This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
This was added to the Fringe Theories guideline. The language is so inflammatory and non neutral especially for a guideline that I am bringing it here for neutral input and reading. I refuse to edit war this content and leave the working out of this to the larger community.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Per this edit summary: "This is not an article. It is about fringe theories and the problems we encounter, therefore this is all exactly on-topic. Don't whitewash this to promote a fringe POV."
Language of the guideline is being skewed so that the assumptive and inflammatory is presented as neutral while what might be neutral language on any other guideline or policy is presented as biased and POV. We should at the very least have policies and guidelines that are written in a neutral manner. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Per Rhoarke: Policies and guidelines apply to all editors not those we choose to label. I would go one step further than Rhoarke and suggest we shouldn't label anyone. As for Jimbo's quoted cmt.; there is no place for name calling on Wikipedia. That Jimbo made this comment in public is no reason to use it here. The point is not whether my changes improve; its whether we should be slanting our policies using labelling and name calling. If there is agreement that we should colour policies that way then that is the community agreement, but heaven help us.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
I left a note on the talk page where he made the reverts here. Since he reverted my changes I assumed he would look at the talk page. And no I did not intentionally leave him out of the discussion. I have continued to expand and comment on my concerns while not reverting to my preferred version of the guideline. In the end it doesn't matter to me what is added to that guideline (in part because it won't make any difference to how people are treated) or I would have reverted to what I consider to be a neutral version. My intent was to explain and expand on clearly what my concerns are. I understand your innuendos and they are unfounded, and I am truly sorry you felt you had to deal with my input this way. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Nice discussion here! I see I missed the party, but I'll leave a couple diffs which show the differences between the contributions/revisions:
I'll let all the fine editors here discuss the merits and demerits of each version, and maybe there is some usable good in each version which could be used in a third version, one which is even better. Whatever will improve this guideline is fine with me.
I notice some focus above on this applying to "editors", but we must keep in mind that these fringe people who attempt to misuse Wikipedia are often not regular editors, but driveby promoters and advocates who use the "edit this page" tab. They should not be treated or advised in the same way as trusted editors who know our PAG. That's why my version made this change: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used regularly attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting ..." I think we can recognize this as a common and problematic occurrence which must be discouraged, and that cannot be done with neutral language.
Keep in mind that NPOV does not mean neutral content, but neutral editors editors who edit neutrally. We document all kinds of non-neutral things and biases, using very biased sources, and our articles are often filled with such biased content, and that's how it should be. The important thing is that Wikipedia does not take sides, so the bias is not coming from Wikipedia's editors, but from the sources, and editors must not neutralize what sources say. Censorship is "taking sides"! They must faithfully reproduce the ideas, biases, and spirit of the sources. (I'm working on a new essay on this subject.)
-- {{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
04:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it was probably inappropriate to bring this discussion here. However, I wanted input from the community as a whole. Both Bull Rangifer and I changed the guideline and are following those changes with discussion, all appropriate actions. The content I can't agree to is the Jimbo quote for the reasons I've given. I don't agree with BR's other changes or the stable version of the guideline, but given BR's reasonable input, and some of the insights above I could support both.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC))
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)I'm fine with taking it back to the guideline talk page, and with dealing with the first sentence, first.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC))
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
RfC started. -- {{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hatting rant from well-known and multiple blocked fringe POV pusher. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Deleting sentences, whole sections and whole articles or making contributions that are obnoxious, offensive or paint a negative picture in some other way are of course welcome. Do not engage the fringe editor in discussions about content on the article talk page but limit your article talk page contributions to exclusively describing the fringe editor himself. If a discussion about content is inevitable make sure to use the fringe editors user talk page. It is advisable to invite other skeptic dictionary editors to the user talk page discussion and (where available) one of the grand inquisitors (known as administrators elsewhere on wikipedia.) Some deception and distortion might be desirable to help the administrator overcome their sensibility. Victory can be had by means of: Permanent ban, temporary ban, topic ban, locking the article or simply running the editor off the wiki. Always make sure the quality of fabrications and the number of reverts are sufficient before moving in for the kill. Helping other editors overcome their neutrality is not always easy but several successful formulas have been crafted over the years:
I think this would improve the guideline a lot. The thing we really want is for people to stop trying to contribute to articles related to fringe blasphemy as well as the freedom to brand topics as such. Our methods are of course already highly effective, hell we even have discretionary sanctions going for us, but the guideline is really quite dishonest about the futility of the effort. If only Fringe could be loosely equated with "the bad guys", only then editors could repent and work on more important topics from these Fortean phenomena such as disco music and video games. 84.106.11.117 ( talk) 14:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].
At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...
...or whether it should be changed to...
This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The wording of the NPOV banner is a persistent contributor to edit warring across the 'pedia. I've opened a discussion on that at Template_talk:POV#Please_do_not_remove_this_message_until_the_dispute_is_resolved. Rhoark ( talk) 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
This is to report the lack of compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy in the BLP article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has not been resolved in the BLP notice board and has been brought up previously here. An entire paragraph with six references in the section “career” (which consists of only two paragraphs!) has been devoted to the questioning of papers by Ariel Fernandez as if they were noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something supported by reliable sources. The paragraph has negative implications, as pointed repeatedly by various editors, including Minor4th, Rubiscous and several others. No breach of ethics has ever been mentioned, let along proven, in regards to the subject. Thus, the paragraph is not providing useful information on the subject’s career or to Wikipedia. It should be mentioned that the subject has published over 350 professional papers, two books as the sole author and holds two patents, according to his online CV, and multiple secondary sources therein. Yet 50% of the discussion of his career in Wikipedia focuses on two papers questioned and his single retraction where no breach of ethics was involved. We may conclude that the Wikipedia BLP is not neutral and that the contents further reveal a nefarious intent to harm the subject. The libel has been repeatedly inserted as indicated in the following diffs, possibly pointing to a hatred driven attack on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=681893308&oldid=681661402 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=682581574&oldid=682001397 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686246039&oldid=686186985 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686248672&oldid=686247309
Thanks much for your prompt attention. 181.228.138.187 ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
200.49.228.32 ( talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
Nomoskedasticity, please stop abusing us and deprecating Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Dr. Ariel Fernandez has done more than writing 3 questioned papers. According to the public records, he has published at least 350 papers, wrote two books and holds two patents. As numerous editors have indicated, the BLP on the subject is not in compliance with the neutrality tone that must prevail at Wikipedia. Please stop your hate-driven attack on the subject! The National Research Council of Argentina has regional centers throughout the country and Dr. Fernandez, who resides in Basel (Schweiz), is probably unaware that you are defaming him by abusing the Wikipedia platform. He certainly has the right to defend himself but has not done so as far as we can tell. We don´t owe you any explanation, yet we feel we need to tell you to please stop attacking everybody who stands up for Dr. Fernandez. 190.97.61.112 ( talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
Dr. Fernandez has published 350 papers, two books and is an inventor on two patents with several secondary sources and this article has chosen instead to focus on 3 questioned papers where no wrongdoing has been proven. Thus, it is putting undue weight on negative content, portraying the doctor in an intended negative light. The article is, in my view, neither neutral nor balanced. 198.30.200.16 ( talk) 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)OSU
I was asked to help copyedit Faisalabad but it reads more like a page from a tourism brochure instead of an encyclopedic article. For example, the section Cuisine is off the charts. Much of the article lacks RS because there simply aren't any so we're also dealing with OR. I don't want to provoke any edit wars but at the same time, I believe the article has potential to be a GA if we can get it compliant with NPOV. I am open to suggestions. Atsme 📞 📧 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to the readers of this board. /info/en/?search=Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion#effect_on_conservation_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Read the third paragraph (the last one) of the lead section. The paragraph is giving undue weight to science in an article that is not about science. I tried to at least add qualifiers like "in a scientific way" [1] and "according to science" [2] but both times I've been reverted. I came here to request someone to remove excessive bias, and overall, tone down that section, if appropriate. Cheers, Outedexits ( talk) 03:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Does the section "Proposed arrangements" violate weight and is it relevant to Commonwealth realm?
A Commonwealth Realm is a member of the Commonwealth that shares the British monarch as head of state. This section discusses a proposal to provide greater integration between the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. While these four countries are Commonwealth realms, the reasons for greater integration appear to be the countries' similarities, rather than sharing the crown. There is no proposal to include the other non-white Commonwealth Realms or any recommendation that the four countries could only belong if they agreed to retain the monarchy. (Both Australia and NZ are considering severing ties with the monarchy.)
Furthermore, the "United Commonwealth Society" has received no coverage at all in reliable sources. The source used in the article is its web page.
TFD ( talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have been unable to access the UCS website. But a 2005 press release says it includes "The United Commonwealth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Realm of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of British West Florida, Independent Long Island and all territories pertaining to them." The Hon. Most Rev. Dr. Cesidio Tallini was head of Independent Long Island, [3] while the Dominion of British West Florida was headed by Robert VII, Duke of Florida, Lord of St. George, GSB, Her Majesty's Governor General in and for the Dominion of British West Florida. [4]
The CFMO seems to be separate and currently claims 250,000 people have signed their petition. I do not think that the scant coverage they have received warrants mention and note that if it did it would not belong in the article because they say nothing about Commonwealth Realms or about the monarchy.
TFD ( talk) 04:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me summarize my take: we have one defender of UCS (well he does keep insisting he doesn't..but), one waffler, and everyone else wonders WTF?! Juan Riley ( talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I have come across what appears to be a series of articles and article sections related to various Islamic charities that, at first blush, are trying to weave a narrative of "ZOMG HAMAS TERRORIST PUPPETS"! It appears, at least to my initial skim, an organized attempt to add undue weight/build coatracks (I came across this while following up on what looked like bog-standard commercial real estate listings-disguised-as-articles ( Westgate House, Crown House Business Centre) but seem instead to be WP:COATRACKS for "ZOMG NESTS OF HAMAS TERRORISTS!"). The ones I've come across include:
The editors include
This is over my head -- and beyond my interests, generally -- but perhaps some editors experienced in these areas should take a look at this. -- Calton | Talk 02:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The article on Jehovah's Witnesses uses Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines (shortened for Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc). It uses "Watch Tower Society teach", "Watch Tower Society publications teach", "Watch Tower Society policy is that" and so on. FYI Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc is the corporation in US to which many of Jehovah's Witness' publications copyright belong to. Some copyrights belong to Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. and presumably other corporations around the world. Secular sources sometimes use Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines but its not accurate anymore, since 2000, all corporations are completely independent of religions Governing Body (spiritual leaders). Non-profit corporations are used by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world for administration, publishing and for legal defense. I opposed using corporation names when describing doctrines and policies of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe it was stemmed out of the fact that some ex-JWs editors prefer that wording to support alleged authoritative structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. (scholars dispute that claim). I felt its an NPOV issue. My reasons are below
I recommend to only refer to corporations when describing its history, legal aspects, publishing and administration. And not to use it when describing doctrines or church policy. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#RfC: Jehovah's Witnesses vs Watchtower Society. I also notified this thread in the current discussion page. (An Rfc is raised, only one involved editor commented so far) Roller958 ( talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The Watch Tower Society of Pennyslvania (not "Watchtower") is both the parent corporation [1] of other corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is the source for where JW doctrines are to be found. [2] [3] The article is very clear in indicating that it is the Governing Body that establishes JW doctrines, but the sources that can be cited in the article are from the Watch Tower Society.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The guideline (not a policy) at the JW WikiProject page refers to statements about those who lead or who set doctrine (and I already recommended a change for the one instance in the article where this is currently an issue). It does not refer to properly indicating where the doctrines are presented. The guideline does not trump actual policies about citing sources. Watch Tower Society publications are authored anonymously, and it would be inappropriate to present those sources as statements of the Governing Body.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The POV-disputation tag should be removed from this article being removed because:
1) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 2) The editor who inserted the tag has never explained his reasons on the talk page. 3) The tag has been on the page for almost two years. 4) There discussion about the tag has been dormant for these same two years.
This appears to be a 'drive-by' tag that was put by an editor who *apparently* believes that Qawukji's German MIlitary Service should not be mentioned in the article. It is difficult to determine if this is actually his objection, however, since he does not explain his reasoning or specific objections. Other editors have pointed out that peer-reviewed reliable sources that are cited in the article show that Qawukji was given a rank equivalent to a Colonel in the German Wehrmacht (army) during WWII, lived in Berlin during the War and was very active in contributing to Nazi propaganda efforts, was involved in the Nazi military training (in Greece) of Arab troops. See: /info/en/?search=Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#German_Military_Service
The talk page indicates that the editor objects to including that information because he is pushing a POV that portrays Qawuqji as a heroic figure. Even this motivation is not clear, however, since the editor (as noted above) does not explain his reasoning.
Do we have a consensus to remove this POV-disputation tag?
Ronreisman ( talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Which version of the List of lieutenant governors of Ontario is preferable?
I think that Two is cluttered. Henry Alexander Bruce for example is listed three times, since George VI, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all reigned during his term. While technically lieutenant governors represent the monarch, they are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Canadian prime minister and act on the advice of the provincial premier. Their terms (usually 5 years) continue regardless of changes in monarch, governor general, prime minister or premier. Few have any contact with the monarch. The numbering is confusing. In Upper Canada, the governor of Canada (who resided in Lower Canada) often was also lieutenant governor and appointed an acting governor for Upper Canada, while in cases of the absence of a lieutenant governor, his functions were carried out by an administrator. Canada West was not a province, but part of the united Province of Canada, hence the governors listed were governors of the united province.
The use of the Union Jack and the Ontario coat of arms (which was awarded in 1868) is confusing. Why not use the British coat of arms and the Ontario flag instead? Why use a British symbol, when the governor's authority did not extend beyond the province?
TFD ( talk) 16:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute centered around this diff. After a claim that the source was not reliable (fairly clear consensus here that it is in fact a reliable source), those opposing the content have now said that it is undue weight to include this line. Is it undue weight to have a single sentence sourced to a historian holding an endowed chair at the University of Chicago writing in a peer-reviewed journal that is published by a well respected academic oriented press that is in response to remarks made by the subject of the article? The user arguing against it has claimed that because only one person has written this response it is undue weight and it does not belong on Wikipedia, certainly not on a BLP. I'm requesting outside views on whether or not including this sentence violates WP:NPOV specifically WP:WEIGHT. nableezy - 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There are edit wars, 3rr issues, and NPOV disputes over both Leon Uris and one of his novels, Exodus. The subject of the disputes is identical for both, with most of the edits made over a single day.
Three new editors to the article have converged as a tag team to push off-topic and inflammatory commentary about one of his historical novels, Exodus. The bio mentions the book as but one many, yet material being pushed consists of non-neutral critiques about some cherry-picked details from the book, a historical novel. Some of the factoids were clipped from an opinion piece about a recent conflict. See: source and another from Journal of Palestine Studies.
The material has been added to Uris's "Life and career" section and is tacked on as a complete digression into trivia from the novel, effectively producing a "hatchet job" on the bio. from what appear to be three single-topic trolls. There are no reviews about any of his books in the bio. By selectively searching and clipping inflammatory facts from his fiction novels, they intend to defame and smear his bio by using innuendo to mislead readers.
A section called "Criticism" is tagged as violating NPOV guidelines. There are no book reviews, and the section alone violates a number of guidelines which were explained in its talk page. As with the author's bio, both User:Huldra and User:Trinacrialucente have edit warred to keep the non-neutral POV sourced material, which is the exact same material they have pushed onto the bio.
See recent
diff, claiming consensus.
--
Light show (
talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Which section should go first, the section summarizing the four canonical Gospels, or the section summarizing historical views? RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure and don't have sections like the Gospels section on the WP page. So maybe the historical section should go first. On the other hand, maybe we should start with the Bible section, as we do for WP pages for Moses, Abraham, and King David. The editor who I'm in a conflict with is StAnselm. I don't know how to use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}}. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 03:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither section should be separate or before the other. The division is an internal POV fork. The historical and scriptural evidence should be integrated into a single account. First, the range of sources (canonical scripture, non-canonical scripture, and historical documents) should be discussed together. Then, each point of the chronology should be described according to all perspectives. Some details from the gospel account may be best moved down to the "Christian views" section. The "Christ myth" section, as a minority view in the scholarship, should move down under "other views". Rhoark ( talk) 22:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Two editors have each removed the POV tag, in violation of good editing practices. Is there an editor here who might like to explain that you can't remove a POV tag just because you think you should? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
In the article of Chai Vang, WilliamThweatt made misleading edits and claims that there is only one confrontation which the entire confrontation and shooting occurred at the tree-stand which is false. Not only that, it has a biased tone. [9]
For example of the biased tone, in the changes made by William, he wrote, " At that point five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived at the tree stand where Vang was found. According to testimony of one witness, Lauren Hesebeck who is also a surviving victim, Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner, was angry at the trespasser and angrily threatened to report him to wardens of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for trespassing. After being given directions to public land, Vang started moving towards a trail through a forested area of the property."
It's partially true that Crotteau angrily threatened to report Vang to the DNR however it wasn't just the only thing Crotteau did. It didn't include that Crotteau used profanities and threats made by Crotteau, first to Vang. Then near the end, that's when he threatened to report Vang to the DNR. Now about there being only one confrontation according to WilliamThweatt, there was two. One with Willers (one of the victims) and Vang alone by the tree-stand where Willers spotted Vang and confronted him, telling Vang to leave and giving him directions to public land. The second with Crotteau and 4 others riding on ATV's, pursing Vang as he walked down a trail to confront him. [10] [11] [12] [13] You can also see the victim's testimony which proves my point that there was 2 confrontations, with the second confrontation resulting because the victims got on ATV's and pursued the shooter. [14] Watch from 21:00 minute on-wards. The court transcript of the case also proves my statement, contradicting WilliamThweatt's statement that there was only one confrontation and that the victims didn't pursue. Lance616168 ( talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.{Note 4:Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources}(emphasis added)
This looks like just a content dispute. I reverted the most recent revert because of a spelling error and not seeing a huge difference between versions. What Lance616168 says makes sense, provided we have reliable sources for it. Work on the talk page, please. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
References
I've read the two comments, and I see that the people making them have a strange idea of how Wikipedia works. Your comment seems to cherry pick reliable sources to say what you want. The other is massive WP:OWN problems. On top of that, I had an I revert with disparaging comments full of typos and misreading my edit to suggest I had typos when it was the version I removed. I think this is civility war editing (what's the link? forget that one), pure and simple, and I think the people editing are so biased they don't even see their bias. In any case, if you think this should go higher, it might boomerang on you, because you sure have not made the case that *he* needs to be blocked. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this qualifies as NPOV, but I was just reading the page on Originalism, and although it gives both sides representation, overall it sounds like two politicians giving speeches and trying to win voters to their side. The tone (after the first part, anyway) seems way too passionate and personally involved, and although the arguments are intelligently written, they don't sound like something you would read in an encyclopedia. They sound more like something you'd read on the editorials page of a newspaper. Clearly, at least two editors who feel strongly on the debate wrote it, with the intent of each proving their part "right". Now, since both sides give their arguments, does it still qualify as NPOV? It isn't totally biased towards either side, but it's definitely not "neutral" in tone. I don't mind the information presented, I just think it is presented is in the wrong way. .45Colt 04:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Agathonisi is a small Greek island which Turkey disputes sovereignty, along with a few other islands. I noticed a user removed all information about the situation a few months ago, and I reverted this typical WP:BADPOV having no idea about the amount of advocacy that would ensue in the talk page. A bloc of Wikipedians are so passionately opposing any mention of this information that it is almost touching. It is a low profile article frequented mostly by a certain demographic, so I wasn't surprised to see in the page's history that the systemic bias and this removing information without being called out has been going on for quite a while.
In any case, it is such an unimportant article that I am not writing this to advise any Wikipedian to make the same mistake I did and spend time trying to reason with them. But the case is such a typical example of WP:ACTIVIST that I would encourage all to take a look at the talk page; the language gets colorful at times and it has both educational and comedic value. It can very well be the subject of an essay about systemic bias on Wikipedia on such low profile articles. And if you are so dedicated to WP:NPOV and fighting systemic bias that you cannot in good conscience allow the article about an island of 185 to remain violating the policy, well, good luck.-- Orwellianist ( talk) 01:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please check Sun Myung Moon? Over the past several months the POV tag has been added and removed 3 or 4 times. Recently User:Novoneiro added a criticism section, which I think addresses the concerns. I don't want to remove the tag myself since I had already done that before. Borock ( talk) 09:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tamil Racism Trincomalee https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trincomalee&oldid=693961422&diff=prev
Hello, Neutral point of view. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Trincomalee. Thank you. -- දයාන් ද අල්විස් ( talk) 12:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Adolf Hitler wrote his infamous book Mein Kampf to establish a German Aryan Empire. Like that these Tamil racists need to establish a Tamil Eelam State in Sri Lanka and India. To do so, they need a pseudo-history and they publish that pseudo-history on web sites like Wikipedia.
WP:COATRACK information has been added in an attempt to discredit what peer reviewed reliable sources say about the Southern Strategy and Nixon's Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and race baiting language. The talk page discussion is
here
A peer reviewed reliable source discusses Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and/or race baiting to appeal to southern voters.
"Reagan's race-baiting continued when he moved to national politics." Lopez then goes on to explain how he launched his 1980 campaign from Neshoba county fair in an attempt to win over "George Wallace inclined voters". Lopez explains other examples of Reagan's racial appeals stating "Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats." and also explains how Reagan used the term "strapping young buck" because it played on fears of white voters of a "threatening image of a physically powerful black man." Ian Lopez Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class
In response to this peer reviewed source, information has been added to "casts doubts" on the material presented from reliable sources. The user adding this material characterized the information he added as "casts doubts on a claim of coded racism" here [16]. There are 2 separate instances where he is doing this:
Procedural distraction
|
---|
Comment The above claim of NPOV is part of a larger content dispute. I ask that this NPOV discussion be put on hold pending a possible dispute resolution request. The larger discussion can not proceed so long as this subtopic discussion is open. Springee ( talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment A previous NORN discussion initiated by Scoobydunk and related to this article is still open [23]. Scoobydunk should request closure of his previous noticeboard discussion before opening a new, closely related discussion. Springee ( talk) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Could you be more specific about what claims are supposed to cast doubt on the more reliable source? Rhoark ( talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Rhoark's question The filing editor claims recent changes to the article are violations of NPOV and COATRACK. For easy reference I will quote the material in question (material taken from a larger and subsequently reverted edit [24])
The core of the dispute can be summed up as, do we have reliable evidence to change the WP voice from stating something did happen to language that says something that indicates the claims are disputed by reliable sources. In this case do we treat the claim that a given statement was testing the waters as a proven fact or do we present alternative views to the readers.
Scoobydunk's opening statement regarding Nixon suggests a level of confusion. The president being discussed in this case is Reagan. While Nixon is widely associated with the use of the "Southern Strategy", the passage in question is discussing Reagan and a specific instance when he is claimed to have tried to use coded racism and hence applied what is argued to be an extension of the Southern Strategy.
Scoobydunk makes several claims regarding the reliability of sources as justifications for the material reversion. He notes that the book, Dog Whistle Politics by Lopez, is a peer reviewed book and thus in his view unless a peer reviewed source is found which directly contradicts the claim we must treat it as proven fact. It should be noted that the related passages in question do not reference a peer reviewed book but instead reference an article published in Salon magazine. So based on the edits he is supporting the question of scholarly work doesn't enter into the picture and thus we have an improperly form NPOV request.
However, assuming the Lopez book in question offers the same claims Lopez makes in Salon we still have an issue that Scoobydunk is asking us to dismiss the views expressed in more than one alternative reliable source. One is a book by Jeremey D Mayer, a Prof at Georgetown University, Running on Race. This book was positively reviewed by several scholarly journals. Dismissing a book by a scholar of the subject and with strong positive reviews in the scholarly field is a questionable application of RS guidelines. Cannon's book has similar, strong scholarly reviews. The outright dismissal of these sources as not credible is a highly questionable reading of how we should balance reliable sources. Given their strength and oposition to the view offered by Lopez we should not use WP voice to state as a fact that the "young buck" comment was a "field test".
The statements by the football player were from Cannon's book and used by Cannon as part of the section where he addresses the "young buck" story. Given a RS made the connection WP:SYNTH cannot apply here. The "privately published book" comment is an attempt to discount the quality of the source, the scholarly reception of which was described above.
The 1980 newspaper article is not related to the "young buck" story and shouldn't be included in this NPOV discussion. Springee ( talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Scoobydunk's comments
Sorry, the intro to this NPOV discussion was confusing and it was not clear that Scoobydunk was actually referring to two different article subtopics at once. I will come back to the Neshoba discussion as some of Scoobydunk's exclusionary arguments are the same for that material. I will also note that highlighting just "what I added" without showing the full change or the material Scoobydunk wishes to restore can be misleading as it can leave out context.
Close due to inactivity - This request has been open for over 10 days. There has been no support for the original claims and no activity of any kind for over a week. I ask that it be closed. Springee ( talk) 13:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats. On the stump, Reagan repeatedly invoked a story of a "Chicago welfare queen" with "eighty names, thirty addresses, [and] twelve Social Security cards [who] is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."
Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats. On the stump, Reagan repeatedly invoked a story of a "Chicago welfare queen" with "eighty names, thirty addresses, [and] twelve Social Security cards [who] is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."
I neither have nor want a place in this argument, but I am curious: Springee, do you believe that in order to appeal to racists, one must necessarily be a racist?
Personally, I do not believe this is the case. Examples abound of politicians appealing to a base of voters then acting to the contrary, from George HW Bush (abortion) to Barack Obama (civil liberties and Net neutrality).
If one doesn't have to be a racist to appeal to racists, then what is the basis for adding assertions that Reagan wasn't a racist next to the assertion that he intentionally appealed to racists using coded language (other than encouraging the reader to synthesize)?
Please note that I think there is a very legitimate case for referencing the fact that there is not universal agreement on this matter. But 1) it needs to be limited to material that directly contradicts the widely-accepted position rather than begs for synthesis, and 2) the weight of the sources (mostly neutral scholars versus mostly sympathetic biographers) needs to be accurately reflected.
Last and least, a minor correction you might want to make (from early in the thread): If his CV is to be trusted, Jeremy D Mayer was indeed a Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown from 2001-2003, but has been at George Mason ever since (currently as an Associate Professor). But he hasn't held the rank of Professor at any institution, nor is he at Georgetown now.(
[35])
2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (
talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Template:Kurds has a section "Karduchian dynasties" which includes the Medes, Moxoene, Zabdicene and House of Kayus. There's no source for this, and the only source for such dynasties I can find on either GScholar or GBOoks is [36] which seems to be a copy of another source mentioned in Moxoene. Nor is one source, reliable or not, sufficient for such a claim (in my opinion). If there were such dynasties I'd expect multiple sources. Certainly the Medes weren't a Karduchian dynasty (Kurds often claim they are Medes or their descendants, and I note that User:Selocan49 is the editor who added the Medes to this section and the template to Medes. History_of_the_Kurds doesn't mention Karduchian Dynasties,
There is one source that does mentioned 3 such dynasties, "Introduction to Christian Caucasian History II: Status and Dynasties of the Formative Period", Traditio, Vol. XVII [37] - Corduene, Moxoene and Zabdicene. I've got the source and it doesn't mention Medes at all. As I said, I'm not happy with just one source for something like this. But my main problem is adding Medes and House of Kayus, with a subsidiary one being adding the template to our article on the Medes. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that Wikipedia should have pages that define any group by allowing that group's enemies to do the defining in Wikipedia's voice, as if the definition was an established fact. We shouldn't define the group that calls itself "pro-choice" with the term "anti-life". (Note that I am not saying that "pro-life" is necessarily correct -- defining a group according to how they define themselves can be a problem as well.) Likewise we shouldn't define those who call themselves "pro-life" with the term "anti-choice".
I have a real problem with the fact that our Southern strategy article claims, in Wikipedia's voice, that republicans appeal to racism. The article should either say say that sources X. Y and Z say that republicans appeal to racism and that the republicans deny it or say nothing at all.
I am not, however, willing to invest any of my time fighting a battle over this -- a fight which others have tried fighting and which would likely end up at arbcom. Instead I am raising the flag here in case anyone wishes to get involved. In my opinion this is a clear violation of NPOV. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Related: User talk:Guy Macon#Help with Southern Strategy editing -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a separate thread was started up but editors should take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Coatrack pov-pushing on Southern Strategy further up on this page which provides more information on sources. Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
New WP:SPA/IPs. ignoring BRD, fairly big NPOV problems. More eyes could be used in this controversial area. (Note that some of the edits contain sources or arguments that may be appropriate, but not in the editorial style used, and not completing preventing the presentation of alternate POVs)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a (civil) dispute as to whether we should say "Donald Trump is a politician", "Ben Carson is a politician", and "Carly Fiorina is a politician". One side argues that anyone seeking office is a politician, while the other side cites common usage -- all three of the names listed above have multiple reliable sources that say they are "not a politician". What is the NPOV here? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
"Politician A person who is active in politics and holds a political office to which they have been elected"; this is the definition of candidate,
"Candidate Someone who stands for election to a representative office"-- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we get more neutral eyes to take a look at the current RfC at Talk:Ivo Andrić? So far it's just me and some IPs. I was pinged by the RfC bot. Given previous arguments on the talk page and this contentious area, I think we need a large neutral turnout. Thank you. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The article on Americans for Legal Immigration could use some more eyes. Basically, it's an article on an organization of borderline notability, which has been created/heavily edited by editor(s) involved with the organization to make it into a promo piece. So there's obvious WP:COI issues there and the relevant account admits as much "our group". That account also is heavily POVing the article and is not engaging in exactly constructive dialogue [38]. They've ignored the descriptions of actual Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest, NPOV and reliable sources and have rather focused on making personal attacks (referring to me as an "activist" etc).
For any page, a COI means that the editors involved should not make controversial changes without getting consensus on talk first. This user is instead threatening to edit war "every day for the rest of my life"
Thanks. User:Volunteer Marek 21:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone please provide some additional input for the page about Mads Gilbert ( talk; a medical doctor, and activist/politician for a far-left party)? Two users do everything to deny that, in addition to Gilbert's medical work, Gilbert has also been the subject of numerous controversies for his political activism. The two users want the lead section to consist exclusively of praise of Gilbert, and refuse to allow even a brief sentence mentioning his well-known subject to political activism and controversy (which is referenced directly with several sources). User2534 ( talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe that user MezzoMezzo is an advocate for the Zahiri school of thought.
He wants the inclusion of a fringe school of thought called Zahiri. Zahiri was excluded from sunni islam upon consensus. [42]. Zahiri seems to have a very tiny amount of followers, it is nearly non existent and is declared extinct by many reliable sources but Mezzo insists this school of thought be included with the 4 sunni schools. which would result in undue weight [43] .Reliable sources indicate there’s only 4 schools . [44] Even their respective article pages say so. Shafii, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali.
Misrepresentation of refs* On the Amman message’s website Zahiri is not classified as sunni [45] but Mezzo ignored that and included the word sunni on the article [46] which i believe is intentionally misleading readers. Same misinterpretation of Amman message view is being done on the Madhhab article [47] .Numerous users have previously called out Mezzo on his obsession of inserting original research and fringe regarding Zahirism [48] [49] .I have warned user mezzo on his talk page [50] and tried to explain on the article talk page all to no avail. [51] . I would like neutral editors opinion on this matter. Misdemenor ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Classic example of grasping for straws. I don't know Gorge on Facebook or anywhere else. Even if I did, in some alternate dimension, then it still wouldn't relate to whether or not I'm posting fringe opinions.
Objective users can simply check out the reliable sources added to the
Zahiri and
Madhhab articles - the main articles where one can find information about the Sunni schools of law. Zahiri is referred to as both a Sunni school of law (or mahdhab) and an extant one according to reliable sources published by
International Journal of Middle East Studies,
Cambridge University Press,
Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford University Press,
Edinburgh University Press and
Brill Publishers, among others.
The "numerous users" that Misdemeanor alluded to above include just himself and a guy who hasn't edited in over two years. His evidence of my supposed delinquent behavior consists simply of my edits that he disagrees without explaining why they're wrong. I'm honestly surprised that he thinks editors will ignore the massive amounts of evidence contrary to his claims that's already available in the articles in question (though I'm not surprised, all things considered, that he's resorted to falsely claiming that I know GorgeCustersSabre on Facebook).
This has honestly been a good exercise in further solidifying a case and it's an opportunity to demonstrate exactly why the consensus which Misdemeanor opposes so strongly is actually correct according to reliable sources. So in that sense, I suppose a round of thank yous is owed to everybody involved.
MezzoMezzo (
talk) 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Misdemenor: I know MezzoMezzo very well. He is not an advocate of the Zahiri school. (I am Shia and I am not an advocate of the Zahiri school as well.) His former edits such as Abbasid Revolution clearly show that he does not have any tendency towards them in wikipedia. -- Seyyed( t- c) 07:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for an admin to censor all discussion about neutrality and then refuse to explain himself while topic banning the editors there without recourse? Look at Talk:Watchdog.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.23 ( talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The article White student unions was just created by a newbie, and it's gone exactly as you can expect. I removed a lot of content that was just a list of quotes, but other people hacked the article down to about two sentences. Confused newbie then created another article with an event-related angle, 2015 White Student Union Emergence which I tagged for speedy deletion per A10. I brought back some of the content on the original article. Newbie editor is very interested in discussing article content but needs help and to be shown some kindness. I'm afraid this article is being non-neutrally edited by editors who simply don't like the topic, however, but it's been excessively discussed in first-rate RS (NY Times, Washington Post, etc). and we need to give it neutral treatment. Please see the talk page - I listed a dozen or so articles we can work with. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no evidence that any of these "groups" have memberships, it could even be one person behind them all. At this point we have too little information to write a proper article. TFD ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Trustpilot reguarding the neutrality of the lead paragraph. I would appreciate more opinions on what to do with this. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil#Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Issues of neutrality have been raised. Thanks. Hugh ( talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Michael Botticelli is NOT a 'Politician'! He is a PUBLIC SERVANT! He never ran for, or held, an elected position. I cannot edit the banner on this article. I hope you will.
Robert E. Dwyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyerlaw ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that the article reads more like something generated by a foundation dedicated to promoting his works than a resource for information. It's widely accepted that the quality of his work greatly declined as his fame grew and he reached a point where he produced prints and lazy work simply because they could generate enormous sums of money. Remember, this is a man who would pay for a pack of gum by check because the shopkeeper wouldn't cash the check, he'd sell it. (Gum is an example as I have no idea what he bought, but the rest is true) The article makes it sound as if he was practically churning out innovative work on his deathbed.
I really think someone with a far greater knowledge on the subject than I should review, and likely edit, the page.
/info/en/?search=Pablo_Picasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E040:3A00:5137:254B:9AF:C483 ( talk) 00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This article needs more uninvolved editors to check it for neutrality. The subject posts copiously on the talk page and does not always help his case, but I think that he has a genuine concern about neutrality. The lead talks about a twenty-year-old lawsuit, for instance. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The skate punk article covers way to many other genres of punk music, and sports including but not limiting to BMX and also surfing which also adopted the punk movement at the same time. This article is to generalistic and biased to have any real encyclopedic value at this point in time. This article needs a massive adjustment beyond what I can achieve as an IP editor and perhaps a merger with the Punk rock article. Talk:Skate_punk#What_is_.22skate_punk.22_anyway.3F
-- 123.211.208.122 ( talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This post concerns Paul Singer (businessman). I recently copy edited the article rather succinctly due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede reinstated by Nomoskedasticity, mainly “His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects.” I claim the use of “vulture” is non-neutral, and as such goes against WP:LEAD. Subsequent attempts at discussion were diluted and fizzled out, e.g. here and here. A related issue, concerning the fact that 67% of the article's Elliott Management section contents relate to distressed debt, was also raised per WP:CRITICISM. Please note this is a BLP. Given nobody commented besides people who are directly involved with the article, I hope anyone unfamiliar with this issue and yet experienced in NPOV matters can provide much needed insight. I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This is just getting desperate now. There's no way I'm discussing this anymore. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be the running theme with this article. This is just so absurd now that it's almost descended into parody. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not comparing Vulture funds with murder. Clearly analogies aren't your strong point. The first couple of lines of the article are:
Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American hedge fund manager, investor, philanthropist and political activist. He is the founder and CEO of hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation, what the New York Times terms an "activist hedge fund", and (via his Paul E. Singer Foundation) a prominent New York based philanthropist.
I'm simply saying to change this description of his company to what it is widely regarded as. I'll ignore the rest of the straw man.
Also, again just as a side point, this sentence highlights the problem which has historically plagued this article - giving equal weight to "activism" and "philanthropy" in an attempt to detract attention from what should be given far greater weight. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm unnecessarily reopening a can of worms, but I'm not sure I understand: If there's a clear consensus (and it appears there is) that Wikipedia policy does not forbid calling a vulture fund a vulture fund any more than it forbids calling a loan shark a loan shark (in both cases the most common term for a particular style of business practice), why does the lede call a vulture fund an "activist hedge fund"?
2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (
talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we please focus on the content at hand rather than the behavior of users?
Meatsgains (
talk) 04:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
History of the Great War I'm revamping the article; a couple of years ago added material (1917 Part II) that didn't seem as NPOV as it does now, with me being more experienced. I'd like someone with an interest in NPOV to help me identify what certainly can't stay in since it's my OR. The problem I've got is that the paraphrase of Edmonds, Travers and Green is OK but they all get it wrong and that's the bit I couldn't resist adding. Edmonds tucked certain potentially embarrassing facts away in footnotes and appendices and occasionally they contradict the narrative. I'd hoped by now someone would be in print so that I could cite this to them but alas not (Unless there's an adept who knows better?). Everyone who writes on the 3rd battle of Ypres swallows the biggest mistake in the book. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 10:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The article is Zamzam Well. The text is:
"The British Food Standards Agency has in the past issued warnings about water claiming to be from the Zamzam Well containing dangerous levels of arsenic; [1] such sales have also been reported in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where it is illegal to sell Zamzam water. [2] The Saudi government has prohibited the commercial export of Zamzam water from the kingdom. [2] In May 2011, a BBC London investigation found that water taken from taps connected to the Zamzam Well contained high levels of nitrate, potentially harmful bacteria, and arsenic at levels three times the legal limit in the UK, the same levels found in illegal water purchased in the UK. [3] Arsenic is a carcinogen, raising concerns that Muslims who regularly consume commercial Zamzam water in large quantities may be exposed to higher risks of cancer."
Although there are times when "alleged" may be called for, I'd say that nitrate and arsenic aren't alleged health risks. This is a new account making the change. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
Veganism currently has a dispute on the talk page by editors over the neutrality of the lead. There is also a dispute over the placement of a dispute tag to indicate that. I would like to request comments from other editors on whether or not the placement of an NPOV dispute tag on the article is appropriate. Zippy268 ( talk) 19:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been trying to offer balance to edits written by one editor bloodofox. He is making this into a WP:COATRACK. I have put the following addition at the end of the Reception article -
'Academic theologian Ted Peters in reviewing Painted Black refers to Raschke's critics as "anti-anti-Satanists." He writes that "Raschke shows no investment investment in anything other than garden-variety secular values regarding human decency. Even so, he is attacked by the anti-anti-Satanists not for the position he actually presents but as a front for the targeted enemy, the church."[12] A review in the The International Cultic Studies Association said "With his book, Painted Black, Dr. Carl Raschke...makes a unique and valuable contribution toward the understanding of this bizarre and frightening problem [of Satanism]. Raschke's book is not merely a survey of recent outbreaks of Satanism, but a comprehensive treatment of the phenomenon. He does not limit himself to criticizing the practices of Satanism while granting an unearned respect to the belief system that inspires them."[9].
Bloodofox continues to revert this edit by saying ICSA and Ted Peters are not "reliable", which they are. He just has own dogmatic point of view and is making up reasons to eliminate them, calling what they say "nonsense." He also makes absolute negative claims about Raschke without citing evidence and won't allow anything other than what he writes to go up there. He also makes claims about me that arent true. He is clearly on a vendeta for some reason (probably because he is on the opposite side of the satanism argument) and is completely violating NPOV policy. In his mind anything that is not purely negative is not "reliable." I request that you allow the edits above and block him from further reverting them. Or someone should explain why they cant count as "evidence." You can see the discussion on the talk page. LH Chicago ( talk) 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago
I am an editor on Hindi language wikipedia. Most religion related articles on that wikipedia present religious beliefs as a fact. For example an article on Hindu god Brahma will say "Brahma created the Universe" instead of saying "According to Hindu mythology Brahma created the Universe". Complete article are filled with unverifiable claims like these. I want to fix this but other editors are not allowing. So, I wanted to know if there are any wikipedia guidelines regarding style of writing for religion related articles, so that I can show those guidelines to other editors. Please excuse me if this is not the right place for asking this question. Thanks -- Gaurav ( talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
This was added to the Fringe Theories guideline. The language is so inflammatory and non neutral especially for a guideline that I am bringing it here for neutral input and reading. I refuse to edit war this content and leave the working out of this to the larger community.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Per this edit summary: "This is not an article. It is about fringe theories and the problems we encounter, therefore this is all exactly on-topic. Don't whitewash this to promote a fringe POV."
Language of the guideline is being skewed so that the assumptive and inflammatory is presented as neutral while what might be neutral language on any other guideline or policy is presented as biased and POV. We should at the very least have policies and guidelines that are written in a neutral manner. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Per Rhoarke: Policies and guidelines apply to all editors not those we choose to label. I would go one step further than Rhoarke and suggest we shouldn't label anyone. As for Jimbo's quoted cmt.; there is no place for name calling on Wikipedia. That Jimbo made this comment in public is no reason to use it here. The point is not whether my changes improve; its whether we should be slanting our policies using labelling and name calling. If there is agreement that we should colour policies that way then that is the community agreement, but heaven help us.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
I left a note on the talk page where he made the reverts here. Since he reverted my changes I assumed he would look at the talk page. And no I did not intentionally leave him out of the discussion. I have continued to expand and comment on my concerns while not reverting to my preferred version of the guideline. In the end it doesn't matter to me what is added to that guideline (in part because it won't make any difference to how people are treated) or I would have reverted to what I consider to be a neutral version. My intent was to explain and expand on clearly what my concerns are. I understand your innuendos and they are unfounded, and I am truly sorry you felt you had to deal with my input this way. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Nice discussion here! I see I missed the party, but I'll leave a couple diffs which show the differences between the contributions/revisions:
I'll let all the fine editors here discuss the merits and demerits of each version, and maybe there is some usable good in each version which could be used in a third version, one which is even better. Whatever will improve this guideline is fine with me.
I notice some focus above on this applying to "editors", but we must keep in mind that these fringe people who attempt to misuse Wikipedia are often not regular editors, but driveby promoters and advocates who use the "edit this page" tab. They should not be treated or advised in the same way as trusted editors who know our PAG. That's why my version made this change: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used regularly attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting ..." I think we can recognize this as a common and problematic occurrence which must be discouraged, and that cannot be done with neutral language.
Keep in mind that NPOV does not mean neutral content, but neutral editors editors who edit neutrally. We document all kinds of non-neutral things and biases, using very biased sources, and our articles are often filled with such biased content, and that's how it should be. The important thing is that Wikipedia does not take sides, so the bias is not coming from Wikipedia's editors, but from the sources, and editors must not neutralize what sources say. Censorship is "taking sides"! They must faithfully reproduce the ideas, biases, and spirit of the sources. (I'm working on a new essay on this subject.)
-- {{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC){{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
04:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it was probably inappropriate to bring this discussion here. However, I wanted input from the community as a whole. Both Bull Rangifer and I changed the guideline and are following those changes with discussion, all appropriate actions. The content I can't agree to is the Jimbo quote for the reasons I've given. I don't agree with BR's other changes or the stable version of the guideline, but given BR's reasonable input, and some of the insights above I could support both.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC))
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)I'm fine with taking it back to the guideline talk page, and with dealing with the first sentence, first.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC))
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
RfC started. -- {{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
05:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hatting rant from well-known and multiple blocked fringe POV pusher. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Deleting sentences, whole sections and whole articles or making contributions that are obnoxious, offensive or paint a negative picture in some other way are of course welcome. Do not engage the fringe editor in discussions about content on the article talk page but limit your article talk page contributions to exclusively describing the fringe editor himself. If a discussion about content is inevitable make sure to use the fringe editors user talk page. It is advisable to invite other skeptic dictionary editors to the user talk page discussion and (where available) one of the grand inquisitors (known as administrators elsewhere on wikipedia.) Some deception and distortion might be desirable to help the administrator overcome their sensibility. Victory can be had by means of: Permanent ban, temporary ban, topic ban, locking the article or simply running the editor off the wiki. Always make sure the quality of fabrications and the number of reverts are sufficient before moving in for the kill. Helping other editors overcome their neutrality is not always easy but several successful formulas have been crafted over the years:
I think this would improve the guideline a lot. The thing we really want is for people to stop trying to contribute to articles related to fringe blasphemy as well as the freedom to brand topics as such. Our methods are of course already highly effective, hell we even have discretionary sanctions going for us, but the guideline is really quite dishonest about the futility of the effort. If only Fringe could be loosely equated with "the bad guys", only then editors could repent and work on more important topics from these Fortean phenomena such as disco music and video games. 84.106.11.117 ( talk) 14:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC) |
There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].
At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...
...or whether it should be changed to...
This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The wording of the NPOV banner is a persistent contributor to edit warring across the 'pedia. I've opened a discussion on that at Template_talk:POV#Please_do_not_remove_this_message_until_the_dispute_is_resolved. Rhoark ( talk) 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
This is to report the lack of compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy in the BLP article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has not been resolved in the BLP notice board and has been brought up previously here. An entire paragraph with six references in the section “career” (which consists of only two paragraphs!) has been devoted to the questioning of papers by Ariel Fernandez as if they were noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something supported by reliable sources. The paragraph has negative implications, as pointed repeatedly by various editors, including Minor4th, Rubiscous and several others. No breach of ethics has ever been mentioned, let along proven, in regards to the subject. Thus, the paragraph is not providing useful information on the subject’s career or to Wikipedia. It should be mentioned that the subject has published over 350 professional papers, two books as the sole author and holds two patents, according to his online CV, and multiple secondary sources therein. Yet 50% of the discussion of his career in Wikipedia focuses on two papers questioned and his single retraction where no breach of ethics was involved. We may conclude that the Wikipedia BLP is not neutral and that the contents further reveal a nefarious intent to harm the subject. The libel has been repeatedly inserted as indicated in the following diffs, possibly pointing to a hatred driven attack on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=681893308&oldid=681661402 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=682581574&oldid=682001397 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686246039&oldid=686186985 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686248672&oldid=686247309
Thanks much for your prompt attention. 181.228.138.187 ( talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
200.49.228.32 ( talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
Nomoskedasticity, please stop abusing us and deprecating Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Dr. Ariel Fernandez has done more than writing 3 questioned papers. According to the public records, he has published at least 350 papers, wrote two books and holds two patents. As numerous editors have indicated, the BLP on the subject is not in compliance with the neutrality tone that must prevail at Wikipedia. Please stop your hate-driven attack on the subject! The National Research Council of Argentina has regional centers throughout the country and Dr. Fernandez, who resides in Basel (Schweiz), is probably unaware that you are defaming him by abusing the Wikipedia platform. He certainly has the right to defend himself but has not done so as far as we can tell. We don´t owe you any explanation, yet we feel we need to tell you to please stop attacking everybody who stands up for Dr. Fernandez. 190.97.61.112 ( talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
Dr. Fernandez has published 350 papers, two books and is an inventor on two patents with several secondary sources and this article has chosen instead to focus on 3 questioned papers where no wrongdoing has been proven. Thus, it is putting undue weight on negative content, portraying the doctor in an intended negative light. The article is, in my view, neither neutral nor balanced. 198.30.200.16 ( talk) 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)OSU
I was asked to help copyedit Faisalabad but it reads more like a page from a tourism brochure instead of an encyclopedic article. For example, the section Cuisine is off the charts. Much of the article lacks RS because there simply aren't any so we're also dealing with OR. I don't want to provoke any edit wars but at the same time, I believe the article has potential to be a GA if we can get it compliant with NPOV. I am open to suggestions. Atsme 📞 📧 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to the readers of this board. /info/en/?search=Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion#effect_on_conservation_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Read the third paragraph (the last one) of the lead section. The paragraph is giving undue weight to science in an article that is not about science. I tried to at least add qualifiers like "in a scientific way" [1] and "according to science" [2] but both times I've been reverted. I came here to request someone to remove excessive bias, and overall, tone down that section, if appropriate. Cheers, Outedexits ( talk) 03:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
{{u|
BullRangifer}} {
Talk}
03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Does the section "Proposed arrangements" violate weight and is it relevant to Commonwealth realm?
A Commonwealth Realm is a member of the Commonwealth that shares the British monarch as head of state. This section discusses a proposal to provide greater integration between the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. While these four countries are Commonwealth realms, the reasons for greater integration appear to be the countries' similarities, rather than sharing the crown. There is no proposal to include the other non-white Commonwealth Realms or any recommendation that the four countries could only belong if they agreed to retain the monarchy. (Both Australia and NZ are considering severing ties with the monarchy.)
Furthermore, the "United Commonwealth Society" has received no coverage at all in reliable sources. The source used in the article is its web page.
TFD ( talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have been unable to access the UCS website. But a 2005 press release says it includes "The United Commonwealth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Realm of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of British West Florida, Independent Long Island and all territories pertaining to them." The Hon. Most Rev. Dr. Cesidio Tallini was head of Independent Long Island, [3] while the Dominion of British West Florida was headed by Robert VII, Duke of Florida, Lord of St. George, GSB, Her Majesty's Governor General in and for the Dominion of British West Florida. [4]
The CFMO seems to be separate and currently claims 250,000 people have signed their petition. I do not think that the scant coverage they have received warrants mention and note that if it did it would not belong in the article because they say nothing about Commonwealth Realms or about the monarchy.
TFD ( talk) 04:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me summarize my take: we have one defender of UCS (well he does keep insisting he doesn't..but), one waffler, and everyone else wonders WTF?! Juan Riley ( talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I have come across what appears to be a series of articles and article sections related to various Islamic charities that, at first blush, are trying to weave a narrative of "ZOMG HAMAS TERRORIST PUPPETS"! It appears, at least to my initial skim, an organized attempt to add undue weight/build coatracks (I came across this while following up on what looked like bog-standard commercial real estate listings-disguised-as-articles ( Westgate House, Crown House Business Centre) but seem instead to be WP:COATRACKS for "ZOMG NESTS OF HAMAS TERRORISTS!"). The ones I've come across include:
The editors include
This is over my head -- and beyond my interests, generally -- but perhaps some editors experienced in these areas should take a look at this. -- Calton | Talk 02:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The article on Jehovah's Witnesses uses Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines (shortened for Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc). It uses "Watch Tower Society teach", "Watch Tower Society publications teach", "Watch Tower Society policy is that" and so on. FYI Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc is the corporation in US to which many of Jehovah's Witness' publications copyright belong to. Some copyrights belong to Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. and presumably other corporations around the world. Secular sources sometimes use Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines but its not accurate anymore, since 2000, all corporations are completely independent of religions Governing Body (spiritual leaders). Non-profit corporations are used by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world for administration, publishing and for legal defense. I opposed using corporation names when describing doctrines and policies of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe it was stemmed out of the fact that some ex-JWs editors prefer that wording to support alleged authoritative structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. (scholars dispute that claim). I felt its an NPOV issue. My reasons are below
I recommend to only refer to corporations when describing its history, legal aspects, publishing and administration. And not to use it when describing doctrines or church policy. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#RfC: Jehovah's Witnesses vs Watchtower Society. I also notified this thread in the current discussion page. (An Rfc is raised, only one involved editor commented so far) Roller958 ( talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The Watch Tower Society of Pennyslvania (not "Watchtower") is both the parent corporation [1] of other corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is the source for where JW doctrines are to be found. [2] [3] The article is very clear in indicating that it is the Governing Body that establishes JW doctrines, but the sources that can be cited in the article are from the Watch Tower Society.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The guideline (not a policy) at the JW WikiProject page refers to statements about those who lead or who set doctrine (and I already recommended a change for the one instance in the article where this is currently an issue). It does not refer to properly indicating where the doctrines are presented. The guideline does not trump actual policies about citing sources. Watch Tower Society publications are authored anonymously, and it would be inappropriate to present those sources as statements of the Governing Body.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The POV-disputation tag should be removed from this article being removed because:
1) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 2) The editor who inserted the tag has never explained his reasons on the talk page. 3) The tag has been on the page for almost two years. 4) There discussion about the tag has been dormant for these same two years.
This appears to be a 'drive-by' tag that was put by an editor who *apparently* believes that Qawukji's German MIlitary Service should not be mentioned in the article. It is difficult to determine if this is actually his objection, however, since he does not explain his reasoning or specific objections. Other editors have pointed out that peer-reviewed reliable sources that are cited in the article show that Qawukji was given a rank equivalent to a Colonel in the German Wehrmacht (army) during WWII, lived in Berlin during the War and was very active in contributing to Nazi propaganda efforts, was involved in the Nazi military training (in Greece) of Arab troops. See: /info/en/?search=Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#German_Military_Service
The talk page indicates that the editor objects to including that information because he is pushing a POV that portrays Qawuqji as a heroic figure. Even this motivation is not clear, however, since the editor (as noted above) does not explain his reasoning.
Do we have a consensus to remove this POV-disputation tag?
Ronreisman ( talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Which version of the List of lieutenant governors of Ontario is preferable?
I think that Two is cluttered. Henry Alexander Bruce for example is listed three times, since George VI, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all reigned during his term. While technically lieutenant governors represent the monarch, they are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Canadian prime minister and act on the advice of the provincial premier. Their terms (usually 5 years) continue regardless of changes in monarch, governor general, prime minister or premier. Few have any contact with the monarch. The numbering is confusing. In Upper Canada, the governor of Canada (who resided in Lower Canada) often was also lieutenant governor and appointed an acting governor for Upper Canada, while in cases of the absence of a lieutenant governor, his functions were carried out by an administrator. Canada West was not a province, but part of the united Province of Canada, hence the governors listed were governors of the united province.
The use of the Union Jack and the Ontario coat of arms (which was awarded in 1868) is confusing. Why not use the British coat of arms and the Ontario flag instead? Why use a British symbol, when the governor's authority did not extend beyond the province?
TFD ( talk) 16:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute centered around this diff. After a claim that the source was not reliable (fairly clear consensus here that it is in fact a reliable source), those opposing the content have now said that it is undue weight to include this line. Is it undue weight to have a single sentence sourced to a historian holding an endowed chair at the University of Chicago writing in a peer-reviewed journal that is published by a well respected academic oriented press that is in response to remarks made by the subject of the article? The user arguing against it has claimed that because only one person has written this response it is undue weight and it does not belong on Wikipedia, certainly not on a BLP. I'm requesting outside views on whether or not including this sentence violates WP:NPOV specifically WP:WEIGHT. nableezy - 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There are edit wars, 3rr issues, and NPOV disputes over both Leon Uris and one of his novels, Exodus. The subject of the disputes is identical for both, with most of the edits made over a single day.
Three new editors to the article have converged as a tag team to push off-topic and inflammatory commentary about one of his historical novels, Exodus. The bio mentions the book as but one many, yet material being pushed consists of non-neutral critiques about some cherry-picked details from the book, a historical novel. Some of the factoids were clipped from an opinion piece about a recent conflict. See: source and another from Journal of Palestine Studies.
The material has been added to Uris's "Life and career" section and is tacked on as a complete digression into trivia from the novel, effectively producing a "hatchet job" on the bio. from what appear to be three single-topic trolls. There are no reviews about any of his books in the bio. By selectively searching and clipping inflammatory facts from his fiction novels, they intend to defame and smear his bio by using innuendo to mislead readers.
A section called "Criticism" is tagged as violating NPOV guidelines. There are no book reviews, and the section alone violates a number of guidelines which were explained in its talk page. As with the author's bio, both User:Huldra and User:Trinacrialucente have edit warred to keep the non-neutral POV sourced material, which is the exact same material they have pushed onto the bio.
See recent
diff, claiming consensus.
--
Light show (
talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Which section should go first, the section summarizing the four canonical Gospels, or the section summarizing historical views? RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure and don't have sections like the Gospels section on the WP page. So maybe the historical section should go first. On the other hand, maybe we should start with the Bible section, as we do for WP pages for Moses, Abraham, and King David. The editor who I'm in a conflict with is StAnselm. I don't know how to use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}}. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 03:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither section should be separate or before the other. The division is an internal POV fork. The historical and scriptural evidence should be integrated into a single account. First, the range of sources (canonical scripture, non-canonical scripture, and historical documents) should be discussed together. Then, each point of the chronology should be described according to all perspectives. Some details from the gospel account may be best moved down to the "Christian views" section. The "Christ myth" section, as a minority view in the scholarship, should move down under "other views". Rhoark ( talk) 22:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Two editors have each removed the POV tag, in violation of good editing practices. Is there an editor here who might like to explain that you can't remove a POV tag just because you think you should? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
In the article of Chai Vang, WilliamThweatt made misleading edits and claims that there is only one confrontation which the entire confrontation and shooting occurred at the tree-stand which is false. Not only that, it has a biased tone. [9]
For example of the biased tone, in the changes made by William, he wrote, " At that point five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived at the tree stand where Vang was found. According to testimony of one witness, Lauren Hesebeck who is also a surviving victim, Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner, was angry at the trespasser and angrily threatened to report him to wardens of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for trespassing. After being given directions to public land, Vang started moving towards a trail through a forested area of the property."
It's partially true that Crotteau angrily threatened to report Vang to the DNR however it wasn't just the only thing Crotteau did. It didn't include that Crotteau used profanities and threats made by Crotteau, first to Vang. Then near the end, that's when he threatened to report Vang to the DNR. Now about there being only one confrontation according to WilliamThweatt, there was two. One with Willers (one of the victims) and Vang alone by the tree-stand where Willers spotted Vang and confronted him, telling Vang to leave and giving him directions to public land. The second with Crotteau and 4 others riding on ATV's, pursing Vang as he walked down a trail to confront him. [10] [11] [12] [13] You can also see the victim's testimony which proves my point that there was 2 confrontations, with the second confrontation resulting because the victims got on ATV's and pursued the shooter. [14] Watch from 21:00 minute on-wards. The court transcript of the case also proves my statement, contradicting WilliamThweatt's statement that there was only one confrontation and that the victims didn't pursue. Lance616168 ( talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.{Note 4:Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources}(emphasis added)
This looks like just a content dispute. I reverted the most recent revert because of a spelling error and not seeing a huge difference between versions. What Lance616168 says makes sense, provided we have reliable sources for it. Work on the talk page, please. DreamGuy ( talk) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
References
I've read the two comments, and I see that the people making them have a strange idea of how Wikipedia works. Your comment seems to cherry pick reliable sources to say what you want. The other is massive WP:OWN problems. On top of that, I had an I revert with disparaging comments full of typos and misreading my edit to suggest I had typos when it was the version I removed. I think this is civility war editing (what's the link? forget that one), pure and simple, and I think the people editing are so biased they don't even see their bias. In any case, if you think this should go higher, it might boomerang on you, because you sure have not made the case that *he* needs to be blocked. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this qualifies as NPOV, but I was just reading the page on Originalism, and although it gives both sides representation, overall it sounds like two politicians giving speeches and trying to win voters to their side. The tone (after the first part, anyway) seems way too passionate and personally involved, and although the arguments are intelligently written, they don't sound like something you would read in an encyclopedia. They sound more like something you'd read on the editorials page of a newspaper. Clearly, at least two editors who feel strongly on the debate wrote it, with the intent of each proving their part "right". Now, since both sides give their arguments, does it still qualify as NPOV? It isn't totally biased towards either side, but it's definitely not "neutral" in tone. I don't mind the information presented, I just think it is presented is in the wrong way. .45Colt 04:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Agathonisi is a small Greek island which Turkey disputes sovereignty, along with a few other islands. I noticed a user removed all information about the situation a few months ago, and I reverted this typical WP:BADPOV having no idea about the amount of advocacy that would ensue in the talk page. A bloc of Wikipedians are so passionately opposing any mention of this information that it is almost touching. It is a low profile article frequented mostly by a certain demographic, so I wasn't surprised to see in the page's history that the systemic bias and this removing information without being called out has been going on for quite a while.
In any case, it is such an unimportant article that I am not writing this to advise any Wikipedian to make the same mistake I did and spend time trying to reason with them. But the case is such a typical example of WP:ACTIVIST that I would encourage all to take a look at the talk page; the language gets colorful at times and it has both educational and comedic value. It can very well be the subject of an essay about systemic bias on Wikipedia on such low profile articles. And if you are so dedicated to WP:NPOV and fighting systemic bias that you cannot in good conscience allow the article about an island of 185 to remain violating the policy, well, good luck.-- Orwellianist ( talk) 01:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please check Sun Myung Moon? Over the past several months the POV tag has been added and removed 3 or 4 times. Recently User:Novoneiro added a criticism section, which I think addresses the concerns. I don't want to remove the tag myself since I had already done that before. Borock ( talk) 09:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tamil Racism Trincomalee https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trincomalee&oldid=693961422&diff=prev
Hello, Neutral point of view. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Trincomalee. Thank you. -- දයාන් ද අල්විස් ( talk) 12:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Adolf Hitler wrote his infamous book Mein Kampf to establish a German Aryan Empire. Like that these Tamil racists need to establish a Tamil Eelam State in Sri Lanka and India. To do so, they need a pseudo-history and they publish that pseudo-history on web sites like Wikipedia.
WP:COATRACK information has been added in an attempt to discredit what peer reviewed reliable sources say about the Southern Strategy and Nixon's Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and race baiting language. The talk page discussion is
here
A peer reviewed reliable source discusses Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and/or race baiting to appeal to southern voters.
"Reagan's race-baiting continued when he moved to national politics." Lopez then goes on to explain how he launched his 1980 campaign from Neshoba county fair in an attempt to win over "George Wallace inclined voters". Lopez explains other examples of Reagan's racial appeals stating "Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats." and also explains how Reagan used the term "strapping young buck" because it played on fears of white voters of a "threatening image of a physically powerful black man." Ian Lopez Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class
In response to this peer reviewed source, information has been added to "casts doubts" on the material presented from reliable sources. The user adding this material characterized the information he added as "casts doubts on a claim of coded racism" here [16]. There are 2 separate instances where he is doing this:
Procedural distraction
|
---|
Comment The above claim of NPOV is part of a larger content dispute. I ask that this NPOV discussion be put on hold pending a possible dispute resolution request. The larger discussion can not proceed so long as this subtopic discussion is open. Springee ( talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment A previous NORN discussion initiated by Scoobydunk and related to this article is still open [23]. Scoobydunk should request closure of his previous noticeboard discussion before opening a new, closely related discussion. Springee ( talk) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Could you be more specific about what claims are supposed to cast doubt on the more reliable source? Rhoark ( talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
In reply to Rhoark's question The filing editor claims recent changes to the article are violations of NPOV and COATRACK. For easy reference I will quote the material in question (material taken from a larger and subsequently reverted edit [24])
The core of the dispute can be summed up as, do we have reliable evidence to change the WP voice from stating something did happen to language that says something that indicates the claims are disputed by reliable sources. In this case do we treat the claim that a given statement was testing the waters as a proven fact or do we present alternative views to the readers.
Scoobydunk's opening statement regarding Nixon suggests a level of confusion. The president being discussed in this case is Reagan. While Nixon is widely associated with the use of the "Southern Strategy", the passage in question is discussing Reagan and a specific instance when he is claimed to have tried to use coded racism and hence applied what is argued to be an extension of the Southern Strategy.
Scoobydunk makes several claims regarding the reliability of sources as justifications for the material reversion. He notes that the book, Dog Whistle Politics by Lopez, is a peer reviewed book and thus in his view unless a peer reviewed source is found which directly contradicts the claim we must treat it as proven fact. It should be noted that the related passages in question do not reference a peer reviewed book but instead reference an article published in Salon magazine. So based on the edits he is supporting the question of scholarly work doesn't enter into the picture and thus we have an improperly form NPOV request.
However, assuming the Lopez book in question offers the same claims Lopez makes in Salon we still have an issue that Scoobydunk is asking us to dismiss the views expressed in more than one alternative reliable source. One is a book by Jeremey D Mayer, a Prof at Georgetown University, Running on Race. This book was positively reviewed by several scholarly journals. Dismissing a book by a scholar of the subject and with strong positive reviews in the scholarly field is a questionable application of RS guidelines. Cannon's book has similar, strong scholarly reviews. The outright dismissal of these sources as not credible is a highly questionable reading of how we should balance reliable sources. Given their strength and oposition to the view offered by Lopez we should not use WP voice to state as a fact that the "young buck" comment was a "field test".
The statements by the football player were from Cannon's book and used by Cannon as part of the section where he addresses the "young buck" story. Given a RS made the connection WP:SYNTH cannot apply here. The "privately published book" comment is an attempt to discount the quality of the source, the scholarly reception of which was described above.
The 1980 newspaper article is not related to the "young buck" story and shouldn't be included in this NPOV discussion. Springee ( talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Reply to Scoobydunk's comments
Sorry, the intro to this NPOV discussion was confusing and it was not clear that Scoobydunk was actually referring to two different article subtopics at once. I will come back to the Neshoba discussion as some of Scoobydunk's exclusionary arguments are the same for that material. I will also note that highlighting just "what I added" without showing the full change or the material Scoobydunk wishes to restore can be misleading as it can leave out context.
Close due to inactivity - This request has been open for over 10 days. There has been no support for the original claims and no activity of any kind for over a week. I ask that it be closed. Springee ( talk) 13:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats. On the stump, Reagan repeatedly invoked a story of a "Chicago welfare queen" with "eighty names, thirty addresses, [and] twelve Social Security cards [who] is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."
Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats. On the stump, Reagan repeatedly invoked a story of a "Chicago welfare queen" with "eighty names, thirty addresses, [and] twelve Social Security cards [who] is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."
I neither have nor want a place in this argument, but I am curious: Springee, do you believe that in order to appeal to racists, one must necessarily be a racist?
Personally, I do not believe this is the case. Examples abound of politicians appealing to a base of voters then acting to the contrary, from George HW Bush (abortion) to Barack Obama (civil liberties and Net neutrality).
If one doesn't have to be a racist to appeal to racists, then what is the basis for adding assertions that Reagan wasn't a racist next to the assertion that he intentionally appealed to racists using coded language (other than encouraging the reader to synthesize)?
Please note that I think there is a very legitimate case for referencing the fact that there is not universal agreement on this matter. But 1) it needs to be limited to material that directly contradicts the widely-accepted position rather than begs for synthesis, and 2) the weight of the sources (mostly neutral scholars versus mostly sympathetic biographers) needs to be accurately reflected.
Last and least, a minor correction you might want to make (from early in the thread): If his CV is to be trusted, Jeremy D Mayer was indeed a Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown from 2001-2003, but has been at George Mason ever since (currently as an Associate Professor). But he hasn't held the rank of Professor at any institution, nor is he at Georgetown now.(
[35])
2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (
talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Template:Kurds has a section "Karduchian dynasties" which includes the Medes, Moxoene, Zabdicene and House of Kayus. There's no source for this, and the only source for such dynasties I can find on either GScholar or GBOoks is [36] which seems to be a copy of another source mentioned in Moxoene. Nor is one source, reliable or not, sufficient for such a claim (in my opinion). If there were such dynasties I'd expect multiple sources. Certainly the Medes weren't a Karduchian dynasty (Kurds often claim they are Medes or their descendants, and I note that User:Selocan49 is the editor who added the Medes to this section and the template to Medes. History_of_the_Kurds doesn't mention Karduchian Dynasties,
There is one source that does mentioned 3 such dynasties, "Introduction to Christian Caucasian History II: Status and Dynasties of the Formative Period", Traditio, Vol. XVII [37] - Corduene, Moxoene and Zabdicene. I've got the source and it doesn't mention Medes at all. As I said, I'm not happy with just one source for something like this. But my main problem is adding Medes and House of Kayus, with a subsidiary one being adding the template to our article on the Medes. Doug Weller ( talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that Wikipedia should have pages that define any group by allowing that group's enemies to do the defining in Wikipedia's voice, as if the definition was an established fact. We shouldn't define the group that calls itself "pro-choice" with the term "anti-life". (Note that I am not saying that "pro-life" is necessarily correct -- defining a group according to how they define themselves can be a problem as well.) Likewise we shouldn't define those who call themselves "pro-life" with the term "anti-choice".
I have a real problem with the fact that our Southern strategy article claims, in Wikipedia's voice, that republicans appeal to racism. The article should either say say that sources X. Y and Z say that republicans appeal to racism and that the republicans deny it or say nothing at all.
I am not, however, willing to invest any of my time fighting a battle over this -- a fight which others have tried fighting and which would likely end up at arbcom. Instead I am raising the flag here in case anyone wishes to get involved. In my opinion this is a clear violation of NPOV. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Related: User talk:Guy Macon#Help with Southern Strategy editing -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a separate thread was started up but editors should take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Coatrack pov-pushing on Southern Strategy further up on this page which provides more information on sources. Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
New WP:SPA/IPs. ignoring BRD, fairly big NPOV problems. More eyes could be used in this controversial area. (Note that some of the edits contain sources or arguments that may be appropriate, but not in the editorial style used, and not completing preventing the presentation of alternate POVs)
Gaijin42 ( talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a (civil) dispute as to whether we should say "Donald Trump is a politician", "Ben Carson is a politician", and "Carly Fiorina is a politician". One side argues that anyone seeking office is a politician, while the other side cites common usage -- all three of the names listed above have multiple reliable sources that say they are "not a politician". What is the NPOV here? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
"Politician A person who is active in politics and holds a political office to which they have been elected"; this is the definition of candidate,
"Candidate Someone who stands for election to a representative office"-- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we get more neutral eyes to take a look at the current RfC at Talk:Ivo Andrić? So far it's just me and some IPs. I was pinged by the RfC bot. Given previous arguments on the talk page and this contentious area, I think we need a large neutral turnout. Thank you. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The article on Americans for Legal Immigration could use some more eyes. Basically, it's an article on an organization of borderline notability, which has been created/heavily edited by editor(s) involved with the organization to make it into a promo piece. So there's obvious WP:COI issues there and the relevant account admits as much "our group". That account also is heavily POVing the article and is not engaging in exactly constructive dialogue [38]. They've ignored the descriptions of actual Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest, NPOV and reliable sources and have rather focused on making personal attacks (referring to me as an "activist" etc).
For any page, a COI means that the editors involved should not make controversial changes without getting consensus on talk first. This user is instead threatening to edit war "every day for the rest of my life"
Thanks. User:Volunteer Marek 21:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Could anyone please provide some additional input for the page about Mads Gilbert ( talk; a medical doctor, and activist/politician for a far-left party)? Two users do everything to deny that, in addition to Gilbert's medical work, Gilbert has also been the subject of numerous controversies for his political activism. The two users want the lead section to consist exclusively of praise of Gilbert, and refuse to allow even a brief sentence mentioning his well-known subject to political activism and controversy (which is referenced directly with several sources). User2534 ( talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe that user MezzoMezzo is an advocate for the Zahiri school of thought.
He wants the inclusion of a fringe school of thought called Zahiri. Zahiri was excluded from sunni islam upon consensus. [42]. Zahiri seems to have a very tiny amount of followers, it is nearly non existent and is declared extinct by many reliable sources but Mezzo insists this school of thought be included with the 4 sunni schools. which would result in undue weight [43] .Reliable sources indicate there’s only 4 schools . [44] Even their respective article pages say so. Shafii, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali.
Misrepresentation of refs* On the Amman message’s website Zahiri is not classified as sunni [45] but Mezzo ignored that and included the word sunni on the article [46] which i believe is intentionally misleading readers. Same misinterpretation of Amman message view is being done on the Madhhab article [47] .Numerous users have previously called out Mezzo on his obsession of inserting original research and fringe regarding Zahirism [48] [49] .I have warned user mezzo on his talk page [50] and tried to explain on the article talk page all to no avail. [51] . I would like neutral editors opinion on this matter. Misdemenor ( talk) 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Classic example of grasping for straws. I don't know Gorge on Facebook or anywhere else. Even if I did, in some alternate dimension, then it still wouldn't relate to whether or not I'm posting fringe opinions.
Objective users can simply check out the reliable sources added to the
Zahiri and
Madhhab articles - the main articles where one can find information about the Sunni schools of law. Zahiri is referred to as both a Sunni school of law (or mahdhab) and an extant one according to reliable sources published by
International Journal of Middle East Studies,
Cambridge University Press,
Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford University Press,
Edinburgh University Press and
Brill Publishers, among others.
The "numerous users" that Misdemeanor alluded to above include just himself and a guy who hasn't edited in over two years. His evidence of my supposed delinquent behavior consists simply of my edits that he disagrees without explaining why they're wrong. I'm honestly surprised that he thinks editors will ignore the massive amounts of evidence contrary to his claims that's already available in the articles in question (though I'm not surprised, all things considered, that he's resorted to falsely claiming that I know GorgeCustersSabre on Facebook).
This has honestly been a good exercise in further solidifying a case and it's an opportunity to demonstrate exactly why the consensus which Misdemeanor opposes so strongly is actually correct according to reliable sources. So in that sense, I suppose a round of thank yous is owed to everybody involved.
MezzoMezzo (
talk) 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Misdemenor: I know MezzoMezzo very well. He is not an advocate of the Zahiri school. (I am Shia and I am not an advocate of the Zahiri school as well.) His former edits such as Abbasid Revolution clearly show that he does not have any tendency towards them in wikipedia. -- Seyyed( t- c) 07:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for an admin to censor all discussion about neutrality and then refuse to explain himself while topic banning the editors there without recourse? Look at Talk:Watchdog.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.23 ( talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The article White student unions was just created by a newbie, and it's gone exactly as you can expect. I removed a lot of content that was just a list of quotes, but other people hacked the article down to about two sentences. Confused newbie then created another article with an event-related angle, 2015 White Student Union Emergence which I tagged for speedy deletion per A10. I brought back some of the content on the original article. Newbie editor is very interested in discussing article content but needs help and to be shown some kindness. I'm afraid this article is being non-neutrally edited by editors who simply don't like the topic, however, but it's been excessively discussed in first-rate RS (NY Times, Washington Post, etc). and we need to give it neutral treatment. Please see the talk page - I listed a dozen or so articles we can work with. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no evidence that any of these "groups" have memberships, it could even be one person behind them all. At this point we have too little information to write a proper article. TFD ( talk) 02:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute on Trustpilot reguarding the neutrality of the lead paragraph. I would appreciate more opinions on what to do with this. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil#Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Issues of neutrality have been raised. Thanks. Hugh ( talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Michael Botticelli is NOT a 'Politician'! He is a PUBLIC SERVANT! He never ran for, or held, an elected position. I cannot edit the banner on this article. I hope you will.
Robert E. Dwyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyerlaw ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that the article reads more like something generated by a foundation dedicated to promoting his works than a resource for information. It's widely accepted that the quality of his work greatly declined as his fame grew and he reached a point where he produced prints and lazy work simply because they could generate enormous sums of money. Remember, this is a man who would pay for a pack of gum by check because the shopkeeper wouldn't cash the check, he'd sell it. (Gum is an example as I have no idea what he bought, but the rest is true) The article makes it sound as if he was practically churning out innovative work on his deathbed.
I really think someone with a far greater knowledge on the subject than I should review, and likely edit, the page.
/info/en/?search=Pablo_Picasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E040:3A00:5137:254B:9AF:C483 ( talk) 00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This article needs more uninvolved editors to check it for neutrality. The subject posts copiously on the talk page and does not always help his case, but I think that he has a genuine concern about neutrality. The lead talks about a twenty-year-old lawsuit, for instance. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The skate punk article covers way to many other genres of punk music, and sports including but not limiting to BMX and also surfing which also adopted the punk movement at the same time. This article is to generalistic and biased to have any real encyclopedic value at this point in time. This article needs a massive adjustment beyond what I can achieve as an IP editor and perhaps a merger with the Punk rock article. Talk:Skate_punk#What_is_.22skate_punk.22_anyway.3F
-- 123.211.208.122 ( talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This post concerns Paul Singer (businessman). I recently copy edited the article rather succinctly due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede reinstated by Nomoskedasticity, mainly “His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects.” I claim the use of “vulture” is non-neutral, and as such goes against WP:LEAD. Subsequent attempts at discussion were diluted and fizzled out, e.g. here and here. A related issue, concerning the fact that 67% of the article's Elliott Management section contents relate to distressed debt, was also raised per WP:CRITICISM. Please note this is a BLP. Given nobody commented besides people who are directly involved with the article, I hope anyone unfamiliar with this issue and yet experienced in NPOV matters can provide much needed insight. I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This is just getting desperate now. There's no way I'm discussing this anymore. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be the running theme with this article. This is just so absurd now that it's almost descended into parody. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not comparing Vulture funds with murder. Clearly analogies aren't your strong point. The first couple of lines of the article are:
Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American hedge fund manager, investor, philanthropist and political activist. He is the founder and CEO of hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation, what the New York Times terms an "activist hedge fund", and (via his Paul E. Singer Foundation) a prominent New York based philanthropist.
I'm simply saying to change this description of his company to what it is widely regarded as. I'll ignore the rest of the straw man.
Also, again just as a side point, this sentence highlights the problem which has historically plagued this article - giving equal weight to "activism" and "philanthropy" in an attempt to detract attention from what should be given far greater weight. SegataSanshiro1 ( talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm unnecessarily reopening a can of worms, but I'm not sure I understand: If there's a clear consensus (and it appears there is) that Wikipedia policy does not forbid calling a vulture fund a vulture fund any more than it forbids calling a loan shark a loan shark (in both cases the most common term for a particular style of business practice), why does the lede call a vulture fund an "activist hedge fund"?
2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (
talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Can we please focus on the content at hand rather than the behavior of users?
Meatsgains (
talk) 04:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
History of the Great War I'm revamping the article; a couple of years ago added material (1917 Part II) that didn't seem as NPOV as it does now, with me being more experienced. I'd like someone with an interest in NPOV to help me identify what certainly can't stay in since it's my OR. The problem I've got is that the paraphrase of Edmonds, Travers and Green is OK but they all get it wrong and that's the bit I couldn't resist adding. Edmonds tucked certain potentially embarrassing facts away in footnotes and appendices and occasionally they contradict the narrative. I'd hoped by now someone would be in print so that I could cite this to them but alas not (Unless there's an adept who knows better?). Everyone who writes on the 3rd battle of Ypres swallows the biggest mistake in the book. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 10:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The article is Zamzam Well. The text is:
"The British Food Standards Agency has in the past issued warnings about water claiming to be from the Zamzam Well containing dangerous levels of arsenic; [1] such sales have also been reported in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where it is illegal to sell Zamzam water. [2] The Saudi government has prohibited the commercial export of Zamzam water from the kingdom. [2] In May 2011, a BBC London investigation found that water taken from taps connected to the Zamzam Well contained high levels of nitrate, potentially harmful bacteria, and arsenic at levels three times the legal limit in the UK, the same levels found in illegal water purchased in the UK. [3] Arsenic is a carcinogen, raising concerns that Muslims who regularly consume commercial Zamzam water in large quantities may be exposed to higher risks of cancer."
Although there are times when "alleged" may be called for, I'd say that nitrate and arsenic aren't alleged health risks. This is a new account making the change. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
References
Veganism currently has a dispute on the talk page by editors over the neutrality of the lead. There is also a dispute over the placement of a dispute tag to indicate that. I would like to request comments from other editors on whether or not the placement of an NPOV dispute tag on the article is appropriate. Zippy268 ( talk) 19:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been trying to offer balance to edits written by one editor bloodofox. He is making this into a WP:COATRACK. I have put the following addition at the end of the Reception article -
'Academic theologian Ted Peters in reviewing Painted Black refers to Raschke's critics as "anti-anti-Satanists." He writes that "Raschke shows no investment investment in anything other than garden-variety secular values regarding human decency. Even so, he is attacked by the anti-anti-Satanists not for the position he actually presents but as a front for the targeted enemy, the church."[12] A review in the The International Cultic Studies Association said "With his book, Painted Black, Dr. Carl Raschke...makes a unique and valuable contribution toward the understanding of this bizarre and frightening problem [of Satanism]. Raschke's book is not merely a survey of recent outbreaks of Satanism, but a comprehensive treatment of the phenomenon. He does not limit himself to criticizing the practices of Satanism while granting an unearned respect to the belief system that inspires them."[9].
Bloodofox continues to revert this edit by saying ICSA and Ted Peters are not "reliable", which they are. He just has own dogmatic point of view and is making up reasons to eliminate them, calling what they say "nonsense." He also makes absolute negative claims about Raschke without citing evidence and won't allow anything other than what he writes to go up there. He also makes claims about me that arent true. He is clearly on a vendeta for some reason (probably because he is on the opposite side of the satanism argument) and is completely violating NPOV policy. In his mind anything that is not purely negative is not "reliable." I request that you allow the edits above and block him from further reverting them. Or someone should explain why they cant count as "evidence." You can see the discussion on the talk page. LH Chicago ( talk) 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago
I am an editor on Hindi language wikipedia. Most religion related articles on that wikipedia present religious beliefs as a fact. For example an article on Hindu god Brahma will say "Brahma created the Universe" instead of saying "According to Hindu mythology Brahma created the Universe". Complete article are filled with unverifiable claims like these. I want to fix this but other editors are not allowing. So, I wanted to know if there are any wikipedia guidelines regarding style of writing for religion related articles, so that I can show those guidelines to other editors. Please excuse me if this is not the right place for asking this question. Thanks -- Gaurav ( talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)