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.

Hi all.

Can anybody here point me at a Wikipedia discussion page that can assist me? I'm not sure that this page is the right place, so please excuse me if this question is better asked elsewhere.

I was looking for information about a particular food brand and discovered that about 40% of the main article for the brand name was about how the brand is the subject of a boycott. Although the boycott itself (which includes much more than just this one brand) is worth its own Wikipedia page, I didn't think that devoting 40% of an article about a brand to a single (much larger) boycott effort was NPOV in terms of weight. For example, the reason that I looked at the page in the first place was to see if the page listed products and different flavors - none of which were listed.

Since I'm not a frequent editor (and I have never edited this article before), I figured I would try asking for guidance first. No, I haven't tried asking on the article's talk page, at least partly because this article doesn't really have anything on the talk page, and isn't frequently edited.

Help please? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techielaw ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you indicate which article it is that you're having problems with? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Sabra_(company) article and the reference to Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions that takes up 40% of the article. I'm sure that Israel/Palestine issues are a frequent edit-war issue, so I would really appreciate some feedback about the best way to approach this. Techielaw ( talk) 06:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced material that seemed to be WP:COATRACK. Adding material about specific products, especially using Sabra itself as a source, would be promotional and undue - except if any secondary sources have written about the product's culinary or cultural noteworthiness. Rhoark ( talk) 00:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Rhoark. I'd only just found a little time to investigate this further, and am in agreement with your evaluation and changes to the Sabra (company) article. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the WP:COATRACK - this provides some context for my concerns. I still have some concerns about the balance in this article. Since both of you seem interested in resolving, would it be better to move this discussion to the talk page of the article itself, so that we can continue editing there? Techielaw ( talk) 05:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The phrase on page Greece "Greece is a democratic and developed country with an advanced high-income economy, a high quality of life and a very high standard of living" is misleading not reflection the facts in current situation. I strongly recommend an update for it. --OnlyTheTruth 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantikadam ( talk • contribs)

Well... a lot depends on what we are comparing it to. Even with all its problems, Greece certainly has an advanced high-income economy, a high quality of life and a very high standard of living compared to the economy, quality of life and standard of living of (say) Somalia. Blueboar ( talk) 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Article: Americans for Prosperity, also covers the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

Content:

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group.

Sources:

1. Vogel, Kenneth P. (May 9, 2014). "Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity plans $125 million spending spree". Politico. Retrieved May 6, 2015. The Koch brothers' main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties' congressional campaign arms.
2. Goldman, Andrew (July 25, 2010). "The Billionaire's Party: David Koch is New York's second-richest man, a celebrated patron of the arts, and the tea party's wallet". New York magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2015. In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch's primary political-advocacy group. {{ cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= ( help)
3. Beckel, Michael (September 4, 2014). "The Kochs' Political Ad Machine". Slate. Retrieved April 20, 2015. In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. {{ cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored ( help)
4. Kroll, Andy (November 6, 2014). "2014: The Year of Koch". Mother Jones. Retrieved May 9, 2015. The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day.

Talk-page discussions:

1. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Conflicting accounts
2. Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Americans for Prosperity is the Koch's primary political advocacy group

A version of this content was added in March, 2015, collaboratively work-shopped on talk, please see Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity#Conflicting_accounts. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough for inclusion, and strong enough to support WP voice, making in-text attribution unnecessary. This content was recently 23 June deleted with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality" by user Onel5969 as a small part of major, undiscussed content blanking. Recent commentary at WP:RSN also supported WP voice. I am currently seeking comments on the neutrality of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references, and the neutrality of inclusion. Thank you in advance for your time. Hugh ( talk) 18:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on talk page was not for inclusion. HughD's campaigning and forum shopping seem to be paying off for him. There was no content blanking, but there was a reorganization of the article, and editing to bring the article more in line with an NPOV status. An edit which had received consensus, until Hugh's campaigning tactics (posted discussions about this article on at least 8 different forums, seeking to push his POV). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff to the content blanking and reliable source purge, including section blanking of the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, by user Onel5969 on 23 June: [1]. This is not a behavioral report; seeking comment on the neutrality of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references, and the neutrality of inclusion. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 19:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV requires that we present the content of the article as the reliable sources present it. The tight connection between the Koch's and AFP is one of the essential features of almost every discussion of AfP and for our article to minimize the connections is, per policy, unacceptable and non negotiable even if there were a "local consensus" to try to whitewash the connections. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Is HughD forum shopping or is Onel5969 whitewashing? Zoidberg says, "Why not both?" I see in the large diff HughD provided seems to have replaced one POV with the other POV. For the single edit that was the basis of this thread, I echo Red Pen. Neutrality doesn't consist of sweeping criticism under the rug. Rhoark ( talk) 23:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. "seems to have replaced one POV with the other POV" When one of two alternative edits of an article does not fairly summarize reliable sources then they are not equivalent. The purged content, including the relationship with the Kochs and the "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, was not criticism, it was neutral. Please tell Zoidberg asking for help at a notice board, when the "local consensus" tries to override a pillar, is not forum shopping, it is a reasonable, considered, legitimate dispute resolution step. Thank you again. Hugh ( talk) 15:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The "Transparency" and "Funding" sections were a good example of "blackwashing", including opinions in Wikipedia's voice, and containing synthesis by adjacency. The one sentence seems appropriate, although all the sources state that they are biased against the organizations, or quote sources which state that they are biased against the organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"The one sentence seems appropriate" Thank you for your support. This thread is for discussion of the above proposed content. Your comments about other deleted article content are not appropriate here. Thank you again. Hugh ( talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The articles clearly support the claim and it merits inclusion into the Wikipedia article. I was on the fence about including a comment of the size of Koch Industries in the previous noticeboard discussion, but this one is straight forward. Scoobydunk ( talk) 18:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• The articles are strong enough to include in the WP entry. Having looked at the talk page it seems there is a lot of back and forth as to how the information is presented and where it should be in the article. If there are articles which conflict with the above sources then both should be presented as conflicting points of view. I would say the information should be included but how has not been resolved. Springee ( talk) 15:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is later than I wanted to because I lost the original comment difference, but I've found it.

User:OldSkool01 I believe has violated WP:NPOV by manipulating an otherwise reliable source in Wrestling Observer. He has done this by emailing Dave Meltzer directly asking for a response to the anecdotally proven claim that Global Warning was shown on pay per view in south east Asia. Here is the notice he gave that he would do so. "I have an e-mail out to Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer, as well as Mike Johnson of PWInsider asking to confirm on their respective sites that this show did not air on PPV."

On that page you would notice that I advised that the conversation should be taking place on the then existing WWE Global Warning page. The page was deleted so I can't show what I said in response to that, but I can say that I told him he shouldn't have done that and I attempted to head it off in similar terms. I can advise that I was successful with Mike Johnson, as he laughed off something that happened "a million years ago" (his words). This was the correct reaction so no harm was done. In the case of Meltzer however the result was a manipulated source that Old Skool used to shut down the debate over whether or not the event was shown on pay per view. [2]

This source is essential to back up other sources he uses, one from a fan (published by Meltzer), two from WWE corporate, while on the talk page of the current location of the Global Warning, Professional wrestling in Australia he mentions two more from PWTorch. With the exception of WWE Corporate they were from archive.org - which isn't an issue. What is an issue is that none of those sources by themselves explicitly state that the event wasn't on pay per view. And why would they? One is a live report and the others - including WWE Corporate - are American based. Pro Fight DB on the other hand (and formerly Cage Match until that disappeared in suspicious circumstances at almost exactly the same time as Meltzer's comment appeared as per above) stated that it was a pay per view and I used some other sources that make the claim as well. Each of them were ruled by a non admin as unreliable. [3] [4] [5]. There are two others as well but for reasons unknown they are blacklisted. TVRage and TheMovieDB.

Combine this with at least three people (myself included) who through OR - yes I know that's not allowed but it serves as back up only to the above links - know that it was one pay per view. Only one, TombstoneRide, has said nothing specific. An IP who edited Professional Wrestling in Australia claimed it was shown in Vietnam - IMO likely through a pirate feed which there were a lot of in the region back in 2002. Personally I was at the event and I vividly remember Tony Chimel saying before the show started that it was on pay per view in south east Asia and gave notice that the intro of the show would be PPV style for this reason - so make some noise (I think the reliable sources say that last bit was said at least and that's why). I am of the view that OldSkool01 has been obsessing over this for a long time and has been trying to shut it down without a smoking gun. The key issue here is that he manipulated Dave Meltzer creating the source he claims is the smoking gun. Because of the manipulation of a reliable, I believe that this source should be rules out of order under WP:NPOV and that my edit here should stand, without the Cage Match reference of course and with the other sources mentioned above. I am trying to find a smoking gun at my end, but publications are hard to find in south east Asia particularly from Australia. It's likely going to be hardcopy and not online if I'm right about where the smoking gun may be. The bottom line though is that neutrality on the basis of evidence needs to be maintained, and OldSkool via manipulation has violated that neutrality. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have absolutely nothing new to add to what Curse of Fenric already stated here. All of the evidence speaks for itself. Until he finds that elusive smoking gun, there is nothing to argue here. OldSkool01 ( talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This link right here... http://www.pwwew.net/ppv/wwf/australia.htm is one of the links you provided above. You really should read those sources first before you link them. That site is yet another report from a fan that was there live who acknowledges that this was NOT televised live! How did you not notice that? So that makes 2 links(in addition to the many others) from a fan's perspective who was there live that mentions it not airing live. OldSkool01 ( talk) 09:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Look at the actual URL - what is that after pwwew.net? What does it stand for? The link supports me, not you. No more discussion. We need an admin here to make a judgment on your manipulation, which in effect you have admitted to by not contesting my comments of events. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• The URL says one thing, but what's written in the actual link says another. I also listened to that podcast you linked to. The 2 guys reviewing Global Warning(this podcast was 12 years after the event happened) are watching the DVD and they note that they did research and they can't find one single report anywhere from one single person who actually watched it on PPV. And they question if it did actually air on PPV later in the podcast. As far as me contesting any of your claims, you told the admins to check out all the links that I've provided and to read all the convos we've had. Those convos and all those links speak for themselves. Just to make it easier for the admins, here are the convos/debates that we had over the last couple of weeks. The first one is on my user talk page... /info/en/?search=User_talk:OldSkool01 and the second one is on the talk page of Professional Wrestling In Australia under the Global Warning section... /info/en/?search=Talk:Professional_wrestling_in_Australia The admins can read everything that was said and check out all the links/sources/references for themselves to make a decision. OldSkool01 ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Way to prove me right. You're trying to divert away from your manipulation. You have no NPOV, and I note from the history of this page that you've been called a bully. I disagree with the removal of your commentary because it should stay as proof that you are exactly that while "debating" this issue. That's all I need to add. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• And now I'm a bully? This is not the first time you've called me names. I was accused of being uncivil, yet other people continue with the name calling and making false accusations towards me. I've done nothing, but continue to stay on the point of what this whole debate is about. It's all about deciding whether or not WWE Global Warning did or did not air on PPV somewhere in the world. That's it. That's what all this is about. Nothing more. We'll let the admins look at all the facts that have been presented and they'll make a decision on whether it was or it was not. OldSkool01 ( talk) 03:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note to the admins - this is about whether or not OldSkool01 manipulated a source, not whether or not Global Warning was shown on pay per view live anywhere. The latter is background only and all associated points made by him are diversions from the root issue. For the record, diverting and/or distracting from the root issue is typical of a bully. That is all. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 07:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again with the name calling. If this isn't about Global Warning then why is this section called "WWE Global Warning Issue"? That's very confusing. It should be called "Source Manipulating Issue". And with that all said, I still stand by my point on the manipulating issue that I did not manipulate a source. Asking a source a direct question is well within my rights. OldSkool01 ( talk) 10:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I say it's not within your rights, and the title is not confusing. Keep deflecting - it makes you look more guilty every time you do it. Bye. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 11:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate admin help here to sort this out once and for all, thanks. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 02:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

How does one get the attention of an admin here? This is rather important. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 07:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Curse of Fenric: This is not an administrators' noticeboard. This is simply a forum used by editors to discuss NPOV concerns. I am unfamiliar with the general topic, but an email by a WP editor to someone does not count as a reliable source. I do not have an opinion about wider matters.

If you have issues with the conduct of a user and want the community (not just an admin) to look at it, you need to use WP:ANI. It is a very chaotic and unforgiving place, mind you. I would urge you to read the essay (not policy) Wikipedia:ANI_advice before taking such a step. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 08:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This article does not describe the organization of which I and many other democratic socialists of my acquaintance were members. I fear that the sources used are either not neutral, or are being cherry-picked to exaggerate the radicalism of the group. As a former member, of course, I can only make this observation and ask for some eyes on it. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there recommended NPOV refs we should look at? Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It would defently help if you can post reliable sources that counter the existing sources and how they are better than what we have now. Also, it would be helpful if concrete examples of how specific sources are misused can be presented.-- 69.157.254.210 ( talk) 05:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an issue that has been causing different editions and reversions in the article Venezuela. As stated in the article, "Venezuela also claims all Guyanese territory west of the Essequibo River, a 159,500-square-kilometre (61,583 sq mi) tract dubbed Guayana Esequiba or the Zona en Reclamación (the "zone being reclaimed")".

That claim has also been acknowledged on a treaty signed in 1966 by the interested parties: Venezuela, the United Kingdom and the then government of British Guiana (now Guyana), countries that have been involved in discussions supported by the good offices of a United Nations' Secretary General representative over decades. Venezuela official maps show this territory as belonging to Venezuela or, at least, as claimed territory. The United Nations website published the text of the above mentioned Agreement here. I notice that Wikipedia shows the claimed territories on the maps of other countries, such as Argentina, China, Chile, Morocco, India, Pakistan and so on.

There is a map of Venezuela here in Wikipedia which includes the claimed territory. That map was proposed to be erased but the result of that discussion was that the map shouldn't be erased since it fully complies with the NPOV policy. Nevertheless, the above mentioned map has been repeatedly removed from the article Venezuela by some users in order to enforce the Venezuelan map that does not show the claimed territory, arguing that the map with the claimed territory in light green violated the NPOV policy by "reflecting a Venezuelan poing of view". There have been several discussions on the talk page of the article about this problem, here, here, here and here.

In order to solve this recurrent and old problem, I'm looking for your assistance to receive a valuable opinion. My humble opinion is that the article must show the map with the claimed territory, since that claim is a formal one that is supported by a Treaty signed by all the parties involved, and also backed by the fact that the parties have been trying to solve the issue using the means of pacific settlement of disputes under a United Nations diplomatic process. In my opinion, what is contrary to the NPOV policy is to show the map without the claimed territory, since that way one would be supporting the position of some guyanese people (although, in fact, the State of Guyana abides by the above mentioned treaty). It is important to note that the map with the claimed territory is not saying that the territory is Venezuelan, but only that Venezuela has a claim over it. Hence, there's no violation of the NPOV policy here.

Also, if we are going to dismiss this claim by showing the map without the claimed territory, we would have to do the same with all the other maps that show the same (Argentina, Chile, China, Morocco, Taiwan, Cyprus, Israel, India, Pakistan, Sudan and similarly with all the cases of territorial disputes listed here. We have also this map Wikipedia uses in the article List of territorial disputes, which clearly notes the region claimed by Venezuela as a disputed territory.

I hope I can get your opinion soon, since this issue has also brought lots of problems in the Spanish version of Wikipedia, generating this huge, long discussion over it. The valuable opinion of people from the Wikipedia in English might bring some light and clarify what we must do in the end.

Regards, -- Hiddendaemian ( talk) 10:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Centpacrr: Would anybody mind having some input on this matter? This revision has: "With the completion of voting on the referendum (which the Government claimed had been approved by a "98.79% 'Yes' vote""

• One Wikipedian's position is that the New York Times article ("Hitler gets biggest vote: Many blanks counted in, 542,953 are invalidated." New York Times, March 30, 1936.) has shown evidence that Hitler's count is lying ( See talk page) so the article should say that "the government claimed" and that saying "the government stated" would bring a connotation that the German government was telling the truth.
• My position is that the use of "claimed" is sneaky and evasive: "claimed" has connotations that one side is lying, but the word doesn't technically mean that, so it is an underhanded way of saying the government is lying. Instead there should be a direct statement such as "the German government says one thing, the New York Times says the German government is lying because of this evidence and TIME magazine says the German is lying because of this evidence." or "the New York Times stated there is evidence of a lie because..." - something to that effect (if it's not directly germane to the topic it can be explained in a footnote)

The Wikipedian posted extracts from TIME and New York Times stories that show evidence of the German government lying: User_talk:Centpacrr#.22stated.22_vs._.22claimed.22. That does not change my belief that "stated" should be used. Instead I believe there should be a footnote that explains that TIME and New York Times stated that the German government was lying. WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See my earlier comments on this issue here. As I pointed out there, the use of the verb "claimed" (which means an "assertion") as opposed to "stated" is not "sneaky and evasive" or is it "underhanded" and I would appreciate it if you would cease falsely referring to it as such and instead at least assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Instead it accurately reflects the two March and April, 1936 news articles (New York Times and TIME Magazine) that I cited as sources. Dictatorships such as that of the NSDAP which controlled Germany in 1936 have universally held faux elections, referenda and plebiscites for show that they manipulate to achieve false results which they then claim to represent virtually universal (98%+) approval. This is a well known tactic of such governments for propaganda purposes in an attempt to feign democratic legitimacy. (See for instance further discussion of this issue in 2011 the book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" Ralph Jessen, Hedwig Richter, Editors (Frankfurt: Campus Verlag GmBH), and especially two of the papers contained therein entitled: "Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban.) To ignore this reality of how dictatorships customarily conduct "elections" in the false name of "neutrality" does not promote neutrality at all, but instead introduces an element of misleading POV itself. Centpacrr ( talk) 07:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM says that we should be careful with such words as "claimed", but it does not say that they should not be used. Generalised opinions about the dishonesty of dictators, however, should not be the criteria by which we make judgements. We should be looking at what historians say about this specific plebiscite. However, this is an article on the LZ 129 Hindenburg. The plebiscite is just mentioned in passing. Frankly, I see very little difference between stated and claimed in this instance. Paul B ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term "claimed" is not based on the "generalized opinions about the dishonesty of dictators", but on the information included about this specific 1936 plebiscite in the news accounts by the New York Times and TIME, the two sources cited. Why this is such a matter of concern to this thread's OP that he felt obliged to change this long standing text is a puzzlement to me. Centpacrr ( talk) 11:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are not good sources. They are journalistic responses at the time - primary sources. We should be using the views of specialist scholars, not quoting primary-source journalism. As for the OP, he has stated (or perhaps claimed) that he wants to eliminate the word 'claimed' from Wikipedia, which is not an aspiration supported by policy. Paul B ( talk) 12:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While I do not agree that the 1936 New York Times and TIME accounts are "not good sources" simply because they are contemporary to the event, if you will look above you will see that I have already cited in this thread two such recent scholarly papers that are included in the 2011 book "Voting for Hitler and Stalin: Elections Under 20th Century Dictatorships" ("Elections in Modern Dictatorships: Some Analytical Considerations" by Werner J. Patzelt, and "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban) that directly address and support the use of the term "claimed" in relation to Die Reichstagswahl vom 29. März 1936 in its context here. If the OP of this thread is in fact on some sort of personal campaign against policy to eliminate the word "claimed" from WP that seems to me to be a troubling endeavor -- especially for a sysop who should really know better. That would also seem to explain why he keeps using such inappropriate and intemperate terms as "sneaky", "evasive", and "underhanded" to describe its use by his fellow editors. Centpacrr ( talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You referred to those sources, but did not say how they support the word 'claimed' specifically. Most sources I am aware of take the view that the reoccupation of the Rhineland (the main subject of plebiscite) was extremely popular, and that the plebiscite genuinely reflected that, even though the approval figures were almost certainly exaggerated. However, the precise ins-and-outs of the referendum are not relevant to an article on the Hindenburg. As I oppose the Orwellian aspiration to eliminate any word altogether, I see no problem with either word in this case. Paul B ( talk) 12:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the claimed excuse to the March 29, 1936 plebiscite was to justify the the reoccupation of the Rhineland three weeks earlier, the ballot made no mention whatsoever of that but instead was designed to turn the membership of the Reichstag entirely over to the NSDAP. I addressed the specific issue of why the cited sources support "claimed" over "stated" earlier in a thread on my talk page here. Centpacrr ( talk) 13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time you linked to an open edit on your talk page. The link should be to a diff or section (but since there only is one section, just User_talk:Centpacrr will suffice). However, what you says there about those sources is the same as what you say here. I am perfectly well aware of what the plebiscite said, and why it was worded in the way it was, but why do I have to keep repeating that we are talking about a passing sentence on the Hindenburg airship article? This is not a discussion of detailed content regarding the article on the plebiscite. As for the picture. I think that's the ballot paper of the plebiscite held after the death of Hindenburg, but I wouldn't swear to it. Paul B ( talk) 13:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I linked again to the thread on my talk page because you asked about specific language in the NYT and TIME sources which appears there but not in this thread. As for the image of the ballot, it comes from the German WP article on the March 1936 plebiscite and also conforms to the description of how it was conducted in order to suppress virtually all potential votes against it in the paper "The Self-Staging of a Plebiscitary Dictatorship: The NS-Regime Between Uniformed Reichstag, Referendum, and Retchsparteifag" by Markus Urban which reads in part:

"Hitler resorted once again to the referendum in March 1936, when German troops invaded the demilitarized Rhineland and made military action—especially by France—a real possibility. In the same Reichstag assembly of March 7 in which he announced the invasion. Hitler declared the Reichstag dissolved and proclaimed that a ballot would take place on March 29. The tactical nature of this decision is shown by the fact that the Reichstag was not dissolved immediately, as would have been the case in the Weimar Republic. Rather, Hitler scheduled the dissolution of the Reichstag officially for election day. Thus, any semblance of an intermediary phase was avoided, and it would have been possible—should the need have arisen—for Hitler to have convened the Reichstag to make a formal declaration on foreign affairs. The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval.

"A closer scrutiny reveals two radical features to this vote, however. First, the mechanism to exclude so-called Germinschaftsfremde (aliens to the community) from the group of eligible voters was already in operation, since the German Jews were no longer allowed to take part in the election. Second, those arguing for a legalistic course within the regime found themselves increasingly on the defensive as it became known that Minister of the Interior Frick, under the directive of the Ministry of Propaganda, was no longer allowed to make a separate record of spoilt ballot papers. Furthermore, the Reichstag, in the absence of occasions suitable for propaganda, did not convene once for a constitutive meeting during the first nine months following the election, which clearly violated the procedure stipulated in the Reich's constitution.

"The reason why Hitler decided in March 1936 to hold a Reichstag election rather than a referendum can no longer be determined with certainty. More important, though, is the fact that the National Socialists themselves barely distinguished between these two modes of balloting at the time. This is evident not only from the numerous intentional and unintentional terminological muddles, which can be attributed in part to a certain secretiveness, but also from the fact that Hitler liked to take decisions at short notice."

The form of the ballot illustrated above also conforms to the description in the April 6, 1936 TIME Magazine article "Foreign Affairs: May God Help Us!" which reads in part:

""There was nothing free about the election. Voters could not even choose names from the long list of hand-picked Nazi candidates for the Reichstag posted inconspicuously in the polling places. They could only write Ja or put an X in a circle, voting full confidence in Adolf Hitler."

While the overall matter of the use of the word "claimed" in this article is not in and of itself a huge deal, that of a single WP editor (and a self identified sysop at that) going on a personal "crusade" to eliminate the use of any perfectly good word in the project is a matter of considerable concern to me. I find this especially so when such an editor employs such inappropriate and intemperate terms as "sneaky", "evasive", and "underhanded" to describe its use by his fellow editors. If that is indeed the intent of this editor (the OP of both this thread and the one on my talk page), then I would ask him to admit that and counsel him to desist in this practice as it is both against WP policy and results in a huge waste of time and effort on the part of other editors in the community in unnecessary exercises like this one. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Centpacrr, this is becoming ridiculous. I never asked "about specific language in the NYT and TIME sources". I asked about the scholarly sources which you claimed to support the word claimed. You still have provided no evidence that they do, though it's a rather marginal question whether they use that exact word or not. Your interminable quotations about the ballot paper are also rather irrelevant. It seems to be one of the unused ballot papers that could be bought from this website, which does indeed say that it's from a different ballot (but that's hardly an authoritative source, nor is this even important). As I've already said, I see no problem with either the word claimed or the word stated. Paul B ( talk) 12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have simply tried to answer your questions as I understood them. If these answers are not satisfactory to you I'm not sure what else I can do. I do believe, however, that the quotes I have supplied from both TIME and the Urban paper are more than sufficient to show that the way the process was structured, the ballots counted, and the large numbers of German citizens virtually certain to oppose the NSDAP who were unable to participate because they had been disenfranchised by the 1935 Nürnberger Gesetze (Nuremberg Race Laws) that a claim by the German Government of "98.7%" real support among the German people for the March 1936 plebiscite was a very significant exaggeration.

As for the ballot illustrated, it is completely consistent with what is described in both sources as having been that used in 1936. I very much doubt the similar ballot illustrated in the website you referred to was actually used in the March 1933 Reichstag election as that was an actual general election with candidates running from 15 different parties and in which the NSDAP finished with under 44% of the vote. March 29, 1936 was not such an election but was instead a plebiscite with "candidates" only from one party, the NSDAP. That is what the above illustrated ballot shows.

That being said, please note also that I am not the one who started either of these threads complaining about the use of the term "claimed" both in this instance and, as you have noted, Wikipedia-wide, and doing so using uncollegial and inflammatory language. As I have said now several times I find this attempt to be unwise, unencyclopedic, against WP policy, and thus a matter of very considerable concern to me. Centpacrr ( talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Centpacrr: I was talking about the word choice and the word having the problem and the word itself in that usage being sneaky and evasive, not a user. I was arguing why the word shouldn't be used. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They do not appear to be saying it was used in the March 1933 election, but that it was a "replica of the election ballot" that contained different wording. Admittedly, it's not clear. But this is all marginal. As has already been said, no-one doubts that the plebiscite did not really give the electorate any choice, though of course that does not technically invalidate the result that was claimed/stated. If your electors have no real option but to vote yes, you are very likely to get a 90+ percent result, especially if you try to disregard spoiled papers too. Your source bluntly says, "The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval." So it seems to me that "stated" is legitimate (they did get some sort of big 'yes', however it was achieved) and "claimed" is too. For some reason, the OP has not so far chosen to engage here, but I would add that his suggestion that we should add the following is impractical: "the German government says one thing, the New York Times says the German government is lying because of this evidence and TIME magazine says the German is lying because of this evidence." Sure, that could go in the main article, but for this article concision would be appropriate. Paul B ( talk) 17:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Paul Barlow: What if there was a short footnote pointing to the main article and/or a section of the main article that explains the issue in more detail? WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be rather overkill. It's just one word, but I've no objection. Paul B ( talk) 14:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if it's a simple article link, like <ref>[[Example article|Explanation of results]]</ref> or something like that? WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Urban says "The election result was once again a great success for the NS regime, which won 98.7 per cent approval" but he also clearly explains why that number is bogus in the following paragraph which begins "A closer scrutiny reveals two radical features to this vote, however". These relate to the overt disenfranchisement of all Jewish and other non-Ayrian voters and the dishonestly skewed method of counting votes. Context is important in understanding the results claimed by the German Government. I am also not particularly surprised that the thread's OP has fallen silent in the light of how the discussion has gone. Centpacrr ( talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• My take on this is that "claimed" is the appropriate word in this context. Blueboar ( talk) 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• My feeling is that some users misinterpret WP:CLAIM, which (like all the words to watch) says to use those words with care and to be mindful of their implications, not to never use them at all. It is entirely appropriate to use the word "claimed" in a context where the overwhelming majority of sources throw someone's claim into question (and where it is near-universally described as merely a claim in reliable sources); in that case, we are neutrally reporting the fact that their claims have little backing. I would argue that insisting on always using "said" is actually a violation of WP:VALID; the point of words to watch is to be careful to avoid using language to make someone's position appear weaker than it is (to avoid words that "suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.") But when it is verifiable -- when reliable sources are nearly unanimous in talking dismissively about what they said -- then it is entirely appropriate to use "claimed", because in that case the implication is intentional and backed by good sources. Presenting all claims equally is not WP:NPOV. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Aquillion: - So if it's okay to use claimed if sources are unanimous that a party has lied, should someone make a talk page section, catalog all of the relevant sources, and point out how they all say that the party lied (assuming the party does not make/has not made an admission that it lied). That way it confirms that "claimed" should be used here. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• The real issue is apparently not the appropriate usage of "claimed" in this particular case, it is whether or not the OP is attempting to ban the term altogether from Wikipedia. If that is indeed the OP's intention he should either admit it, or if not deny it. Either way, however, the use of such pejorative terms as "sneaky", "evasive" and "underhanded" by any editor (and especially a sysop) to describe his fellow editors use of terms such as "claimed" is both inappropriate and against the tenants of WP:AGF. I therefore ask the OP to clarify his position on this issue one way or the other. Centpacrr ( talk) 09:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Centpacrr: Okay, I'll clarify it. The issue is not preventing the word "claimed" from being used at all. The issue is using the word "claimed" specifically to insinuate some entity is lying: this is exactly what Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms for said is talking about. I believe the accusation of trying to "ban the word altogether" is unwarranted.

When I said "the use of the word is sneaky" I wasn't talking about any particular editor, but rather about what the word does: the word itself in the way it's being used: it insinuates that somebody is lying, but it isn't actually saying that. Therefore I believe it's a poor choice to use the word. I don't believe there is an AGF problem in saying "the usage of a word is sneaky and underhanded". I am not talking about an editor. I am talking about the word choice and why it's being used.

However if the Wikipedia community agrees that this is an appropriate use of claimed, then that is that. If "claimed" can be appropriately used to say that a party is lying if all reliable sources agree that the party is lying (without the party having made an admission that it lied) I think the sources should be documented on the talk page.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, the word "claimed" does not imply that the person/government (whatever) is lying. For example politicians regularly claim that their views represent the interests of the people - "Politician A claimed that his policies would put the economy back on its feet, while politician B claimed that they would lead to disaster". Sure, you could replaced it with "said" in both cases, but there is no implication in the original from the word "claimed" that either politician is lying, nor is there anything "sneaky and underhanded" about the use of the word. Also, words can't be 'underhanded', only people can. So it difficult not to interpret such a comment as an attack on an editor. We don't need sources to agree that a claim is a 'lie', only that it is problematic. Paul B ( talk) 14:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Paul Barlow: - Okay.. I guess I should think about how to rephrase that. I was trying to say that the word is problematic and unclear and it's better to be direct. Saying, for example, "the people were only allowed to vote for one candidate in the election in such-and-such country" is a direct way of showing how the result is illegitimate. It shows the reader proof that the election was bad. A reader can understand seeing this that the result is not to be trusted. Anyway, I'll let the other editors decide what's best.

@ Centpacrr:, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, I would say that the point at which we should report something as a "claim" is when we have sufficient sourcing to describe a contradicting view as flatly true in article voice. For instance, if we're reporting a historical claim that the world is flat, it would be appropriate to call it merely a "claim." It might also be appropriate for claims about BLPs that have been unequivocally dismissed by reliable source -- writing that "the police said the article's subject stabbed the victim to death", in a situation where the accused was found innocent, actually strikes me as less neutral than writing "the police claimed that the article's subject stabbed the victim to death". I don't agree with the assertion that "said" is automatically more neutral in all cases; again, it's a violation of WP:VALID to try and make every claim look equally-valid across-the-board. -- Aquillion ( talk) 14:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with both Paul B's and Aquillion's comments. All that WP:CLAIM says that applies in this instance is: "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." That is why I use "claimed" here and provided citations to two reliable sources to support it. I really don't see that anything more is needed. Centpacrr ( talk) 15:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to this request for comment, at which due weight has arisen as an issue. Thanks. Hugh ( talk) 20:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing, especially since it's already been brought up on the reliable sources board, and consensus leaned against. Hugh has changed what he wanted to say from those sources, but careful analysis seems to suggest that it still isn't there, unlike what I thought previously. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not canvassing to post a notice at a board where the subject was previously discussed. The RS noticeboard discusses the inclusion of material based on the quality of the source and is irrelevant once the sources are established as reliable. A similar issue has been discussed here before with nearly unanimous support for its inclusion. Scoobydunk ( talk) 22:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome at the RfC. By most of us. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 05:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. This is an update and a request for wider participation. The RfC asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to an existing section of the article Americans for Prosperity. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. While, in the first two weeks of this RfC, most of our content-related policies have been cited in opposing the content, the main issue centers on due weight. Your comments on the RfC question and on the form of the arguments in the position statements are needed. Attention from editors with some previous experience with the appropriate application of WP:DUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:COATRACK is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh ( talk)

Hi, while doing some Cleanup I ran across this. There's what's amounting to an edit war over his death. The history, going back to Old revision of Brad Delp shows many edits removing and inserting it. I'm not familiar at all with this subject and don't want to research it, so I'm putting this here to let the rest of the community figure out what the NPOV is, if there is one. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 11:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The musical career section has an "unreferenced" template but there are references. ''Sitta kah'' ( talk) 15:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The article for the politician Jan Perry has been completely rewritten to sound like an advertisement. It is several times longer now, so I'm not sure if it should just be reverted or what. Any help would be appreciated. Kaldari ( talk) 03:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

An IP editor and I are having a disagreement about using "illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrants" at the article on GEO Group. We can ignore all the OR about whether or not entering the country illegally is a crime or a civil infraction and concentrate on the issue. The paragraph regarding the incident uses 3 sources.

1. 1: [6]. This is a primary source (the company itself) that doesn't actually address the incident being reported on or the individuals involved. It merely provides a company website description of the facility purpose. It doesn't use the term "illegal immigrant", nor does it use the term "undocumented immigrants".
2. 2: [7]. The Sun Sentinel is a reliable third party source. This article specifically addresses the incident at hand. When talking about the specific incident, the source says "In a daring move, two young adults, both illegal immigrants..." Later in the article, it talks about one of the two men "Martinez was one of the two young illegal immigrants...". The source never uses the phrase "undocumented immigrants".
3. 3 [8]. McClatchy is also a reliable third party source. The source uses "undocumented" 5 times and "illegal" 2 times.

First, the objection by the IP was that his change from "illegal" to "undocumented" was on the basis of grammar. Later, it became an argument about the law, now it has become a word count. There are 2 reliable third party sources dealing with the specific incident. Both sources use the phrase "illegal alien", one uses "undocumented" and "illegal". I contend that we go with the third party sources (personal interpretations of the law having no value in this) and both sources use "illegal". The primary source should be disregarded since it doesn't actually address the incident being reported on, nor does it use either term in question. Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If both RS news organizations use "illegal", it would seem best to use that term. Capitalismojo ( talk) 00:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree... in the context of that specific incident "illegal" seems to be the correct term. Blueboar ( talk) 01:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia policy is to use the most accurate term, then "illegal" should be used. "Undocumented", while correct, is non-specific, it's like calling a poodle a dog. Saying the animal is a dog is correct, but calling it a poodle is more specific and accurate. There are undocumented aliens who are legal, but this (and most instances) deal with the more specific instance of illegal, undocumented immigrants. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that third party sources do actually state "illegal", is there actually a single source to say "undocumented"? It definitely doesn't mean the same thing although the descriptions are practically Siamese twins. Naphtha Termix ( talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Undocumented is the more neutral term, while illegal is widely regarded as offensive. Per WP:LABEL, one should avoid using biased terms in Wikipedia's voice. If biased terms are included, it must be done with attribution. As an illustrative example, if you were citing historical sources that used the term negro, you obviously wouldn't use this term in Wikipedia's text just because the reliable sources used it. Whether or not you believe that undocumented immigrants should be called "illegal immigrants," the latter is a contentious term and therefore should be avoided when possible and attributed otherwise. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but to whom can you attribute "illegal" other than the reporters. Naphtha Termix ( talk) 20:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's necessary to use the word, you can attribute it to the reporters, preferably by name. It's usually not necessary, and you can just replace it by "undocumented" instead, just as you would translate "negro" to "black" if you were using a source written in 1950. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 21:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term illegal is not "widely regarded as offensive". It's true that a certain segment deems it offensive, but that segment is not large. Nor is an accurate term biased. The term is used by both the right and the left in the United States. See this, this, and this (which are just a few examples). The majority of Americans do not find the term offensive, as those examples show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In at least the first two sources you provide, PBS and NYT, the news sources have largely stopped using the term "illegal immigrant." You are providing very old news articles that no longer reflect the current practices of the outlets. 74.96.73.144 ( talk) 11:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's not our place to re-write history as it was reported. The sources were using them when it happened. We still have an article on the Negro League and the "World Colored Heavyweight Championship", despite not using those terms regularly now and we allow quotes like "The negro had few friends" because that's what was said. Would it make you feel better if we put "illegal immigrant" in quotes? Niteshift36 ( talk) 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If we're using an exact quote, we should of course use the actual text; however, most of the time, it is better to paraphrase, since we're an encyclopedia and not a collection of quotes, and in that context it is, in fact, our job to rewrite it into our own words (which includes rewriting it according to our policies.) So yes, to answer your specific question, it's acceptable to say "illegal immigrant" in quotes, and generally we should be careful about using it in the article voice (because it is a loaded term per WP:LABEL.) As WP:LABEL says, we can use such value-laden terms when they're universally used by reliable sources, but even then we must use in-text attribution -- we can say "so-and-so called them an illegal immigrant", but we have to be more cautious about using such condemnatory terms in the 'article voice', because their implications might violate WP:NPOV. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a need to make it a quote. We simply need to use the term that both sources use, not the term only one source uses and extrapolating it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• However, there are different types of immigration offenses. For example, if you overstay your visa, that's an offense. If you sneak into the country, it's also an offense. Both are illegal (ie, against the law) and could end up having you detained, but one obviously isn't "undocumented". I'd submit that just substituting "undocumented" is tantamount to OR. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How could it be OR if it is in the source? 74.96.73.144 ( talk) 20:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was addressing the notion that the two terms are always interchangeable. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought this was a dispute about its use in a particular article. If one of the sources uses undocumented, then it's not OR, so why bring that up? 74.96.73.144 ( talk) 11:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sammy1339 said: "It's usually not necessary, and you can just replace it by "undocumented" instead, just as you would translate "negro" to "black" if you were using a source written in 1950" He was giving the impression that one word can be a substitute in any case, which is incorrect. Unfortunately, with the way threads get structured, sometimes that isn't always clear. Especially when other editors, respond in between. Does that clear it up for you? Niteshift36 ( talk) 11:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I would appreciate if you would assume good faith, as per Wikipedia guidelines. You seem to be failing to do so with Sammy1339 and the IP user above, and you have certainly failed to do so with your characterization of me above. My justification for making the initial change has always been grammar (although I do see merit in the label argument above). You were the individual who brought up the interpretation of the law, and you were the person who brought up the whole notion of a "word count." Please stop attempting to make any of these seem as if I introduced them, since I did not. Additionally, since your entire objection so far seems to ultimately depend on the fact that only one source previously used "undocumented," I have added an additional source for you. And, since I wasn't really adding the source to please you (until I just came to this noticeboard thread after making my edit), you will also find that it enhances the article by providing an actual account of the one of the two individuals who went into the detention center through an interview on a reliable source (I even went and checked the noticeboard for reliable sources to make sure that there wouldn't be a problem with a source I had not heard about before). I would assume that, with the addition of this source, your objections to the use of the term "undocumented," which is now used in 2 of the 4 sources (indeed, the same amount of sources that use "illegal"), are over. The use of "undocumented" has always been supported by a third-party reliable source, and now it is supported by two reliable sources since the one prior was not enough for you. You're welcome, and I do appreciate you being largely civil, despite some of your unjustified presumptions and assertions about me. 164.82.32.13 ( talk) 21:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody who screams about a mistake being a "lie" can lecture me about assuming good faith. [9] [10] [11]. No, I didn't bring up the law thing. You did in the first talk page post when you defined illegal immigration [12]. Just shopping for another source that uses undocumented (and a very partisan advocacy site at that) doesn't solve this. It goes back to acting like it's a word count issue. As you can see, there is support for going with what the source says. The Sun Sentinel and McClatchy both call them illegal aliens. Clearly uninvolved third party sources support it. So let's not pretend that adding an advocacy site shifts this to your POV. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess your assertion that I "defined illegal immigration" in my post is another "mistake" on your part. I was talking about grammar, and your posted link shows just that. As for Democracy Now, it is a reliable news source. I already checked the noticeboards. I guess your statement that it is a "very partisan advocacy site" is once again another "mistake." Further, I was not "shopping for another source," but providing legitimate information on the first-hand account of the activists, which the page had referenced (another "mistake" on your part). If I had merely wanted to find another source that uses "undocumented," there are plenty of those out there, including ones by local news stations as well as Fox News Latino (interestingly, in reading about what Fox News Latino was, I came across a Geraldo Rivera article on Fox News strongly condemning the use of the words "illegal" and "alien" as offensive and demeaning, of which I was largely unaware, but which I think only supports my grammatical change). Also, your statement that about "what the source says" must be another "mistake" considering there have always been 3 sources, 1 of which uses neither "illegal" or "undocumented" (despite your repeated, "mistaken" attempts to previously claim it did) and another which uses "undocumented" (despite your repeated, "mistaken" attempts to previously claim it was OR). It was never the case that "the source" said "illegal," but rather that 2 of the 3 sources used it (edit: and none used the term "alien," which you "mistakenly" said they both do), including 1 which also used "undocumented." Now there is another source that also uses "undocumented" and provides additional, relevant information. If you need an additional source for some reason, I can certainly post it, since you are the person who has repeatedly been source-counting (despite your repeated, "mistaken" attempts to claim that I have been word counting, which I only did after you "mistakenly" claimed that none of the sources used "undocumented" and it was therefore OR). But regardless of the new source or any further sources, the term "undocumented" has always been in the sources, and so "what the sources" say is largely irrelevant to deciding between the two terms, since the term already has and has always had support in the sources. So if one of the two terms is grammatically incorrect (in addition to offensive), and both terms are used in the sources, then what is your objection to the term? 164.82.32.13 ( talk) 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• You defined it. Spin it however you want. No, it's not a mistake to call Democracy Now a very partisan site. It is. Notice that I didn't say it failed RS. consensus has been that it is generally reliable (I also know how to search the noticeboards), but being reliable doesn't make a source non-partisan. So no mistake on my part. What I stated was factually correct and within Wikipedia policy. Your error was in your assumptions. Once again.....3 sources are there. The primary source (GEO) doesn't address the actual incident, so what terms is uses isn't really relevant. The Sun Sentinel does address the actual incident, uses "illegal" and never uses "undocumented". The McClatchy source uses both. But, oh yeah....that's what I've said during this entire thread. So I guess your error was in failing to comprehend the first post here. Maybe if you spent less time using unnecessary quotes in your passive-aggressive responses, you'd catch that stuff. I do find it interesting that you are making this grammar complaint with no source that says it is grammatically incorrect, yet the editors and reports of the 2 quoted sources seems to find "illegal immigrant" to be perfectly acceptable grammar. They are an actual reliable source, you are not. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You never said "a very partisan site." You said "a very partisan advocacy site." It's not an advocacy site. It's a news site. That is just one of your lies, which I am going to call lies because you continue to repeat them after being corrected, including the fact that you claim I defined "illegal immigration" in my initial post. I'll post several more sources using "undocumented" if that is what you want. Otherwise, please provide what your objection is to using a term that is already used in one of the sources provided? 164.82.32.13 ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are you seriously going to fight this battle about what I called your advocacy site? Yes, I called them a partisan advocacy site. I didn't feel that I needed to use the exact quote when speaking about it again. I said it. I stand by it. You can disagree about whether or not it's an advocacy site, but frankly I don't care because it's not relevant. I never tried to claim they weren't a RS. That's just something you imagined. (oh wait, let's call it a "lie" since you seem to love that word) Can we move on now? Now you're back to the "lie" routine? Grow up. Do you see how the grown-ups in this discussion are talking? It doesn't sound like your speeches. My objection to the term had been clearly stated. Other editors have agreed that my point is a valid one. Then we have you....... a grammar "expert" who hasn't shown a reliable source to support his grammar claims... and who has really shown nothing reliable that says the term "illegal immigrant" is wrong. The "threat" of overloading the site with a additional sources just because it uses the term you "personally prefer" (see, I can use random quotation marks too) is really just being WP:POINTy. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What was your objection that you clearly stated? That it was only used in one source instead of two? If it was something more than this mere source-counting, then please let me know because I am not seeing anything else. Additionally, I made no threat about making a point. YOU were the one counting sources and originally claiming OR (even though the term has ALWAYS been in the sources). And here is the other source that you requested providing an explanation of the grammatical problems with "illegal immigrant" (as well as addressing some of the problems of offensiveness), which clearly shows this is not about my "personal preference" but an increasingly accepted interpretation about the proper use of the term: "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant." ^[1] So in this case, there is no question that "undocumented" is an appropriate term since it is used in the sources to describe the activists, while the term "illegal" is also used by the sources but has both grammatical and labeling concerns. I suggest that we remove it due to those concerns given that it is already used in a source (and so there are no concerns about it being not an accurate description or OR). I would really appreciate if you would actually provide your objection to the term "undocumented" rather than simply referring to your past "clear" statements, which I apologetically do not find clear. 164.82.32.13 ( talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Here is another article if you desire, primarily focused on the offensiveness issue. ^[2] 164.82.32.13 ( talk) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Continuing this with you is pointless. You proved yourself incapable of a civil discussion at the article talk page. I brought the issue here for community input. Thus far, most of the community input doesn't seem to have an issue with using "illegal immigrant". And the AP style is only one of those in use by the media. The AP doesn't make any mention of a grammar concern. In fact, the AP style guide says "Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented." So your own source here disagrees with you. The earlier version of the AP sylebook said "Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States." [13]. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the discussion above has carried an unnecesarily adversarial tone, but at its core, a valid point is being made: the adjective "illegal", as applied to a person, is increasingly viewed as offensive, or at least undesirable, when a suitable alternative exists. Wikipedia's article on Illegal immigration states: "News associations that have discontinued or discourage the use of the adjective "illegal" to describe people include the US Associated Press, ^[3] UK Press Association, European Journalism Observatory, ^[4] European Journalism Centre, ^[5] Association of European Journalists, Australian Press Council, ^[6] and Australian Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. ^[7]" The New York Times decided not to "ban" the term but "encourages reporters and editors to 'consider alternatives when appropriate to explain the specific circumstances of the person in question, or to focus on actions.'" ^[8] On the other hand, "undocumented" is not a clear solution; it tends toward euphemism, and the AP and the NYT both note the imprecision of the term. In general, I think it would be desirable to try to avoid the use of the term "illegal immigrant" in Wikipedia's voice when rephrasing or attribution can convey the meaning clearly. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply use the most applicable term. I'm taking the word of editors above that immigrants can be documented and still illegal, or undocumented and still legal. Neither term should be used without justification from a source. If sources say "illegal" only, there is no justification to euphemistically downgrade that to "undocumented", nor vice versa. If both apply, the choice should be the term most relevant to the context. For example, if the context is work visas or census counting, "undocumented" is more relevant. If its about border controls or deportation, "illegal" is more relevant. Tallying the number of sources using one term or another serves no value. Rhoark ( talk) 21:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• As one of the two contributors to the unnecessarily adversarial tone, and being the one who did not create this thread, I will refrain from commenting further on this issue. 164.82.32.13 ( talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I came across a article about the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group and I noticed that it was tagged as being an advert since December 2014. I can see why because the article is missing a lot of things good and bad, such as the recent credit card hack and the celebrity fans campaign. I've made a start on tidying up the article by making a start on the recent incident, replacing the logo to SVG and reorganising the hotels between the current and defunct/sold: I wonder if anyone could help me in cleaning off more of the WP:SOAP? Thanks in advance. -- Marianian^{( talk)} 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made one minor change but you are right, the article can do with quite some work to make it encyclopaedic. Here I changed cities with the countries to make it shorter for one and to reduce to two here, three there outlook. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 14:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the article on Lyoness has a few issues, one of which is Neutral point of view. Regarding NPOV, the controversy section has a few issues:

• The Television subsection of the Controversy section does nothing to maintain a neutral point of view. The person appearing on the television series did not have the approval of Lyoness to make that appearance and his presentation of Lyoness was inaccurate.
• The Income subsection of the Controversy section seems rather irrelevant. What is controversial about accurate numbers? Furthermore, the numbers for earnings are out of date. On Nov 8, 2014 Lyoness restructured itself to make a clear distinction between customers and marketers. Accurate numbers would be for both parties or only marketers. If the author of the section has an issue with such low earnings, then he needs to realize that is no fault of the company and there is no controversy in it.
• The Controversy section opens with a series of warnings. The warnings are antiquated. The section continues citations from a Swiss magazine Beobachter, which seems to be painting a rather phobic view of Lyoness without grounds.
• The Legality section lists outdated and closed cases. The only active case against Lyoness is ACCC vs Lyoness.
• The Internet section opens with a general statement about websites and blogs, when it should be using verified sources and specific statements. The rest of the section about the group who organized as Platform Lyoness should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to talk to the wikipedia user OrbitalCannon but he is not responding. However, the other individual and I are having a good discussion on the article's talk page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaperl ( talk • contribs) 11:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If this isn't an ad, I don't know what is. Hartenhof ( talk) 10:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah... multiple problems there. It does read like an ad (so at minimum - it needs a major rewrite). There are currently no sources cited (I have tagged it). It also does not (currently) pass WP:ORG. Being one of the larger tour companies operating in Iceland, it should be notable... however, I did a quick search which did not turn up any reliable sources that are independent of the company (Google turns up a few sources that mention it in passing, but don't discuss it in much depth... and a few mirrors of our Wikipedia article.) Not willing to nominate it for deletion ... but it definitely needs work. Blueboar ( talk) 13:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a paraphrase of their website. The offending content was added in this edit by SPA Johannahreidars. This is what's happened since then. — George8211 / T 17:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been done to address the issues after the notability and unsourced tags were added on 3 July. I've prodded the article. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

I personally feel that describing The Guardian (newspaper) as simply of the centre-left, as if it were a fact, and without equivocation or qualification, because the newspaper (unofficially) said so, from a single (and now outdated) source (being a quote from an interview of a journalist of the Guardian by another journalist of the Guardian, as a side-story in an article (about themselves; namely, their own election coverage of the United States presidential election, 2004) from the year 2004, as cited in the article ( [14])), violates the requirement to be descriptively neutral. -- Urquhartnite ( talk) 12:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the reference may be inadequate, I don't find the term inaccurate. You can find more references here. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 12:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it bizarre to tag a political alignment as "self-described". Aren't they all by definition? Mezigue ( talk) 09:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that self-described is being used to make it clear that it is not some sort of labelling by political opponents.-- 69.157.254.210 ( talk) 05:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel that in context, using "self-described" is giving undue weight to that one quote (in that it's elevating that one statement to the lead.) If they described themselves as center-left on the About page of their website or something like that, then it'd be fine; but one quote isn't sufficient to give the self-description that degree of prominence. Whether or not to use the term "center-left" in the lead at all should therefore come down to what other sources have covered it and what they've said; if they're frequently described that way, then it's fine. But I'd avoid "self-described" for the reasons I said -- it gives the impression that this is part of the core definition of themselves in an official self-description, which goes beyond what the sources provided support. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mezigue that "self-described" is bizarre in this context. Political alignment never is a fact in the sense that the earth revolving round the sun is a fact; there's always an element of fluidity and an element of opinion in it. Insofar as a newspaper's politics is a fact, the fact is defined by its self-description; nothing special about The Guardian in that respect. It seems far-fetched to suppose it might possibly be a label by opponents. Therefore, actually using the word "self-described" gives an odd kind of emphasis — undue weight, as Aquillion says. Why would we want "equivocation" (which Urquhartnite seems to call for) in the description? It isn't equivocal. Besides, "self-described", while technically a neutral, factual word, carries with it a penumbra of shadiness, from being so often used about (what the speaker considers) elusive, untrustworthy people or outfits. Don't use it here; it's bad style. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Is this terminology correct? [15] -- Ysangkok ( talk) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(Terminology in question: "This world-leading, next-generation neutron source")

Seems to be more or less what the people building it are describing it as: [16]. If it was a sausage-skin-making machine or something, I'd probably say that such language was inappropriate, but it seems to be justified in this case. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim can easily be neutralized by removing the promotional language. The source from which it was pulled from is a primary source. Rather than having the section read like an advertisement, my suggestion would be to revert the edit you noted. Meatsgains ( talk) 02:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to get a few opinions on a phrase. The General Motors article currently includes phrases in the bankruptcy section talking about using "taxpayer money" (I think it's 3 variations of this phrase). I think that phrase has a negative bias like a WP:WEASEL word. So first question, do you agree or is it just me? Second, what would be a preferred phrase? I have suggested "government backed" (but that might not be technically correct) or "government funded". I think traditionally when people say it "cost the taxpayers" they are trying to make it personal so the taxpayer feels offended. Thanks for your input. Springee ( talk) 23:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The funding of GE shouldn't be relevant at all unless reliable sources specifically make it relevant by using that language. At most, maybe a brief sentence discussing legislation related to GE getting government funding, but it would be unnecessary to characterize everything single thing they do as a venture fueled by "taxpayer money". Obviously if the majority of reliable sources characterize their efforts as "taxpayer money" or some equivalent, then that should be the language used in the article. Neutral point view pertains to our representation of the sources and what they say, not our own whitewashing of sources and their language. So, let's say GE launches a new product and 5 different articles simply discuss the launching of the product, while 1 source puts emphasis on it being funded by taxpayer money, then the article should simply reflect the launching of the product without the emphasis, since the emphasis is not placed in the majority of sources. The minority view/language can be mentioned, but it would be as a passing footnote, not plastered throughout the entire section/article. Hope this helps. Scoobydunk ( talk) 05:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The company is GM (easy mistake to make when reading quickly). If many of the articles are editorials then we shouldn't use those as a source for the language. I believe you have argued in the past that we (based on Wikipedia guidelines) should use the most neutral language possible when the meaning is identical. For what it's worth GM in their correspondence with the federal government referred to the money as "federal funds" GM doc to Treasury. Perhaps that is the most neutral term. Alternatively, what about using the phrasing in the Troubled Asset Relief Program article? Springee ( talk) 05:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality has to do with how we represent sources on Wikipedia, not with what individual editors consider to be "neutral" language. The guidelines do address language, like weasel words, but as a means of recognizing and stopping bias being included into the article BY THE EDITOR, not by the source. The sources can be as biased as they want to be and the responsibility of the editor is to make sure the entire topic is represented appropriately based on the weight of the ideas from those sources. From WP:NPOV " Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." This is what I was speaking to in general, identify how the majority of sources describe it, if they do at all, and the article should represent that. I think this would work better if a specific example of the line you want to change was submitted. Scoobydunk ( talk) 21:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Eleven minutes after first commenting on your issue with the term "taxpayer money" at article talk you posted to NPOVN? Please move this issue to article talk. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Addressed in the talk section. This was a request for general input from the community. Springee ( talk) 05:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Our colleagues the regulars at NPOVN don't ask much but they ask us to first try and resolve the issue at article talk, and, if it comes to a NPOVN notice, to provide a link to the previous article talk discussion. You posted at NPOVN minutes after first raising your concern at article talk. Hugh ( talk) 05:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is a general though related to an article. In the future which forum would be the best one on in which to ask this question? Springee ( talk) 05:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOVN asks us to first try and resolve the issue at article talk. Hugh ( talk) 06:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably true. But "taxpayer money" is considerable more inherently biased than "conspiracy theory", which is frequently mentioned here. Besides, bringing up a matter here, rather than in the article talk page, is much better than bringing up a matter here after being expressly rejected on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Probably true" See above: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." Hugh ( talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LABEL we should avoid using value-laden labels. This would appear to be such a case. Yes, some articles have used the "taxpayer dollar" type label but that applies to basically all government spending. Unless that is the standard way Wikipedia refers to government spending we should probably stick to more neutral terms (see the TARP reference above as an example). Springee ( talk) 13:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I see, so your thought, in jumping to this notice board minutes after raising your concern with the neutrality of the term "taxpayer money" in the article talk of General Motors, was to establish an encyclopedia-wide policy banning the term "taxpayer money," a policy that applies regardless of what reliable sources say and across all possible contexts, and then return to the article and other articles. Understand this noticeboard does not establish policy. To add to a policy, please begin on the policy talk page, thank you. Meanwhile, if a policy banning the term "taxpayer money" is a good idea, it should be a simple matter for you to develop consensus on one article talk page swapping "taxpayer money" for your preferred term. Understand neutrality often depends on context. Hugh ( talk) 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

HughD, I appreciate that you think I posted this question in the wrong forum. Which forum would be the correct one. Remember, I'm asking as a general question. Springee ( talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The correct forum for article content issues is the article talk page. Hugh ( talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the question. If I wanted to ask, in general terms, not in regards to a specific topic, what phrase might be better, where in Wikipeida's various noticeboards etc would you tell me to post the question? I asked in terms of the GM article but I was curious in terms of a wider context and thus I asked here. I hear what you are saying and will be more conscientious of it in the future. Thank you for your input. Springee ( talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would guess WT:WTW is the proper venue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the concise, helpful answer. Springee ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Several editors are removing any and all attempts to summarize the main points of the sourced criticism section in the lead section of United States Department of Homeland Security. [17] [18] I am bringing my concerns here so that uninvolved editors can weigh in and attempt to solve the problem. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 21:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph is definitely needed in the lead section or yes, I agree, there is an NPOV issue. A couple of citations won't hurt, but MOS frowns on excessive redundancy in citations as you know. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "marriage equality" a suitable term to use on Wikipedia in place of "same-sex marriage"? Elizium23 ( talk) 17:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, even though I would use that term. It's only used by proponents. Same-sex marriage seems neutral. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the term "marriage equality" can be a bit of an umbrella term since it is about making access to marriage equal to all those that would like to be married, e.g. also allowing polygamous marriage, though it is almost exclusive to the same-sex marriage debate. Same-sex marriage equality or same-sex marriage are the more neutral and specific terms, at least in my eyes.

Dr Crazy 102 ( talk) 05:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There's currently a movement to reintroduce the term, after I removed it from many articles under the WP:NPOV policy. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Proposal for "same-sex marriage" as a standard neutral term. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it looks to me like there is a developing consensus to use "same-sex marriage" as the default term, but to permit the term "marriage equality" in specific contexts discussing political campaigns in support of the right of same-sex couples to marry. That sounds pretty reasonable. What's the objection again? MastCell  ^Talk 01:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I've started an RfC at Talk:Death of Sandra Bland#RfC: History of Waller County. Since this is a highly sensitive issue and no doubt a high-profile article, I started the RfC to avoid an edit war and gain consensus. The disagreement is about whether or not including the history of Waller County (racial tension and a case of police brutality) is POV-pushing. Please contribute if you can. Thanks! —Мандичка ^YO 😜 04:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A dispute has been present on this article since January. Essentially, another editor, User:Chrisuae, and myself have discussed the article along with User:PeeJay2K3, and Chrisuae and I agreed that this edit: [19] is far more comprehensive and more neutral than the article's current form, which PeeJay has implemented himself, ignoring the discussion on the talk page. It should be noted that our edit uses FIFA as the source for the table, and details nine more sources, which give different trophy totals due to a slightly different set of trophies counted in each one. These nine sources include a BBC source, which gives Man Utd the greater total due to inclusion of the Community Shield as a trophy. As you can see by its status section, it is generally considered a minor trophy, hence its omission in the other sources. The more neutral edit also contains the phrase "In the absence of any definitive measure of historical success, both clubs can legitimately claim the to be 'the greatest English football club'."

In comparison, PeeJay's edit only includes three sources, two of which do not back up the statement included in the article: these sources are the BBC article, and both of the clubs' official sites, which list two different sets of trophies. PeeJay has effectively taken the Man Utd source as the reference for the set of trophies, and drawn this set from the Liverpool source. This edit gives the trophy total as 62 to 59, in favour of Man Utd, while our edit gives Liverpool the most trophies, per the FIFA source, but details the other sources and their totals. It should be noted that I am neither a Liverpool or Man Utd fan, while PeeJay, as detailed on his user page, is a Man Utd fan.

Due to the more neutral, comprehensive set of sources and the more neutral language, I think Chrisaue's and my edit should be implemented. PeeJay however, is reverting all attempts to implement it, disregarding the reasoning reached in the discussion. Please offer us some 3rd party guidance on the neutrality of these two edits. Thanks a lot for reading. Autonova ( talk) 18:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is bonkers. You can't just exclude a competition that plenty of reliable sources consider to be legitimate just because of the odd few that don't. The true violation of WP:NPOV here would be to assign arbitrary major/minor status to any of these competitions. – Pee Jay 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what we're not doing. We're citing FIFA. We're also citing nine additional sources. What you're doing is citing one source, then two more which don't even support the content in the table. Our edit mentions ten sources, yours three. Ours is more neutral. Autonova ( talk) 18:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3, the changes that Autonova and I support are using the world governing body of the sport as the primary reference. You are using a general broadcaster (with rights to broadcast highlights of the Community Shield) to assign arbitrary major/minor status to the competitions. We are also citing the European governing body of football and some other major media outlets and correctly referencing the official sites of the two clubs without cherry-picking from the various tables they present. Not only are we using more sources, we are using more authoritative sources and we are summarising the subtle differences among them in the article. You are accurately using a single non-football source and using it to decide which trophies to include and which to omit (ie: which are mjaor and which are minor). It may be just coincidence that the only source you accurately cite is the only one that presents an arbitrary selection of trophies that create the illusion of superiority for your favourite club, but using only this single source is detrimental to the article in that it omits all dissenting opinion. In the interests of neutrality we must include other sources and prioritize them according to their prominence regardless of our own personal opinions.

Should our article on Greece - either the lede or the economy section - mention Greece's chronic economic problems? In particular, should it mention that Greece had the world's largest ever sovereign default, in 2012? bobrayner ( talk) 19:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, not on lede. Lots of countries have lots of interesting factoids but that is not lede-style information. After all Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS Economy section, should go there. Ledes should be kept simple. Naphtha Termix ( talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have no problem with a balanced presentation in the economy section which should include the various critiques of Greece and the EU over their handling of the economic crisis but putting this at the lead is too recent and would be POV without going into detail as to the multiple causes. As far as the 2012 haircut, it was not a default but a haircut. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well well well! Look who is back on this noticeboard in search of sympathy when he cannot deliver his unequivocally non-neutral point of view in the Balkans. For all persons interested, if you wish to see an example of desperation then just follow the OP's ridiculous reasoning with each of his posts farther up this page, or here [20]. But then this is not the first time our friend has cited policy and guidelines either not having read them or by pretending he doesn't understand it. Just look at this summary [21] on a geographical (not political) article on the world's most hotly contested region - dismissing a rival entity and its support from a significant minority among the international community as "a fantasy" which clearly shows he is not versed in WP:ASSERT. Just do as you are doing and keep all recent news issues off the lede on Greece. In 2004 their national side won the European Championships in football; the year after they won the Eurovision Song Contest and that was on the mouths of millions (quite literally - in and out of Greece) at the time. I can't see sifting through the history that these points were added in the lede. Where other countries have defaulted down the years such as Zimbabwe, I don't see it in their lede either. Perhaps the OP should actually read WP:LEDE rather than pretending he has done so and hoping nobody will do so for himself. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 06:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the Kosovo stalking problem is now contaminating discussions about Greece too. This will make it harder to resolve a larger number of neutrality problems. bobrayner ( talk) 09:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I am the one that feels stalked since my Outline of Kosovo edits were found within three days. As regards the accusation, I as the individual accused of stalking wish to declare that I have not touched the Greece article or its talk page since this debate began; I wish to add that this is a public noticeboard where uninvolved persons are invited to share views and this is what I have done - as such my conscience is clean both in that I am not stalking, and that I have used this space appropriately. Curiously, it is thanks to bobrayner that this article happens to be on my watchlist. I had no choice after the "Countries in Europe" saga. I believe the collective to maintain the Greece article have done a grand job of making sure there are no neutrality problems to resolve. A good few editors know that what bobrayner refers to as a "neutrality problem" is one that is not drafted as if it appears to be written by his favoured belligerent. Besides, what goes into opening paragraphs is supposed to be the long-term facts, not things we change week by week every time a country is featured as a main headline. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 09:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually I am going to revise my last comment. There is indeed a neutrality problem with the Greece lede which is that it admits Republic of Macedonia per its constitutional name rather than Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which is how Greece recognises it. Obviously there are reasons for why it is presented as ROM and not FYROM across the whole site but the very fact that the editors to oppose mention of the crisis on the first line do not contest this is proof that policies and guidelines are being respected on the article. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 10:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I do not understand why does OrangesJuicy mixes his sentiments on bobrayner with the raised question. (His personal choice though.) Personally I believe that bobrayner's question is quite logical, because the economic crisis is arguably the most important momentaneous aspect of Greece. That is what an average Asian, African, American, European, Australian person has heard more about the country in the last years. In that aspect, I believe that many of those readers might be Google-ing "Greece" primarily to hear what is going on 'right now' with the country. As a result, I think Wikipedia should react to the demands of the average global visitor and I believe the economic crisis should be positioned highly in the article on Greece, concretely among the leading paragraphs (whether it is lede or second I would not mind). OppositeGradient ( talk) 18:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Comments of CU-confirmed blocked sock struck

Here are 85 wonderful things Greece is famous for! Shall we violate WP:LEDE and add them all just to accommodate the economic collapse? Naphtha Termix ( talk) 19:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The crisis is complementary to the other traits of the country, while being highly more relevant for a reader than the presented list. OppositeGradient ( talk) 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Comments of CU-confirmed blocked sock struck

Well look who it isn't!!! Opposite Gradient has followed the trail of bread crumbs and ends up here! To all others, have no concerns about the tone of the edits exchanged between OppositeGradient and me, he and I are old friends (well one month but we know each other as though it were 30 years!).

Dear friend, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on "mixed sentiments" since I do not believe this to be the case. Indeed any question here if regards NPOV is logical, but some editors think it is a day centre where they may weep and gain attention-seeking sympathy from strangers for their misfortunes as editors on matters of a wholly different nature to NPOV. The question here is whether or not to include the Greek debt crisis in the lede - either it belongs or it doesn't. If there had been an NPOV issue then the way forward would have been to discuss which words to use. The observation cited above this post on the crisis being more relevant than those on a presented list are a matter of one's opinion. As regards any editor interested in the crisis, he has the Greek government-debt crisis article and this is linked three times across the Greece page. Furthermore, the Argentina lede contains not a single word of the 1998–2002 Argentine great depression whereby the country had a debt that far outstripped that for Greece, needless to say the default of December 2001, and the subsequent December 2001 riots in Argentina. Those are points for an article, not a lede. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 06:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OJ, the pleasure is totally mine! Regarding the topic, we should really think if we would like to have an old-school, static, 18-century style encyclopedia, or if we would like a reader-proactive contemporary corpus of articles. In particular, should we write the articles considering the interests of potential readers? The crisis arguably is the most important current aspect of Greece, because it is what most Greeks talk about, and what most humanoids talk when referring about Greece (in the last years, not last days). If you think Aristotles, etc ... is what people care most right now, then I surrender my position. OppositeGradient ( talk) 08:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Comments of CU-confirmed blocked sock struck

We are all in agreement that essential details should be included in the article. Nobody has requested its removal from the page, and one hour ago there were three links to the crisis throughout the article. But to know what goes into the opening lines, it is explained in WP:LEDE, whereas if you read the comments by other editors here and at Talk:Greece, you'll see that WP:RECENT is mentioned. -- Oranges Juicy ( talk) 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the recent economic crisis in Greece doesn't belong in the lede section. This is severe recentism. It does belong in the body of the article, given its global significance for the past several years. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of the indef blocked Sulmues ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please do not engage him. Athenean ( talk) 00:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note:

1. Policy, and uninvolved editors on this noticeboard, support the inclusion of Greece's extraordinary economic failures in our Greece article.
2. Greek editors have systematically removed such content from various pages.
3. Athenean, for example, has removed mentions of Greek economic bungling from our Greece article.
4. Now Athenean accuses OppositeGradient of being a sock, although that seems to be based on the fact that Athenean disagrees with OppositeGradient, as there's no SPI. Pray tell, Athenean, how many accusations of sockpuppetry have you made in the past that got shot down?

I wonder how long it is until this reaches ArbCom? bobrayner ( talk) 00:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bobrayner, you're welcome to state your own case as to whether the content belongs in the lead, but OppositeGradient is a sock. I'm just trying to establish who the puppet-master is. There are no WP:ASPERSIONS being cast by Athenean in order to divert attention. The potential disruption is, however, leading editors away from the point of the discussion. Let's just concentrate on the issue at hand as individual editors and judge on the merits of the individual arguments. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As a P.S., we've had the same problems on the articles on Russia and Ukraine regarding the Crimean crisis and the war in Donbass. Consensus stands at WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM as the rule of thumb for content. It is unacceptable for a broad-based article dealing with historical, cultural, ethnographic, geophysical and other subsections to be turned into a WP:COATRACK. Any mention of recent events is kept extremely brief in the body of the article, not in the lead, and hatnotes are used for readers looking for current affairs. Feel free to peruse the talk page archives of those articles for the RfC's and consensus discussions. Opting for introducing trojans is the perfect way to attract POV-ers from every side who can't get their 2¢ in on the WP:TITLE related current affairs articles and troll around every other article even vaguely related to the subject matter. Keep the article on topic: it really is that simple. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, thank you Iryna. I also have to note that apart from the ethnic baiting from the usual quarters, I guess Sammy1339 and Oranges Juicy are not considered NPOV or uninvolved enough. That only goes to show that for some people the only good and neutral POV is the POV of people who agree with them. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 02:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And just now we have confirmation that both OppositeGradient and another Albanian POVWARRIOR account have been blocked as socks [22]. I realize that some people may be be disappointed by this, but I hope this concludes this discussion, and that we can all move on with building an encyclopedia. Athenean ( talk) 20:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us, Athenean. It's saved me having to sink more time into compiling the list of diffs I was going to submit. Let's just strike through OppositeGrandient's contributions to talk pages and get on with it. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Following Iryna's thanks, I also thank you Athenean. It's a thankless task going after socks and it gets even more so when people seem to challenge you and doubt your continuing success in uncovering their activities. Keep up the good work regardless. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 23:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we have some fresh eyes on Men's rights movement in India, please? The article reads almost wholly like a promotion of the men's rights movement in India — everything else is crammed into a brief criticism section at the end, which probably few readers ever reach (it's quite a long article). Having negative views and information ghettoized in a special criticism section is depreceated, see WP:CRITICISM. The criticism needs to be incorporated into the article, in a way such that, for instance, a statement by a "researcher" that "police don't take any action even if the suicide note of a man states that he was tortured by his wife and in-laws, but in case of a woman's suicide her husband's family is taken into custody without investigation" might possibly be put into perspective, or even contradicted by somebody, in place (as opposed to elsewhere in this long article). The overall impression the article purveys is that the major problems affecting men, women and family life in India are false dowry cases, false rape accusations, women demanding exorbitant alimony, and the high suicide rate of married men because they're unable to withstand verbal, emotional, economic and physical abuse from their wives. I don't want to edit it, both because it's not a field I've studied, and because I want to remain uninvolved in case I need to take admin action per the article probation it's under (see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation). If nobody else wants to edit this article either, with a view to introducing fresh perspectives, I guess we're stuck with it. :-(

I see in the history that many people have made good reverts of the worst material, but much too cautiously IMO, without addressing the basic structure and viewpoint of the text. Kenfyre is basically the only person who has edited the article since December 2014. It's not my intention to criticise him, as he's clearly a careful, competent editor, but he has followed quite closely the pattern that was already there, mainly just adding more court decisions, more men's rights organisations, etc (and, note, also more criticisms in the criticism section). Mere addition of more of the same does little to address the article's structural problems.

I've posted the same criticism on the article talkpage, but I'm putting it here to get some eyes on it, because I don't think the talkpage is widely read. Apart from templates, it has only been edited five times since it was created eight years ago, with a concern from 2007 that "those who are not sympathetic to issues regarding men's rights may try to vandalise this article" still the first thing that meets the eye. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

I support the suggestions made. I will integrate the "Criticism" section into the main body. However, I may require help in finding more sources regarding criticism of the movement. The current sources on criticism are not many and do not address all the issues mentioned in the article. - Kenfyre ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a bit of a nightmare, isn't it. There are a few specific ways that the article might be improved, not all of which involve the mainstreaming of "criticisms," but rather through use of a more neutral tone and by presenting more varied perspectives on the issues being discussed. For example, it includes the following passage:

"According to Amartya Talukdar, the [proposed marriage] bill, which introduces the concept of no-fault divorce and marital property is not fair for men. It will put the institution of marriage in jeopardy."

The paragraph in question does not explain what function the proposed marriage law is meant to serve, why it was considered necessary (presumably because women's property rights are in need of protection?), or why Mr. Talukdar considers it unfair. It also states, without clear attribution, that the law would jeopardize the institution of marriage--not a claim that should be made in Wikipedia's voice.

The section on false rape accusations is more egregious. It describes how men's rights activists believe that the low rate of rape convictions is attributable to a high prevalence of false rape accusations, and proceeds to selectively cite evidence in support of this hypothesis. As though sexual violence in India is nothing but a myth perpetrated by scorned women. This is where alternative perspectives should be introduced per NPOV.

The article also contains statements like this one: "Child's Right and Family Welfare was formed to demand fairer laws for men, including better child custody and access laws," which amounts to an endorsement of the idea that the existing laws are unfair towards men.

There are bigger problems with the article, of course. It's a chronicle of pretty trivial events and statements and ultimately doesn't really explain the issues with any lucidity. But resolving the above issues could be a start. TheBlueCanoe 23:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd burn the entire article to the ground and start again. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 18:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I sympathise, User:Sceptre. No improvements have actually been made to the article since I started this thread. User:Kenfyre, you said above that "I will integrate the "Criticism" section into the main body. However, I may require help in finding more sources regarding criticism of the movement." Are you waiting for that help? Have you asked for it at the projects the article is supposedly of interest to? (India, gender studies, men's issues.) Because I don't think sourcing help will appear spontaneously; neither this noticeboard nor the article talkpage see that much traffic. Kenfyre, please don't take my questions personally, as criticism of you; I know very well that you're a volunteer like the rest of us, and hopefully we all sometimes have better things to do than edit Wikipedia. But frankly, I think nominating for deletion per WP:TNT might be the way to go here. It should either bring about improvements (hooray) or get the article deleted (also hooray). Well… or else the Indian men's rights activists who have been absent from this discussion, and for a long time also from the article, will appear in numbers to defend status quo (not so much hooray). Pinging a few people in the hope of more input: Sitush, SlimVirgin, EvergreenFir, Johnuniq, Hithladaeus, Floquenbeam, Tony1. What do you think? Is AfD the way to go? TheBlueCanoe, what's your opinion? Bishonen | talk 09:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

I agree with what Bishonen says. In my view, we should ensure that the site's policies and guidelines on balance and verification are applied rigorously. Tony (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Myself, I can see TNT. Finding criticisms of Indian laws in their treatment of women is blindingly easy. That, of course, is more of a "that side/this side" that Wikipedia should not endorse, and the problem with the article in general is that it lists grievances and justifies the existence of the phenomenon it purports to report. That's a fundamental problem. The article should be very, very brief, in essence, because NPOV requires that we merely report that such things exist, that they emerged in a polemical environment, and that they may or may not enjoy popular support (this is potentially tendentious, but reliable polling might be available; the Pew Centers, to name one American source, polls in India, although typically not on intra-Indian issues), and then that's it. No, "women cry wolf" and no "no they don't" and no "marriage reforms hurt marriage." That just becomes a compendium of ideology. Hithladaeus ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Been looking this article over, and I would support a WP:TNT approach. Currently, is a collection of opinions and allegations from Men's rights groups, with no regard to whether those have any basis in reality. Sources from the Indian media aren't much use in determining due weight here, because they simply are reporting every allegation. If we started over, we might have a chance at creating something that is actually about the movement, rather than the statements made by its members. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 03:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Bishonen: @ TheBlueCanoe: @ Hithladaeus: @ Vanamonde93: @ Sceptre: Some of the proposed edits have been implemented. I am still working on it. However, review the current version of the article to examine if a WP:TNT will be necessary or should I continue in this direction. A diff can be examined here. - Kenfyre ( talk) 10:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Kenfyre:; yes, I still believe so. I am not suggesting that your contributions are worthless; you have made an immense effort to clean it up, especially with respect to referencing. In my opinion, however, the whole direction of the page needs to be changed somewhat, hence the suggestion of WP:TNT. If you strongly feel there is salvageable material there, userfying might be an option. What do others think of that? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 13:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur, both with the idea of TNT and with thanking Kenfyre for doing good work. I think his edits have been helpful. One technique for "preserve and cut" is to make sections into, essentially, compound sentences. E.g. "There are numerous groups affiliated with the cause of 'men's rights' in contemporary India, including one, two, three, and four, which arose in opposition to various legislative actions and changes in culture." It allows for curious readers to follow the footnotes, if they're dying to do so, to see the banner cases for each, but it also makes it clear that a general article on the existence of MRM in India is not intended to be an articulation of their causes nor a platform for explaining their justifications. Given the construction of the article at present, it appears that its "2003-8" breakouts reflect cases rather than actual MR anyway, so even the long form as we have it kind of fails the ostensible point of allowing all that room. Again, I mean no disrespect or aspersions on Kenfyre's edits. He's got a baggy, shaggy beast under hand. Hithladaeus ( talk) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have moved a copy to my userpage. Feel free to WP:TNT. But, this page will still require a constant watch in the future, against vandalism and over-enthusiastic editors. - Kenfyre ( talk) 13:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is a POV nighmare, no denying that. I'm familiar with the men's rights movement topic area and I've tried to remove some of the blatant OR from the MRM in India page in the past. In my opinion, the page is not salvageable. Most of the content is OR, the rest is repetitions of what is already stated in the Save Indian Family (SIF) and Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF) articles (I still don't get why we need to pages for essentially the same thing). As for User:Kenfyre's additions, I'm sorry to say, but the vast majority is OR. Like his two most recent edits [23] [24], most of the material he adds and the sources he uses do not discuss the men's rights movement in India. Only a handful of the 139 sources actually deal with men's rights activists in India and of those all deal with SIF/SIFF activists. To give a more obvious example, look at the Flase rape cases section that Kenfyre added. It's apparent that only two of the 20 sources in the section mention men's rights groups. The rest is a WP:Coatrack collection of "notable verdicts" (notable how? who says they are?) and news reports of statistics. It's apparent from that and all other sections that the page wants to prove men's rights talking points instead of informing readers what the men's rights movement is, who the activists are, what they do and say. For instance, the article goes out of its way to prove the men's rights claim that false accusations of rape and domestic violence are super common by presenting carefully selected "notable verdicts", opinions, statistics, events, all sourced to news reports. Even if one doesn't object to the in-your-face POV, the amount of OR on that page is staggering. If someone went through the article and removed all material sourced to refs that do not even mention the subject of the article and do not link their information to the MRM in India, the majority of the content would have to go. User:Bishonen, User:Sceptre, User:Hithladaeus, User:Vanamonde93, it may be worth trying AfD but I think that many people will vote keep and improve anyway. The better solution is to remove all original research. Claims by SIFF activists will be all that remains. If we transfer that remaining content to the SIF/SIFF articles, the men's rights movement in India page will be empty. All the content that actually deals with the MRM appears to be about SIF/SIFF and its founder Ram Prakash Chugh anyway ( [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]...). Perhaps it's best to redirect to SIF/SIFF. -- SonicY (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's a good idea. Redirected to Save Indian Family Foundation. If I'm reverted, I suppose it may be time to think of AfD. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC).
• The court cases were considered notable because they are related to the topic. There are some instances of courts and legal panels taking cognizance of the issues raised by the activists. For example the "proposed guidelines for joint custody and shared parenting" issued by the Law Commission, is related to CRISP's demands. Some of the cases have set legal precedents in the issues. These should be retained and the rest should be removed. For example, the 2 July 2014 verdict of the Supreme Court stopped arrests in anti-dowry cases. All cases are High Court or Supreme Court cases, any lower level cases have not been included. I don't think the statistics should be removed if they have neutral and reliable citations, for example the suicide statistics are from NCRB. I don't think that the article will be empty if all SIFF and above-suggested material is removed. However, I think we should wait on these suggestions until the NPOV debate on the parent article Men's rights movement is settled. The consensus reached on that article can be applied to this and related articles. - Kenfyre ( talk) 11:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not state that the verdicts are related to the demands of Indian men's rights organizations. The refs describe the issue and the verdict, without mentioning the MRM in India. „For example, the 2 July 2014 verdict of the Supreme Court stopped arrests in anti-dowry cases“ – that material may be relevant for the Dowry system in India but not the MRM page, unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this verdict with regard to the Indian men's rights movement. For example, if a RS reports that the Save Indian Family Foundation commented on or influenced or was in some other way connected to the verdict, it might make sense to include that. But, per WP:Coatrack, editors must not add any material they personally regard as important or relevant. For instance, if people added any rape case verdict, any rape statistic and any information they consider relevant, the page would quickly become a selective collection of information about rape, masquerading as a page about the MRM in India. I understand that you have worked on the article and contributed a great deal and do not want your additions removed. But the page must describe the MRM in India as it's presented in reliable secondary sources, not argue their case for them by carefully selecting verdicts and stats and events. The place to argue that women are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence is the domestic violence article, not the MRM page. We can say that men's rights activists believe that and the type of statistics and research they cite but we cannot add stuff that we consider important to support them. -- SonicY (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for that careful analysis. I support Bishonen's that replaced the article with a redirect to Save Indian Family Foundation because the original article was beyond repair as it was littered with phrases like "to handle false cases of dowry and torture" with no source discussing whether it is 1% or 99% of such cases that are "false". Johnuniq ( talk) 11:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article had noted that the conviction rate was 15% for dowry cases and 24.2% for rape cases. - Kenfyre ( talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. This is an update and a request for wider participation. The request for comment asks for community feedback on a one-sentence addition to the existing "Funding" section of the article Americans for Prosperity that summarizes multiple sources. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Your comments are needed. Attention from uninvolved editors with some previous experience with the appropriate application of WP:DUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:COATRACK is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the request for comment question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. This request for comment will probably be closing next week. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Thanks. Hugh ( talk) 15:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This request for comment will most likely close Thursday, 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our WP:DUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE content policies remain central to the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh ( talk) 15:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User Saint458 has justified this revert of my edit with WP:POV citing also WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTHESIS as well as relying on a single source. User Saint458 and I are really very far from each other, the user reads into my edits that I consider the topic under discussion ( Anti-fascism) a "truly evil" term, something that I cannot agree to. I for my part consider my reverted edit to already be motivated on the talk page or the edit summaries as:

• Justified by a single source, since the edit is clearly attributed to that source
• Not WP:UNDUE since the author of the cited source ( Norman Davies) is already cited hundreds and hundreds of times on Wikipedia (as well as described on Wikipedia as "widely regarded as one of the preeminent historians of Central and Eastern European history", topics which are relevant to the edit under discussion).
• Not WP:SYNTHESIS, all parts of the edit are supported by the source.
• Not WP:POV pushing, but rather the opposite that omitting the currently reverted text leaves the article incomplete and unbalanced. As such the contested edit would address for example this request from a different user, as well as this request which has interested three editors.

I wrote my reverted contribution two weeks ago and still think it is justified, with its actual formulations subject to modification if need be. The cited source includes a link to Google books, so anyone should be able to inspect the cited source and suggest changes to the formulations, but in spite of my offer to reformulate the edit no such suggestions have been made so far. One thing that user Saint458 and I agree to is to get an outside opinion. So here I am. Lklundin ( talk) 10:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Poorly attributed summary of single source - quotations without providing page numbers and a general lack of context and clarification.
2. Synthesis of content is plain to see in this comment on the talk page where you explained your attempt to illustrate the irreconcilable differences between anti-fascists of different eras - an idea that is clearly not supported by Davies or in the chronik-der-mauer reference.
3. Highlighting the fact that people have requested a history section does not show that your edits were within the confines of WP:NPOV. As I stated on the talk page you've described anti-fascism as a "truly evil" term [37], and tried to synthesise sources in order to promote your POV.

- Saint458 ( talk) 12:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

the heading looks POV and needs to be-written. That said, the rest of the copy in question looks good. I see this revert as clearly tendentious. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 16:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could we please get some more eyes on David Paul Kuhn? I'm concerned that recent edits to the page have been promotional and have made the page worse rather than improved it. I've attempted engaging in dialogue at the talk page but that doesn't seem to have worked. If anyone could drop by and give your two cents on the neutrality of the page that would be appreciated. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 23:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

///

PolNewsReaderWiki view:

I appreciate Safehaven86 attempting to find a neutral observer to arbitrate this (overdone) dispute. I addressed the issues I had with Safehaven86’s conduct in detail in my letter near the bottom of the Talk page related to this subject’s page. I have felt generally bullied by user Safhaven86, among other issues. But I will try to stick with the issue. Let me summarize some of it:

- I pointed out to Safehaven86 over a week ago other examples of those in political media I edited. Including: Chris Cillizza, Jules Witcover, Chuck Todd, and more. For one, I noted them because I added nothing this subject’s page I did not on others. In fact, after much back and forth, I had noted positive reviews in much greater detail on other pages.

- I also noted these people in political media because I had to determine if Safehaven86 had an issue with my editing or an issue with the subject of this page. In other words, I was trying to determine bias. Safehaven86 made no bones with those other subjects. Thus I logically determined bias. . Safehaven86 doesn't focus on politics. She had inserted errors on this page in the past. This all, also, raised my radar.

- I did not touch the language around the subject’s first book, The Neglected Voter. That language stood for years. I understood that as a Wiki consensus. Still, when I fixed outdated info on page, in order to improve page, I spent a bit of time and researched and added links to articles written in Washington Times, Economist, and Time magazine. Safehaven86 cut all those links.

- Safehaven86 had issue with the line The Neglected Voter received “wide praise.” Again that was entered by other editors years before me. Safehaven86 cites her respect for Wiki consensus but then scrubbed those words. I went back to the editors who did put in those words. I’m guessing they did it because they had read articles on the book but also, maybe even more, they had read the endorsements of figures across party lines on the Amazon page. I found that here: http://www.amazon.com/Neglected-Voter-White-Democratic-Dilemma ebook/dp/B001AW2PKA/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1439231118&sr=8-1&keywords=the+neglected+voter www.davidpaulkuhn.com/neglected-voter.html. At this link, I see an endorsement from political figures like Wes Clark and Tucker Carlson, who agree on little in politics, as well as Larry Sabato of UVA, etc. References to these endorsements are now cut. This means the comment about broad “praise” loses context.

- Safehaven86 now argues to cut link on Economist article because “Economist link fails verification--it's not a review of the book, it only mentions it in passing and does not praise it.” The article was added because it’s on the central topic of the book. It quotes Kuhn in it as well. And of course, it only mentions the book in passing. News articles are this way. Yet this is ironic, because Safehaven86 previous chose a random polling article that actually had nothing to do with the book, but mentioned it, and argued it should be the primary source at the top of the page. Again, see Talk page related to “David Paul Kuhn”

- Listen, I think it’s good to have some description of a book on Wiki pages and not just list them. If we just list, we'll all soon be replaced by bots. This is subjective, of course. I thought, having read the novel, citing NJ former Governor Christine Todd Whitman’s line was descriptive but not “promotional.” See What Makes It Worthy Amazon page. So when I finished working the page, I quoted only her saying it is “a love story and an exposé on modern American campaigns.” From here: http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Worthy-David-Paul-ebook/dp/B0115NW79C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

But I have not fought ridding the page of that line. This is because another editor weighed in. I think the page now has a middle ground, and is more monotone, a little less interesting, if you will, than many pages about political subjects. But no biggie.

In the end, this dispute is overdone, unfortunate, generally exaggerated, in view. And yet, perhaps because of Safehaven's scrubbing the page-- and how I felt this user behaved after I tried to heed the user's views-- I think it's important to take a stand even on these smaller matters. But frankly, I'd rather spend this time updating my next subject, my next page.

I am not perfect. For example, I'm still working on being sure I cite sources in the Wiki style. But in the end, I've done nothing on this page I have not with the others I work in politics and political media. And in the course of that work, I've corrected outdated information, noted missing books, added detail.

I look forward to other editors’ views. Thanks!

~PolNewsReaderWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolNewsReaderWiki ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral Observer Comment

Talk:David_Paul_Kuhn - This page shows little dialogue about article changes, let alone dialogue or a "letter near the bottom of the Talk page related to this subject’s page" as described by @ PolNewsReaderWiki:. The talk page discussion is between @ Safehaven86 and Location:, predominantly Safehaven86, about citations and language used.

@ Safehaven86 and PolNewsReaderWiki:, have either of you actually started dialogue on the article's talk page, though looking at the Talk page's edit history the answer is no. Or is there a User talk page discussion occurring that has not been listed? I ask since the first guide to posting a request here is "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." There has been a User Talk page discussion here. Neither of you have though Safehaven86 has some discussion of sourcing and WP:RS. You have included the article page but not the article talk page.

I am starting a section in the ARTICLE TALK PAGE about NPOV concerns and the edit-war occurring between Users Safehaven86 and PolNewsReaderWiki, and I am sending out a notification to the previous editors based on the page's edit history to start conversation and hopefully address the concerns of both users.

If anyone has any problems with this approach, please let me know. Dr Crazy 102 ( talk) 01:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit that I've not yet investigated the history of the Music community article in detail, but I stumbled across this noticeboard after posting a link to an article called ".music applicant caught using bogus Wikipedia page" for possible inclusion in The Signpost and adding a "POV" to the article in question. I am having trouble accessing many of the sources used to construct the article, which means assessing its tone can be somewhat difficult. I am inviting other editors, especially those who are more familiar with this process, to tag the article and/or improve it as needed. This may be the first time I've added the "POV" tag to an article (this is not the sort of work I usually do at Wikipedia), but given the DomainIncite article I thought some research from more experienced editors would be helpful. Thank you for your consideration. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, imho the only right process for this article is a course through AfD: currently it seems like a hotchpotch of primary source material, brought together in a WP:OR fashion. The article mentions only two secondary sources (Unesco, Participations article), neither of them uses the expression "music community"; the others appear to be primary sources only (thesises, research papers, ...), the only one accessible of these sources (Monaghan 2008) uses a definition of "music community" (strictly for the purposes of its own research) that is incompatible with the definition used in the Wikipedia article. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Discussion continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music community -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Betsy DeVos article, and the similar one on her husband are overflowing with promotional, unsourced, and unreliably sourced trivia, and have been stripped of all material critical of the subjects (and there's lots of it, findable in second with Google). Literally 3/4 of this article can be safely deleted, and even then it will still be terribly biased. I've outlined briefly the issues at Talk:Betsy DeVos, but a cleanup operation on this pair of professionally PR-managed pseudo-articles is outside my editing scope, and I have many other fish to fry (I just came across the page while WP:GNOMEing, and found it appalling. PS: Both subjects are notable, so cleanup not page deletion is needed. PS: A WP:COI editor working on these pages was recently indeffed.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I cut some of the worst fluff out of the Betsy DeVos article. Lots more to do though. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

See talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. My attempts to link to the actual RfC, instead of just the page, are not working. If anyone knows how to fix that, please do. Iran nuclear weapons 2 ( talk) 19:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

An RfC about whether or not inclusion of not yet broadcast shows is UNDUE weight is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#RfC_-_Should_TV_network_pages_include_future_programming_lists.3F. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC) ^{Fixed the link to an internal as was seemingly intended from original post, Dr Crazy 102 ( talk) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)}

I believe this section gives an inappropriate negative slant to the article and is not in keeping with NPOV or other articles on game shows and should be removed. The main editor Launchballer disagrees. See Talk & [38] Scowie ( talk) 18:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate edit conflicts, with a passion. Anyway, when providing the requested comment please consider the extent to which the section was slashed down between what Scowie first blanked and the current state and this DRN closing comment.-- Laun chba ller 19:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

See [39]. His argument is that this isn't a reliable source, but we've been over that one time and time again. What I actually see with this editor is an attempt to remove any critical material from the article and make it a brochure for the ADF, just as he has done with Alan Sears, the president of the ADF which he has filled with quotations from Sears showcasing his positions. He'd agreed earlier to cut them down (there's also a potential copyvio issue) but didn't, so I did and he restored them. Doug Weller ( talk) 15:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you not notify me me as required? I stumbled upon this by chance. I should have given proper notice so that I can defend myself. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would further note that I restored the the material sourced to SPLC (with.a POV tag) on my own initiative before I even knew of this complaint in order to foster civility. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 16:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the question here isn't reliability but WP:DUE. The SLPC is clearly a reliable source for its own opinions (and in this case the article makes it clear that it's just the SLPC's opinions), but not all opinions belong in an article. So the only question is whether their opinions are worth including. I'd say that they definitely are; the SLPC is probably the most notable organization out there when it comes to discussion of hate groups, so their opinion that a group is a hate group is worth at least a sentence or two. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A WP:SPS is not reliable for claims made about third parties. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

First, that rule only applies to "living people" as defined by WP:BLP, which explicitly does not cover groups; the purpose of it is to protect individuals (who are more likely to be harmed), not to protect organizations. Second, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the official SPLC website qualifies as a self-published source; it does not fall under "...personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets." Official websites for major organizations are and have always been considered to be reliable sources for the opinions of those organizations, even when (unlike this case) they are discussing individuals protected by BLP. Otherwise, your objection would amount to saying "we need a secondary source reporting that the SPLC has said this", which doesn't make sense if we agree that the SPLC's opinion is automatically worth including. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong on every count. WP:SPS is part of WP:V, and by extension is duplicated at WP:BLP. WP:V is not part of WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP does not apply. Their official website is by definition a SELF-PUBLISHED source. They are publishing it THEMSELVES. If you can find a reliable secondary source, that is, a THIRD-PARTY source, with a reputation for fact-checking, and editorial oversight, then you can put it back in, but you simply cannot rely on an "official website" of some org for claims made about third parties. Elizium23 ( talk) 03:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether this is really the kind of source that WP:SPS is meant to rule out (which I don't concede), I would argue that SPLC meets the criteria of being "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Their assessment of groups like ADF (and many others) is constantly being cited in the mainstream media. (BTW, your comment directly above comes across as a little overly combative with the caps and all - maybe tone it down just a tick?) Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• The section of WP:SPS that states "never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" refers to living people as defined by WP:BLP; an organization is not a living person. Alliance Defending Freedom is not a living person, so a suitably-qualified WP:SPS can be used as a source about it., Suggesting that it would completely forbid people from using an SPS from that qualifies as "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" as a source about a company or group is simply incorrect. Your assertion that WP:SPS applies here is completely wrong and does not reflect either policy or usage in any way, shape, or form. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're prooftexting and you didn't read the whole policy. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The SPLC is routinely quoted in articles about extreme groups, both in academic articles and the media. There are no policy reasons to make an exception here. TFD ( talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument for anything. There are no policy reasons to support quoting the SPLC's official site for claims about third parties. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, The SPLC has a well-earned reputation for mischaracterizing mainstream conservative and religious organizations as "hate" groups. Lumping the Alliance Defending Freedom in with the Klan and neo-Nazis violates both the letter and spirit of numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, there are even academic studies covering this bias. See Here. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 19:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Academic studies? Perhaps not. "Academic Questions is its journal, a counter-counter-cultural quarterly which defends anti-PC traditionalism in the sort of feisty, underdoggish tone more often associated with insurgent causes and opposition parties." "Though written mainly by scholars, it is a missionary journal, not a scholarly one." [40] -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This sure looks like an academic journal to me. Academic Questions.] The organization that publishes it looks scholarly and the article in question is sold through Springer, which specializes in academic articles. BTW this is the link to the article itself.It documents a long history of left-wing bias at SPLC. Intermittentgardener ( talk) 20:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

re "Lumping" - please provide the evidence of the statement. I can criticize both pokemon and pornstars, but this does not mean I am "lumping" them together. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This abstract discussion of reliability is pointless, because the issue of reliability, just like of Verifiability must be considered only in the context of specific claims, which correctness may be contested. Now, please explain which part of the following claim by SPLC:

The ADF has a record of sharp anti-gay bigotry. Its president, Alan Sears, co-wrote a rabidly anti-gay 2003 book, sold by the ADF, called The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. The book is filled with anti-gay diatribes and argues that the demise of anti-sodomy laws will lead to overturning “laws against pedophilia, sex between close relatives, polygamy, bestiality and all other distortions and violations of God’s plan.” Also in 2003, the ADF sent out a “prayer alert” that said overturning the laws would “be an affront to our Constitution, to our nation’s heritage and history, and to God’s Word.” It filed an amicus brief defending anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

is contested. Without a specific contest, the whole stuff is but an exercise in wikilawyering. Staszek Lem ( talk) 02:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

3 weeks later and I'd completely forgotten about this until Intermittengardener correctly castigated me for not telling him about this discussion (unfortunately we diagree as to whether I simply forgot or deliberately didn't tell him. I did know that it had been restored, but thought that this would be a better venue than a quiet talk page. I'm concerned about any suggestion that we can't use comments from the SPLC because it's said to meet WP:SPS - that would prevent us from using anything by any organisation, group, political party, business or perhaps even government. If anyone seriously is still arguing this we need to invite people from Talk:Verifiability. Note also that SPS covers " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." I can't see how the SPLC falls into this category. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely this must have been written by a die-hard Ang Lee fan, right? The opening has this sentence:

"Lee's insight into the human heart has allowed his films to transcend cultural and linguistic barriers to speak to audiences all over the world."

The whole article is full of stuff like this. Basically, it's an article about how great Ang Lee is, how hard his life choices have been, how great his movies are, and how he deserves to be idolized. I put up template messages, but other than that I don't even know where to start. Friginator ( talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As its coming up to the centenary of his death. I think it's important to perceiver on having the truth printed in here. I am I guess the the closest eldest living male relative to this person and from my grandmother down is removed from all information here. The actions of the last Earl are not posted in any truth. My previous attempts have been deleted. Sorry I've started a new account. I am sure there are amazing researches that can accurately explain what the present situation is. D. John Saunders ( talk) 22:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make a comment on the above article which I believe is politicised. Namely Palestine or Assyria/Assyrio Palestine was born (according to western curriculum) of the Assyrian invasion of 740 BC and did not exist before that time according to the ancient maps I studied in the west. If this is the case the term Paleo-Canaanites may not be valid. Many other tribes are also mentioned who weren't necessarily in control but who possibly lived in Canaan during that era, but there are reasons to suggest that some were part of an occupancy of an earlier era of Assyrian domination which displaced the Isrealites who were original to the land. If this is the case as it has been suggested, then the term Paleo-Canaanites may be correct. Nevertheless the term Palestine should only be used between the period of the Assyrian orders and the end of world war 2. That is to be legally and politically correct. With regard to the eras of foreign domination listed within the article. I don't believe the Babylonian Empire need be included because it was a colony of the Assyrian Empire and where the Isrealites were forced to inhabit for the first fifty years of the Assyrian domination of 740 BC. How would a city overthrow an empire? I say this because evidence of earlier Assyrian dominance and control is found in Genesis chapter 14:1-20. Also Abram who has recently entered Canaan, is not a stranger to the King of Sodom or the King of Salem (Jerusalem), and his nephew Lot is living in Sodom and very nearly transported by the King of Assyria, although when they first parted ways he intended to inhabit Zoar. Both were cities of the planes around the Dead Sea which were not a part of the land of Canaan. Abram, together with his family, first set off for Canaan from Ur of the Chaldeons (a seat of power in the Assyrian Empire?). Ur, the place of his father's birth, was almost definitely an Assyrian colony so Abram and his tribe are likely to have been indigenous to the land around and about Canaan according to what the bible and other (later) evidence portrays (edicts, maps and displaced peoples who still exist). But no evidence of the tribe of Abram, soon to be Israel, also due to being displaced through war and famine. The latter may have been a tactic of the Assyrian army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.239.92 ( talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to look at this article, particularly the "examples" section? There's been a lot of discussion lately on the talk page about NPOV and sources generally. Thanks. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 06:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that neither the human trafficking or the campus sexual assault sections should be there - if we're listing examples of moral panics then we need to be listing things that are actually moral panics according to the majority of RS. And that's not the case for either human trafficking or campus sexual assault. Listing them as "examples" of moral panics privileges the perspective of people who argue that these are moral panics (ie, issues where much of the concern is imaginary/overblown) over those who define them as legitimate, serious concerns. In reality, those issues are hotly contested and there's no consensus among RS that they're "moral panics" rather than serious/actual crises. So listing those two under the examples seems totally POV to me. We should stick to things that have consistently been identified as moral panics in most (and the most) reliable sources. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Campus sexual assault is also used as a major example in Moral entrepreneur, probably should not be there either for the same reasons. Cyrej ( talk) 10:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Campus sexual assault clearly doesn't belong on the list; given that the term has specific academic meaning, putting something in the 'examples' section purely because it was used in a handful of editorials does not seem reasonable. Human trafficking has slightly higher-quality sources, but I'm a bit concerned about the fact that it needs the "Many contemporary critics..." phrasing. I would also take a closer look at "Video games", which has only three sources, one of which is a blog and one of which is labeled 'comment', which makes me assume it's just commentary (it's also a dead link, so I can't tell for sure.) The only usable source does use the term in the title, but doesn't seem to mention it beyond that; I'm not sure a mention in passing is enough to support a section here. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As an involved editor in the discussion at hand, it would have been appreciated if the parties to this discussion had first brought their concerns to talk:moral panic instead of jumping right to this noticeboard. Also, the courtesy of some kind of notification that this discussion was being started would have been appreciated as well. Etamni |  ✉ |  ✓  11:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This article (blog post written by expert) is one of the sources being used to support the statement "['British style' is] also called 'logical quotation'" in Quotation marks in English. Opponents say that it is "anti-logical punctuation." Supporter says that because the article is supporting a neutral statement, its stance doesn't matter.

Article: [41] Author: [42] Diff: [43]

Thank you. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 11:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC regarding an amendment to MEDRS, specifically asking if we should or shouldn't allow high-quality sources to be rejected because of the country in which the research is published. Any interested editors are welcome to comment. LesVegas ( talk) 00:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi is alleged terrorist of mumbai attacks. ^[1]India blamed the Pakistan and lakhvi for this attack and raised the issue in united nations ^[2] while pakistan questions on Evidences ^{[3] [4]}

After reading this article the tone of this article does not seams neutral to me because most of the statements are written by Indian point of view basically referenced with indian news sites.i think in this article the references should be from Neutral third party sources instead of indian news sites.

As i am a new user i will welcome your suggestions. HIAS ( talk) 14:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the “etymology” section of Canada in line with NPOV policy? Has the etymology of the word “Canada” been a subject of debate for years/centuries? If so should we have in the etymology section a brief paragraph with a concise reference to such historical debate? Is the etymology of Canada clearly established today or there are still several theories accepted as plausible? - Please read relevant discussion on Talk:Canada page and comment - J Pratas ( talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to JPratas repeatedly, the main article on Canada itself is not the place to delve into extended historical debate about whether there have ever been alternative historical theories about the etymology of the name. There is already a separate article, Name of Canada, which already includes the Portuguese "nothing here" explanation which JPratas favours and is already linked via a "more information at another article" template right at the top of the very section JPratas is disputing — and I've been actively expanding the content of that article over the past couple of days, to boot. But the main article on Canada is an overview article which has to touch on everything from history to geography to culture to politics to science to hockey to international diplomacy to demographics, and thus needs to briefly summarize each individual area rather than delving as deeply into each individual area as spinoff subpages do. So it's not the place to write an entire essay about any historical debate about the matter, if such debate doesn't actually still hold any real currency today.

JPratas is also relying on 200-year-old sources to portray the matter as if it were still in any substantive debate in 2015, which is not how this works. Nobody's denying that alternative theories have existed, and nobody's trying to suppress any acknowledgement of them — but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to portray the matter and appropriate and inappropriate places to get into it. Name of Canada, not the main overview article about the country itself, is the correct place, and the way the content is already handled in that article is the correct and neutral way. What JPratas is trying to do, however, is neither of those things. Bearcat ( talk) 16:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I was told of this discussion. Thanks to J Pratas for starting it and informing me of it.

There actually isn't a debate for the etymology. There is one, official version. Cartier records it in his diary. He met some Iroquois who used the word kanata to refer to a specific village or settlement. Cartier later applied to the entire area, and by 1545, European books and maps had labelled the region as Canada. He and his explorers created the maps of the region. They labelled the maps. Those maps returned to Europe.

So some who live on the Iberian penitential use the term aca nada or cà nada, meaning "nothing here". It's not clear if that term was used before Cartier recorded it. There's no date to the legends around it. There is certainly some record that it has was a term used, but it could be a sailor's legend. There's no indication that they made any maps of the area along the St. Laurence where the name was applied. There's no indication on the existing Spanish and Portuguese maps of the era that they sailed into the St. Laurence at all. They didn't even travel as far north as what is today New York. Even if they had reached the Marritime provinces, it was known as Acadia in the 1500s. See http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/7400/7482/7482.htm and http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8400/8495/8495.htm Show me where "ca nada" appears on this map: File:1562-Diego Gutiérrez.jpg Clearly, the Iberian explorers did not have contact with the Iroquois--none of their records show them going up the St. Lawrence. And that's really the key. The few sources that even discuss this idea (none of my general Canadian history books do) admit it's a fringe theory or more likely that it's improbable. The correct location for a discussion of this sort of theory is in the article on the etymology of the name of Canada, as Bearcat stated. If we include it in the main article on the subject we suffer from WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

I do not intend to return to discuss this further. If someone other than the nominator needs my attention, feel free to ping me. Thanks. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's NPOV. As Canada is an overview article, there is no need to present a tiny minority point of view along side the most significant one. People interested in looking at alternative theories will head to the main article on the subject. Someguy1221 ( talk) 10:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the account about Cartier is sufficient. As I said at Talk:Canada, the "multiple theories" and "debates" all concerned how the word kanata came to mean the whole country. Roches ( talk) 19:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This page seems to have six extremely-opinionated paragraphs of material tacked on at the end of a halfway-decent beginning-class article. There has apparently been some effort made at removing the partisan parts, but it hasn't been sufficient. The page probably needs to be adopted by some editors that can trim off the appropriate parts and keep an eye on it. Deltopia ( talk) 04:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Open to opinions; see Talk:Palestine#RfC -- Kendrick7 ^talk 03:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)