttals of the UNHRC's report (from the United States and the European Union) have all been removed from the lead leaving a situation in which one "side" is permitted to have rebuttals in the lead, and the other is not. It is my opinion that all rebuttals should be moved to the relevant body paragraphs as they clutter up the lead, but to have rebuttals of one report and not the other in the lead is POV. Drsmoo ( talk) 21:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The UNHRC later also set up a panel of five human rights experts to examine the conclusions of the Palmer report. The panel stated that Israel's blockade of Gaza amounted to collective punishment and was unlawful.
On the talk page I found Talk:Detroit_Public_Schools#Snippet_on_charter_schools where an IP editor believes that the section on University Prep High School in the article Detroit Public Schools "reads as an ad". He made it back in 2013 and maybe things changed since then, but it would be nice if somebody can review it.
Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello all,
There's a disagreement about whether our article on
Kosovo belongs in
Category:Countries in Europe. Like most Kosovo NPOV problems, the usual people on each side have said their piece and we've ground to a halt. Outside views would be very welcome. Any suggestions?
bobrayner (
talk) 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Bobrainer has been for long time a partisan promoter of Kosovo independence on Wikipedia articles and his intentional unwillingness to understand the complexity is disruptive.
— User:FkpCascais
Yes, escape... You don't have any maps or articles because Albania was never big or shrinked or blabla... You just talk bullshit, go to school pal and learn some history. Good bye you nationalist dreamer and keep on hating Serbs, good for you, do whatever. If something shrinked it was not Albania for sure, but your brain...
— User:FkpCascais
One sincere question: you are so partisan allways about it, are you being payed for editing Kosovo subjects just the way Albanian nationalist want? Because if you are you should step out of this subjects right away.
— User:FkpCascais
I agree with Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe being in violation of NPOV. Many editors aspire to elevate Kosovo's independence status to equal with Romania or Germany, but that category is not the place to begin. If we cannot agree that the opening line should be "Kosovo is a country" for any reason then it is illogical to follow suit with other listings. For example, attempting an indirect precedent on a category page is like moving Kosovo from the second list to the first at Template:Vehicle registration plates of Europe. It would be pointless to do that unless you moved them all and abolished the "States with limited recognition" cell. -- Vrhunski ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Could it please be noted by contributors/editors that Bobrayner has requested input on the relevant article's talk page, not for subjective arguments to be conducted on this noticeboard. Relevant policy and guideline based discussions would be appreciated in the appropriate venue as opposed to spreading deliberations across various Wikipedia venues. Thank you. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone should notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise about this discussion. Anyway, I think this is a no-brainer. Yes, Kosovo is a country in Europe. That's how various international organizations, like the World Bank classify it. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I've read WP:OTHERSTUFF so you don't need to fix the broken link. This one is on the knife edge. We've already established things need to be looked into case by case. But all parties are guilty of introducing OTHERSTUFF elements to the discussion (mainly at Talk:Kosovo, not here). I have likened Kosovo to the other entities featured in this list, those to support the category have been providing comparison with entities in that list. One need only see for himself where Kosovo lies, therefore to suddenly grind it into top level over all else (particularly of all on account of sources from recognising bodies) truly returns us to the seminal question, does the category violate NPOV?. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem we have here is that we are talking about a category, not a passage, template, infobox or caption note. This is probably the one thing for which neutrality is in all honesty impossible. In the aforementioned circumstances, editors from two sides of a dispute have the freedom to dress the presentation so that all aspects are observed. For instance in mainspace there is the option of the Kosovo note template to reflect parity. But a category, well either it is there or it is not, sadly there is no middle road. In this case, the "reliable source" is taken by its subscribers to serve as some kind of trump card that ranks higher than all disputes, impartiality and objective editing. Yet if it were that simple, if an acknowledgement from the website of an organisation that has admitted the subject as a member was so reliable as to be conclusive then there would have been no dispute from editors because there would have been no dispute from the real life players. The governments of Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Belarus would only need to be delivered a reference from the source and all would realise they were wrong to refuse recognition and would subsequently reverse their positions. We would never have articles such as Kosovo status process, International recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Steering Group for Kosovo, Ahtisaari Plan and Brussels Agreement (2013) if it were that simple as to behave in such a way as to ignore the problem. You do not have anything like this for South Sudan yet that country broke away three years after Kosovo. Curiously, this conversation is happening on the NPOV noticeboard though I'd question whether the OP has ever read the conditions. Per WP:WIKIVOICE (which would without doubt define a category listing since it is inflexible), there is one essential point relevant to this debate (the rest largely pertain to mainspace writing but even they could be said to be relevant):
"Category" is mentioned once in WP:WEIGHT and this says:
Obviously there are no competing views since even a source to refer to Kosovo or Somaliland as "a country" would not do so in a way that would not address the wider issues of the dispute were they to be extended articles rather than fact-boxes.
So if 80 world states continue to recognise Kosovo as subject to Serbian territorial integrity, that cannot be classed as WP:FRINGE. As such, reliable sources do indeed cite the divided opinion over what Kosovo is according to which party. So I say finally, I have seen many editors accused of "Serbian nationalist fantasy" for their opposition to this category, and yet nobody has these past two months inserted, or proposed to include Kosovo in Category:Autonomous provinces of Serbia alongside Vojvodina, and this is the polar opposite to the country category.
Now you'll realise that balancing the scales is impossible and not simply down to the words of a source. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note to clarify that the matter is resolved. I as main opponent of the category have amended my position based partly on the discussions at Talk:Kosovo and partly on other examples as set on other articles. I believe this conversation can now be archived to make space for the newer issues. Regards to all. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Opinions were sought here over whether wording within a reliable source warranted Kosovo's inclusion in Category:Countries in Europe. Arguments to oppose the inclusion were based on the practice across the site where other partially recognised disputed territories were concerned. Arguments, or should I say, the argument for inclusion of the category on the article rested solely on the source. Accepting the high figure of states recognising Kosovo (which is actually what led to the source in question, rather than the source being a conclusive reference) coupled with the realisation that other entities with slightly higher or lower recognition (and to some extent disputed territories also) had contained their relative Countries in categories, I stumbled across the rival entity Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija only to find it was drafted in asymmetrical contrast to Kosovo. I edited the article as best I could to rephrase the dubious lede and then proceeded to boldly restore the category I originally opposed, but only after consulting two or three of the editors to originally oppose the category. None objected. I believe that is the core explanation less the usual insults thrown about! :))) -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per Wikipedia:SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The article on Disqus may have been targeted to increase the amount of criticism in it. Currently, Disqus#Criticism and privacy concerns is abnormally long compared to the rest of the article.
Some groups of edits in time gone past, featuring lots of IPs and (at a brief check) possible SPAs:
Perhaps I'm making this overblown, but it seems a bit suspicious to me.
— George8211 / T 14:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Would somebody please look over the recent actions regarding the article Proposals for a Palestinian state's former grammo/typo prone biased lead section (yes, that includes my actions ;) Why? I feel that a non-legitimate edit war accusation was forced on me through an involved non-contributing (probably uncivil) editor. I am calm and am open for constructive critiques, though. Plus, I feel that the two-sidedness of the article was not addressed properly, what I had documented in the ongoing TP discussion. I do not edit war and am not a vandal! There already is a constructive coop in effect between 3 contributing editors. Thank you for your help -- Miraclexix ( talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)