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.

I have noticed that a guy named Peter on here has been adding info to the Dead or Alive 5 and Metal Gear Solid 5 articles that claim the game sexualized female characters. The problem is this. They aren't written in a neutral point of view. In fact, he seems to be pushing the view that the content in question is OBJECTIVELY sexist rather than that it was accused by some of being sexist. I don't even know if the added sections can even be considered necessary/ noteworthy, considering that a similar section was on the Bayonetta 2 article and was removed because the info wasn't considered necessary. If it wasn't considered necessary/noteworthy on that article or others, it shouldn't be considered necessary/noteworthy here. What do you think?

Two editors have been reverting back and forth at 1) MOS:REGISTER and now 2) MOS:SUPPORTS. Their core purposes are to 1) record consensus on MoS decisions and 2) list external sources that back up Wikipedia's Manual of Style. They both contain brief factual descriptions of the rule in question and its alternatives.

First editor says (approximated), "Because these are not articles, we do not need to follow NPOV. They are not articles or lists."

Second other says (approximated), "Because these pages make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice, we should follow NPOV. They are not essays or policies."

Policies cited: WP:POVNAME, WP:ASSERT, WP:FALSEBALANCE

Specifics and difs: (NOTE: Not all difs are listed; please review page history and talk pages for complete picture.) The first editor has removed reliable sources that use terminology that he does not like, has replaced common terminology with rare terms [1] [2] [3] that the second editor claims are loaded [4] [5], and has used descriptions that the second editor claims are biased [6] [7]. Second editor has provided sources to support claim that the common terms are indeed the most common. [8] Has also provided sources that may indicate that rare terms are being used inccorectly [9] [10]. Both editors accuse the other of framing the issue improperly. Both editors accuse the other of inserting arguments instead of neutral descriptions (and claim that they are using neutral descriptions) [11]. Both editors have a long history of participation in the many disputes over the MoS rule in question.

Both editors have made some effort to compromise; each has given way in the other's favor to some extent, so it is likely that a resolution may be found, but emotions are becoming heated. Please comment.

Talk page threads: Support, Register

Editors involved: alerted by poster. 14:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 ( talk • contribs)

It's not fundamentally an NPOV issue as the DarkFrog wants to make it. If it would keep its arguments to the WT:MOS page, where it posted hundreds of kilobytes in this dispute in recent months, that would be OK, but importing those arguments as misrepresentations of what the MOS says (note that WP:LQ says nothing about British, and that the DF just wants to make this an Engvar issue), on support and register pages, is too much; citing a raft of sources in support of a position does not make it neutral, and neutrality is not the issue in these arguments, nor in the support and register pages, which are the DFs own creations, pretty much, and used only for carrying on this argument. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The above description of the dispute, written as if anonymous by "second editor" DarkFrog24, is also clearly not neutral. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it is a "point of view" dispute (in that different sources do call this particular style of punctuation by different names)... but this noticeboard is the wrong venue to deal with it. This noticeboard is for discussing POV disputes relating to our articles ... not POV disputes relating to Wikipedia's internal policy and guideline pages (such as an MOS).

Now... if the dispute at MOS were to bleed over into our article on Quotation marks in English (which is where one is redirected when searching for the term "Logical punctuation"), then it would come under this noticeboard's purview. I do hope that this will not happen. Blueboar ( talk) 17:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You can, unfortunately, probably count on it happening (if not here, then at WP:NORNB or WP:RFARB). I've been doing a lot of source research for that article (but leaving the article text alone for a few months, as it has had the same WP:OWN and WP:EDITWAR problems as at MoS itself, involving the same usual suspect pushing the same OR and POV. I'm skeptical that it will suddenly stop, though I've made a point of explaining that while MOS antics are immune to most noticeboards other than ANI or ARBCOM (for the same reason this thread can only conclude one way, that WP:CORE does not apply to WP:POLICYpages, but to article content, so MOS is out-of-scope on most noticeboards), this behavior will be shut down pretty quickly and harshly if it spreads to articles again.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: It's very rude to call people "it," Dicklyon.

Dicklyon does not believe that the MoS's rule is British. I do believe that it's British. Most of the sources call it British. The issue at hand is whether or not MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS should call it British and which, if any qualifiers to add. ("This is British" vs "...what reliable sources call British style" vs "...what reliable sources call logical quotation or, more commonly, British style." My take on this matter is that because an overwhelming majority of sources use this term, it would be deceitful to supply only the less-known term, per WP:POVNAME. I also think that this less-known term, "logical style" is itself loaded and non-neutral.

I wrote the post the way I did because I was trying to fair. I didn't want anyone to form an opinion before looking at what you and I have actually done. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

British sources that call this system "British": Oxford Guide to Style Scientific Style and Format Oxford Dictionaries American sources that call this system "British": Chicago Manual of Style 14th edition (15th and 16th do too, but I don't have a link for those) The Copy Editor's Handbook APA Style Guide Webster's New World Punctuation The Punctuation Guide I can provide more if needed. I am not contesting that there are also enough RS that call the British system "logical"; I've added one to MOS:SUPPORTS myself, only that it is less common and less recognizable and should be treated accordingly. The other terms that Dicklyon has used are not common enough to merit inclusion. I only found one RS that used either, and it was of dubious quality. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar. There actually was a dispute about this at Quotation marks in English, but, probably because the sources are so clear on this matter, it didn't last long. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me what pronoun to use to refer to the DF24 account in the future. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether "the MoS's rule is British." I don't even understand what that question means. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"He" and "she" are acceptable; I don't mind either one. By "the MoS's rule is British" I mean that it requires something that is required in British English (and it happens to require something that's not allowed in American English), like spelling "color" with a u, as in "colour." Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Then I disagree, since the MOS doesn't "require" things, and logical style is not disallowed in America, and not required in Britain; different writers choose different styles, and difference guides suggest different styles, even different within each country, as the sources show. I'll grant there's a correlation of advice where logical correlates more with British style advice than with American, but that's not a reason we have to call logical "British". Dicklyon ( talk) 21:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We can discuss what American and British English do and don't allow and whether the MoS is a set of rules or suggestions some other time. The issue is what MOS:SUPPORTS and MOS:REGISTER should call this system. Reliable sources give its name as "British." Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

When talking about what the MOS calls for, call it what what the MOS calls it. Some sources describe "British" style in a way that clearly distinguishes it from the logical style that the MOS calls for (e.g. New Hart's Rules 2005). No need to conflate these systems. And stop with the "allow" and "require"; guides are not usually that strict; rather, they describe usage, or what is preferred or recommended. No editor is required to use LQ. Indeed, I think SMcC showed that 25% of featured articles or so don't. But the MOS encourages editors to move in that direction, so that the encyclopedia can have a more uniform style. Similarly, we allow editors to overcapitalize; wikignomes typically come along and fix it eventually to conform to the recommendations of the MOS. Nothing is required or forbidden. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does "New Hart's rules" say "logical style is X and British is Y" the way Chicago says "American is Z and British is Y"? If so, then it would be relevant. Among the sources I've seen in sources, though, the terms are used interchangeably: some say "original position is logical" (Prof. Trask) others say "original position is British" (CMoS, which also calls sense and position the same system). Many say "placement by sense is British" and others "placement by sense is logical" (i.e. Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies). Even if we assume that WP:MOS requires placement by original position only (and that's only one way to read it), then we still have all three of the most recent versions of Chicago, all of which call it "British" and none of which say "logical" (and CMoS16 says that position and sense are part of the same system).

New Hart's Rules describes the British system. It is at odds with what we describe as the "logical" system, in some of its cases, exceptions, and examples; quite complicated, really. It does not say they are the same, nor different, but to take take it as naming our "logical" system "British" would be an error. Yes, some sources do that, not seeing the differences. And not everyone characterizes the "British" system the same way; but this one source at least takes it pretty far and makes it clear it's not the same as what our MOS calls for. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As for "the MoS doesn't require or forbid things," it might be nice if it worked that way, but that hasn't been my experience. I generally see it treated as absolute follow-or-else rules. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 04:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I've never seen that. It's more like "let me follow, or get out of the way" when someone insists on going the other way. Nobody is required to help implement the suggestions of the MOS. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, DF24 has self-identified as female in the past. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, then I shall use "she" in the future. Apologies for being rude to the frog, but I had come to using "it" in the past for another editor who specifically objected to any gendered pronoun, and I noticed something on the frog's user page about avoiding gender bias. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Accepted. I see it came from a place of trying to be courteous. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 04:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I may be missing the whole point here, but would one possibility be to use neither the term "British" nor "American" and refer to the styles as Logical Style and Aesthetic Style? I realize that each term is "loaded" in its own way, but that would cancel and be neutral in an overall way. Or am I way off base to begin with? In any case, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
Richard27182 ( talk) 10:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the issue at hand. Not using the most common name, pulling a rare name in front of it, is pushing a loaded POV. According to NPOV, "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." The question is whether NPOV applies and how to deal with this issue instead if it doesn't.

With British style, most of the sources call it "British" but a significant minority say "logical." There are a few other names, but they're rare. With American style, you'd have to dig to find any source that calls it anything else; the majority is overwhelming and no alternative name shows up more often than the others. (Example, I found one decent source that said "conventional" and none that said "aesthetic.") It's unlikely that the reader will know what we're talking about if we use a rare name for American style. This raises the practical issue of recognizability alongside the POV issue.

I also consider "logical" and alt. names for American very biased, to the point where I'm sorry but I don't see why you think using them instead of the most common names would be neutral. I see using "logical" as saying "War of Northern Aggression." Well yeah if you can find a few RS, we could say that it's also called that, but we shouldn't use it instead of "American Civil War." ("Aesthetic" would be like "1861 Invasion": "Wait, are there any RS that call it that? Will anyone know what we mean?") Darkfrog24 ( talk) 12:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Darkfrog24: It was just a thought.  I began my posting with "I may be missing the whole point here," and perhaps I am. Oh well.
Richard27182 ( talk) 08:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with the idea of not mentioning "British" or "American" there; we should just refer to logical and typesetters' quotation. I don't see any sources for "aesthetic style"; there are sources for "typesetters' quotation", as there are for "logical quotation". "Aesthetic" wouldn't make any sense, because it only looks aesthetic to people steeped in it. For every American or Canadian who says "this looks better!", there's a Briton, and Irish person, and Australian, a New Zealander, a Singaporean, and Indian [insert the rest of the Commonwealth, and the UN, and most English-as-a-second-language learners in their native countries], who say "no, it doesn't". It's totally subjective. It's also ambiguous. To anyone who's has an educational or even hobbyist interest in art and its history, "aesthetic style" is a reference to the Aesthetic movement, which had much to do with typography along with lots of other facets of design, but actually has no connection to this punctuation issue at all.

We definitely should not be calling LQ "British". It's just a patent falsehood. There are multiple British quotation styles, with conflicting rules and rationales, and none of them equate to logical quotation, as at least one British publisher has pointedly told us. It doesn't matter whether Darkfrog24 doesn't like the name "logical quotation". It's the reliably sourced name of that quotation style.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, "typesetters" means "curly quotes." The RS are using it, but you have to look at what they're saying. [12] [13] [14] If you've found reliable sources that I've not seen, I'd consider them relevant. "American" is the only verifiable name for this style.

SmC, multiple sources refer to this system as "British," including CMoS 16, which you cited yourself. If you want to say that you don't agree with them, fine. You've given a thorough rationale for why you think they're wrong. But you do need to acknowledge that I personally am not making this up. I've never pretended that I liked the word "logical," and I think the sources are wrong to use it, but I have looked at the sources and I've seen that they do use it. You need to adopt a similar attitude about "British" and "American." Just because a term is loaded in a way that you or I or anyone doesn't like doesn't mean it isn't the real name for the thing in question. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not exist as a platform for you to re-campaign on this issue. This WP:IDHT game of yours has to stop. It's been pointed out to you dozens of times already that the existence of sources that do not bother to distinguish between A and B cannot be used to contradict the sources that actually define A and B defining them in clearly distinct and incompatible ways. You can keep thumping your American style guide like a bible for the rest of this century, and it will never, ever do anything about the fact that the sources that define logical quotation and the various British quotation styles define different things. As a factual matter, this debate was over almost 7 years ago, and you simply will not drop the stick.

PS: It's quite possible that the term "typesetters' quotation" is used to mean different things. That's fine. Innumerable words and phrases in English mean multiple things, depending on context. But AtariMagazines.com is not a reliable source for linguistics jargon. Your second source doesn't say what you claim it does (as usual); it says "curly typesetter's [sic] quotation", clearly distinguishing the meaning. Your third link goes to an index entry demonstrating that the term exists, but the page in question is not available (the terms the Williams book actually uses – not that it's a linguistics or typography volume, either – is "real apostrophes and quotation marks" vs. "typewriter apostrophes and quotation marks" on p. 451, which goes on to lambaste the typewriter style as "stupid"; this isn't a reliable secondary source for anything on this topic but a primary one, of opinion). So, you've demonstrated nothing at all other than how to not properly back up a claim (ironic, given the nature of your "source the MoS" activism). If you do actual research on this, you find that the curly glyphs are commonly referred to as "typesetters' quotation marks [and apostrophe]" (commonly distinguished from "typewriter-style quotation marks" or "straight quotation marks"), while the quotation style is referred to as "typesetters' quotation", "typesetters' punctuation", or "typesetters' quotation style" (and, yes, often but incorrectly "American"). These are clearly distinct phrases. Ultimately, it doesn't matter because these are internal documentation pages and we can use whatever wording we have consensus to use, and we're competent enough to use them clearly. The only likely room for confusion is if we referred to both of these as "typesetters' quotes", since "quote" in informal, vernacular usage can refer to a quotation mark or a quotation (and really should refer to neither; it's a verb, not a noun).  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that refer to American style as "typesetters," then you should cite them. You keep saying "so many sources agree with me" but then you never name any.

"Curly typesetter's quotation," yes. Curly quotes. I don't see how we're not on the same page on that one.

Running a search for "typesetter's quotation" and the first non-blog is Fundamentals of Computing and Programming, which uses it to mean "curly quotes." Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeat: This noticeboard does not exist as a platform for you to re-campaign on this issue, yet you ignore this and persist in trying to prove your style bugbear case that no one else cares about. But let's go ahead and shut down this patent OR right now. There is no difficulty distinguishing between the different uses of the fragmentary phrase "typesetters' quotation" in the distinct cases of "use the straight a.k.a. typewriter quotation mark and apostrophe glyphs, not curly a.k.a. typesetters' quotation marks.", and "Use logical quotation (similar to but stricter than various British styles), not typesetters' quotation style (often mislabeled 'American')". I remain opposed, as do other MoS editors, to any insertion of "British" or "American" into the matter; I'm just illustrating the point that no one is confused about this. We're all competent enough readers and writers of English to understand that any given pair of words can mean multiple things in different contexts. Your sources (to the extent they're even relevant – Atari and Mac OS X guidebooks are not linguistic or typography authorities – do not say what you think they do. The first says "typesetter's [sic] quotation marks", clearly referring to the glyphs, not to quotation style. The second says "curly typesetter's [sic] quote marks", double-disambiguating that it means curly glyphs, not terminal punctation style. The third is just an index entry. If you actually have this book instead of citing Google for content it will not provide, you find that Williams actually refers to straight ones as "stupid" typewriter quotation marks and apostrophe, and curly ones as "real" quotation marks. The fourth you added also says "typesetters' quotation marks", i.e the glyphs. It simply doesn't matter that some sources use the isolated phrase in distinct ways.

Meanwhile, a best-selling grammar and punctuation writer (and an American one at that), Mignon "Grammar Girl" Fogarty, calls these styles "logical quotation" and "typesetters' quotation" [15], following many previous sources. So much for your claim (as usual) that there are no sources against your view. It took about 15 seconds to dig this up, while I was making coffee. Please see WP:LMGTFY, an also stop abusing Google as a cherry-picking method. Do you really think we're all so incompetent at search engine usage that we can't find information contradicting you, in mere moments, using the same tools but using them properly?

Fogarty even clearly explains one of the reasons people confuse LQ and BQ: LQ was championed notably by H.W. Fowler, who was British. But that's a meaningless demographic; everyone is from somewhere, and it doesn't mean that their motivation for everything they say is nationalistic (I'm not sure that can be said about everyone in this debate on WP, however). Modern sources like the US-based (but not US-limited) Council of Science Editors, and the Linguistic Society of America (which uses single-then-double order, BTW), are clearly not British.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we might not be on the same page (or rather we were on the same page but maybe you think we're not). I'm saying I've found RS that do use "typesetters" to mean "curly quotes" but I haven't found any RS that use it to mean "American style." That seems to be consistent with what you're saying in the first half of your post. I did find a few blogs and forums that used "typesetters" to refer to American punctuation placement, but almost all of them also used "American," so American is still the most common term no matter how what level of reliability we use to size our net. My position is that MOS:SUPPORTS and MOS:REGISTER should not use the term "typesetters" to refer to American punctuation unless we can find at least a few solid RS that do so.

Is Grammar Girl RS? Let's say it is in general. If you scroll down, you'll see that GG's sources for that section of the article (7&8) are a MacHeist forum and the old version of the Wikipedia quotation marks article. I'd put this one down as questionable.

You act like you've seen "typesetters" used a lot. Have you seen it in anything like a style guide or textbook? Did you attend a class where a linguistics professor used it that way? If they recorded the lecture somewhere, that could be RS.

As for whether there are one or two American style guides that say to use British style, well of course there are. (I've been saying "overwhelming majority," not "absolutely all.") But remember that the issue at hand is what to call British/logical style and American style on MOS:SUPPORTS and MOS:REGISTER. Do any of these sources "Don't call this system British" or do they just happen to call the system by its other name? I checked out the LSA style sheet and they don't give a name at all. [16] [17] Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• MOS is out-of-scope for the NPoV Noticeboard. This should probably be referred to WP:ANI for an examination of the WP:BATTLEGROUND / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:SOAPBOX / WP:GREATWRONGS issues behind this " MOS:SUPPORT" essay (for which no consensus was found in extensive discussion at WT:MOS to begin with), and the page itself taken to WP:MFD per WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTHERE and various other rationales.

  WP:CORE doesn't apply to anything but the encyclopedia's content. It certainly does not apply to WP:POLICY material, including guidelines. This general idea of applying the core content policies to such pages comes up very frequently at WP:MFD, and the answer is always the same: Internal projectpages are not subject to WP:V / WP:RS, WP:CORE, or WP:MPOV. The entire notion is ridiculous. There is no external source for internal consensus, and never could be. It's logically impossible for third-party material to better determine how WP must be written, for its purposes, limitations, scope, and audience, than WP itself. It's like supposing that Apple and Sun Microsystems can dictate to Microsoft how it will write its own employee policies.

  All WP policies and guidelines (aside from the handful imposed on WP by WMF for legal reasons) are determined, always and entirely, by editorial consensus. That consensus is formed largely on the talk pages of the pages in question, and various sources are discussed in the process, but every second spent trying to forcibly source the MoS (or any other policypage) itself is a quixotic waste of time. There is no source for a consensus here other than the consensus discussions that lead to and bolstered it. "MOS:SUPPORTS" is an unencyclopedic, debate-manufacturing activity that will serve no end but fomenting additional and continual conflict over largely arbitrary nit-picks (and more inimically, by potentially confusing other editors into believing that non-arbitrary style consensuses enacted for real reasons are arbitrary and can be dropped at whim if only the stalwart standout yells long and loud enough). This kind of nonsense is strongly symptomatic of what drives editors away from MOS and inspires people to declare all style matters to be WP:LAME. It's completely unjustifiable to devote an entire little wikiproject-in-all-but-name (especially a redundant one) to picking apart whether an internal consensus document complies with hand-selected external punditry, on a grand total of three (out of many hundreds of potential) style matters that the page's authors have an issue with.

  The supposed rationale that MoS states facts about the real world so it has to be sourced is faulty several times over. Probably most of our policies and guidelines do so, but there is no requirement to source them. Aside from that, the main impetus for adding factual claims into MoS (there are very few of them, and they can all be deleted) appears to be the same editor now suggesting that this is a rationale to 'source the MoS". I.e., it's a Trojan Horse. The same editor has editwarred for years to keep inserting in MoS and related pages the claim that logical quotation, for example, is "British" (because some American style guides don't bother to distinguish them, and this aids said editor in trying to extend MOS:ENGVAR to everything conceivable instead of to what's appropriate for it). This is precisely the kind of factual claim the editor is complaining about as "unsourced in MoS" (in actual fact, it's already disproven OR; a simple examination of various British styles guides defining British quotation styles, and sources defining logical quotation, yields different styles that are easily and consistently distinguishable. Q.E.D.).

  All of this energy should instead be spent on sourcing actual articles. Most of our English grammar and style articles are poor to middling quality at best (I think only a single one of them is an FA). The primary ((em|effective}} purpose of MOS:REGISTER, then MOS:FAQ, and now this new MOS:SUPPORTS time suck and manifesto factory, is enabling one or two editors to use them as wedges to drive into the consensus-formation process, to try to goad into a specific direction the current and future opinion and debate about MOS's wording, by cherry-picking what they want to appear there, and casting a cloud of FUD over the legitimacy of various guideline points that these editors have a pet peeve about, especially getting rid of logical quotation by falsely equating it with British and trying to make it out to be "anti-American". This PoV-pushing exercise is especially ironic, given that it's being predicated on the idea that WP:NPOV should or even could apply to MoS in the first place. I was going to MfD the page this weekend, but I guess it can wait until the current discussion closes. In the interim, I'm moving MOS:SUPPORTS to be a subpage of the MoS wikiproject. It certainly is not a sub-guideline of MoS, and wikiprojects are where topical essays get filed.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Richard27182: I've thought about it and here's my guess as to your process. Do you think that "logical" and "aesthetic" cancel each other out because you think they're loaded in the same way? Unfortunately, that's not the case. In practice, "logical" has a positive connotation and "aesthetic" has a negative one, as in "the only good thing about this system is that it's pretty" (when it actually has many practical virtues). Even if recognizability weren't an issue, even if actively concealing the British/American notation weren't a problem—and I think those things are both more important—we'd still be hard pressed to find a word for American style that is loaded in the same way as "logical" is for British.

SmC, we're talking about MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS right now. The issue of whether the MoS itself is subject to NPOV should be dealt with in its own thread. Neither of these pages are essays and both make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Here's a thought: If there really are lots of sources that agree with you, then go ahead and bring them up on the talk page. Then NPOV would work in your favor. So here's a question: Why wouldn't we present any facts asserted on these pages in a neutral manner? What justification is there for doing otherwise? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog24.
 I think you read a bit too much into what I wrote.  All I was trying to say was that it probably isn't so bad if one of the terms is loaded as long as the other term is also loaded.  I did not mean to imply that my proposed terms were necessarily equally loaded or loaded in a way that exactly cancels out all the loading.
 I hadn't really planned on participating much in this discussion because the topic is not one on which I'm very passionate one way or the other; but the more I follow it the more I feel drawn in.  I suspect you're probably not going to like this; but concerning the issue of the guideline calling for using the term most widely used in reliable sources, I am one of those editors who believe that that guideline is intended to be applied primarily to articles, and does not necessarily apply to project pages or to any other non‑mainspace material intended to be read primarily by editors.  Project pages are full of terms that are simply defined within Wikipedia and used by editors in discussing Wikipedia.  "Edit warring", "NPOV", "non-free content", "canvassing", "arbcom", "wiki markup", and "transclusion" are examples.  They are not subject to any special sourcing requirements, and I don't see why any term(s) referring to punctuation style should be an exception.  Now if we were talking about what term(s) to use in an actual article (such as Quotation marks in English), then I would agree with you 100%.  But such is not the case, so I (respectfully) disagree.
Richard27182 ( talk) 10:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Richard, you're allowed to have your own take on the matter, and I am in no way offended.

The terms in question should be exceptions, as you put it, because they originated outside Wikipedia and are in common use. We say "serial comma"/"Oxford comma" instead of making up a new name so that readers will go "Oh! I learned what that was in class; I can now skip these examples" or "Huh. I'd better look that up in the index in my reference book" or "I'll have to plug that into Google for more information." It's the same idea here.

But let's say you were right and we're not required to follow NPOV. Why not do it anyway? Why make these two pages an exception? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 13:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you insist on this fantasy that our readers are idiots, and are incapable of following instructions on how to punctuate, if we don't apply misleading, simplistic labels to them, namely the only two you like? I think the real reason is pretty clear: These false "American" and "British" labels support your push to make every matter that conceivably could be an ENGVAR matter be one, no matter what the cost, because then you could do everything the way your preferred off-WP style guide does it. WP has its own house style, like all serious publications do, because we have particular needs, not all stylistic approaches suit them, and wild inconsistency between articles is not desirable.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because I think not everyone is as familiar with the finer points of punctuation as you and I are doesn't mean I think the Wikieditors are idiots. Giving the reader something else, like a name, to look up or remember from class is generally useful.

If "American" and "British" are false labels, then why do most of our RS use them? If you disagree that's one thing, but please stop insisting that I'm inventing this. I didn't go back in time and blackmail anyone at the Oxford or Chicago University Presses (or the AMA Style Guide or the APA Style Guide or the Grammar Girl article that you cited just now). Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Already addressed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. I'll just copy-paste the relevant part of what I already wrote: {{tq|It doesn't have an essay tag on it, so I don't see why you raise a question about that. It actually does fit within the scope of WP:ESSAY anyway, however. WP essays do not have to be in the form of an essay in the "English composition class" sense; it's a catch-all category for things that are not policies or guidelines but are in the "Wikipedia:" namespace [and a few others]. See WP:ESSAY; even proposed policies are classified as essays, as are "Help:" namespace pages, Wikipedia information pages, etc. This very much is an essay – It's two editors' out-lying opinion (and a jealously guarded one) on a few matters of linguistic prescription advocacy. ... As the editwarring over the page shows, it consists of nothing but opinions – how to cherry-pick and [mis]interpret sources to push a viewpoint, pro or con one of three pet-peeve points in the MOS." The fact that its written in a way that masquerades as something not advancing an opinion doesn't magically make it not-an-essay.

As to your question, I'm not at liberty to publicly theorize why you use this page and several others to non-neutrally present alleged facts. Your or anyone else's justifications are irrelevant to the issue here. WP-internal documentation is not subject to WP:CORE, because those are core content policies, and the pages are not encyclopedia content. That's all there is to it. Since we've already been over this dozens of times, I'll only re-state this for people new to the discussion: A large number of conclusions reached by consensus in WP policies and guidelines are based on nothing whatsoever but WP's own internal judgement about what works best here and what does not. It is not possible to externally source these decisions. Festooning WP:POLICY pages with citations for random factoids that coincidentally can be externally sourced serves no encyclopedic purpose or even project management purpose, but would be nothing but a WP:GAMING and WP:BATTLEGROUNDING staging platform. It would intentionally blur the distinction between encyclopedia content and internal decisionmaking, in a way that implies than any consensus decision, even one with 99.9% buy-in from the community, can be deleted if it doesn't have an external source citation. WP does not work that way. Finally, it is the very purpose of guidelines and policies to be prescriptive and proscriptive, which is by definition non-neutral. Policies and guidelines are codifications of what the WP community expects of itself and those participating in it. They are not here to catalogue and describe the various ways that off-WP entities might approach such questions.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I'm advocating is that we follow the sources and include the most common names for these practices so that the readers can figure out what we're talking about. You keep saying that there are sources that agree with you. I've repeatedly asked you to show or name them, and then the crickets start chirping. If you don't want to show sources, that's one thing, but then you must stop telling people that I'm ignoring them. I'm not.

Most of the MoS itself is written in the imperative ("do this"); you can argue that that doesn't have to be sourced (though the opposite can also be argued). We are talking about parts of MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS that give factual information ("this is true"). I don't see why those facts shouldn't be presented in a neutral manner. And if we don't follow the sources, then what? Your personal opinion? It's my personal opinion that "logical" is biased. Is that enough for it to be excluded?

I've shown sources from the U.S. and Britain that say "call this 'British,'" etc. [18] [19] You have never shown any that say not to. I've even cited sources that you copied out (CMoS 16). [20] How can I be cherry picking if it was your basket? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not taking the bait. We've been over this for 6.5 years, and you just ignore every source you don't like, make up irrational interpretations of the ones you do like, then – when you get the same result every time, namely no one buying it – you go re-raise the issue in a new venue as you've done here, or wait a few months and raise it again in the same one, as years of WT:MOS archives demonstrate. It's the very definition of WP:Tendentious editing and WP:Original research. What your own opinion is on these punctuation matters and how to source them (which is something we do in articles not guidelines and projectpages about guidelines) is irrelevant. MoS-related matters are outside WP:NPOVN's scope.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You're getting inappropriate, SmC. Don't say things about me that aren't true. I don't generally challenge WP:LQ myself, but when someone else does I support them—by citing sources. I don't ignore sources that don't agree with me. I'm the one who added the first round of sources to MOS:SUPPORTS and formatted the reference to Dr. Trask's article. I just acknowledge that there are far more sources that do agree with me than don't, which is why I still believe what I believe.

I agree that original research does not belong in the article space or on MOS:SUPPORTS or MOS:REGISTER, but I haven't done any. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course original research DOES belong on wikipedia-space pages. We can't just look up WP style in outside sources, so we study sources and make our own guide. You do the same when pushing your synthesis from sources. As SMcCandlish says, your synthesis is highly cherry-picked and biased by your desire to change the longstanding advice of the MOS to use logical style. You keep trying to make it into an ENGVAR issue that you can argue (as you have argued many times) that we should not so advise, but should just use whatever style editors happen to write. It's tiring. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I certainly do think that WP:LQ should be changed, the issue at hand is what to call British and American style punctuation on MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS. I don't think we should use terms that are not in use in reliable sources. I don't think we should prefer rare terms to common ones.

As for cherry-picking, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you don't feel that the sources I've listed are representative, add to the list. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You can call these two styles whatever you want on this so-called "MOS:REGISTER", because it is a mere essay with no community backing of any kind. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Greg_Clark_(Urbanist)

This listing is clearly promotional in nature and possibly written by the entrant.

I went ahead and cleaned the page up some but it still remains a bit promotional. I'd like to get a second set of eyes on it to see what information we can condense so the page is not just about his roles and accomplishments. Meatsgains ( talk) 03:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources widely note that the mascot of the South of the Border (attraction) is either offensive, racist or could be interpreted as either. User:CombatWombat42 has taken the position that the extent of any mention should be that it's a caricature, no mention of how that caricature is viewed. Does anyone see an NPOV issue in noting that the mascot caricature is aruably or sometimes interpreted as either racist, politically incorrect or some language that is the like. Suggestions welcome.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 15:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if some can argue that it is offensive, Wikipedia is not censored. If you find a reliable source that describes it in these terms, you can add a mention. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not that it's offensive, its that it is far too wordy for a lead and the simple term "caricature" is both used by sources and more neutral, at least 6 editors have removed Labattblueboy's phraseology, and he refuses to drop the wp:stick CombatWombat42 ( talk) 16:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that "politically incorrect" is biased—toward those who are politically correct—I think it's best if we have a source right after the phrasing "politically incorrect," if one exists. epicgenius ( talk) 16:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement is directly supported by four sources. If I remember correctly two say racist and two offensive. "Politically incorrrect" was inserted by another editor as a replacement to "arguably offensive" and I believe racist before that.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 16:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Then, I believe that "racist" and "offensive" is supported by the sources, so it's not opinion. However, elaboration on Pedro's character belongs in the prose. epicgenius ( talk) 17:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources really only make mentions of three elements, that it is a somewhat wierd tourist attraction, has lots of billboards and has an offensive mascot. WP:LEAD makes clear that the most important elements should be mentioned and should stand on its own. Likewise any controversies should be addressed. So for purposes of this discussion my understanding is that this forum is limited to NPOV and compliance to that policy, not MOS. It's likely best to adresss that issue after covering NPOV otherwise its really just putting the cart before the horse. Whether the content is in the lead or body has nothing to do with NPOV. - Labattblueboy ( talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Still, these sources support a popular opinion hat can be represented in the article. epicgenius ( talk) 21:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As much as I can look at King's section on Pedro (which by the way is closely paraphrased in the article without proper attribution), the problem the article has is that it doesn't talk about real controversies (which King does mention in passing, and which complaints the article could at least mention to the same degree) but instead seems attached to some Platonic ideal of offensiveness which everyone should just recognize. Really it seems to me that the way to deal with it is to stick with "caricature", with maybe some expansion of the style of it, and spell out the real (that is, ones from actual people which can be cited) objections enough for them to speak for themselves. As King points out, a great deal of the shtick of the place is that it is exaggeratedly campy and from some perspective tacky, an (overly) elaborated pun; we can cite people objecting to the joke as unfunny, but the major sources (King again, and pretty much every book on roadside attractions and tourist traps I've ever seen) all agree that at root it's supposed to be a joke. There is no way the phrase "politically incorrect" should appear unless it specifically comes out of our sources, and even then it needs to be identified as the speaker's opinion. Mangoe ( talk) 23:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In the hope of making some progress please find the following diff: [21]. Some further copy edit by others would be much welcomed. The content providing perspective is unfortunately largely reliant on King (which is attributed) but that is the only reliable source I've found that provides a full prospective that goes beyond "its controversial". Please copy exit and add additional sources as you find them.- Labattblueboy ( talk) 15:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Alohascope ( talk) 00:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology portion of Cosmology: Despite serious errors and lack of substantiation in the 'Biblical cosmology' portion of 'Cosmology' the editor 'All The Foxes' insists on reverting to the original text from my much more factual revision DESPITE my revision including the original text to show the reason for the changes. I suspect this is a case of an editor's personal opinion of both Old and New Testaments being false and untrustworthy. I ask for community support based on my inclusion of links in my revision testifying to the factualness of my revision, and the error of the original. Please and thank you.

Original Text: "Biblical cosmology Genesis creation narrative (c. 500 BC) Flat earth floating in infinite "waters of chaos"

My change: "I will leave the original text in 'Biblical Cosmology' unchanged, but changes should be made by an editor. The date or origin for instance of the Genesis creation narrative according to a Wikipedia article should be at least earlier than 1,000 BC, and according to other sources as early as 3,500 BC, not the 500 BC stated in the original text. Also, Babylon was a latecomer in Old Testament history when the Jews were captive there, having taken Moses' scriptures with them, with Jewish men rising to high positions in government, so the Babylonian account is likely based on Jewish scripture. In the Genesis account the "dry land" was not given a description, but appeared from beneath the waters which covered the planet earth, the earth not described as flat and circular, but a person can be led to believe the bible described the earth as circular because a sphere viewed from any angle is circular."

Original text: "Based on Babylonian cosmology. The Earth and the Heavens form a unit within infinite "waters of chaos"; the earth is flat and circular, and a solid dome (the "firmament") keeps out the outer "chaos"-ocean."

Wikipedia articles aren't places where editors can insert their own point of view based on their own original research. This is the reason you're being reverted by multiple editors. You're placing your own opinions and narrative into the article. Discussions should be done on the article talk page, not on the article itself. Try that first, and see if you can arrive at an agreement with the other editors. Scoobydunk ( talk) 12:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alohascope - I explained that I have reverted your edits since they never cited a reliable source, as well as there being some orignial research or perhaps synthesis of info. both of which are not allowed. I am sorry if I have discouraged or upset you, that was never my intentions. We just have very strict editing policies here that I was looking to uphold. -- allthefoxes ^{( Talk)} 16:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved by Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum due to same discussion spread over multiple threads on same page at 23:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The bible seems to be held in contempt by at least one editor here, Allthefoxes, who undoes editing which corrects huge errors in a section in Cosmology which deals with biblical cosmolgy.

/info/en/?search=Cosmology

Allthefoxes casts a darkness upon Wikipedia which renders it unreliable in any topic.

Also, Wikipedia is just too difficult and time consuming to edit, especially with editors like Allthefoxes who is intent on destroying information. 72.253.70.70 ( talk) 22:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Alohascope

I don't know that I would support precisely what the complainant wanted put in the article but the section on ancient cosmologies is largely uncited and really ought to be turned into a coherent analysis rather than a jumble of more or less important notions of various people. Mangoe ( talk) 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User Allthefoxes should have been notified about this entry. - DVdm ( talk) 08:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DVdm. The editor has made a second entry here about me. It should be noted the above IP user is Alohascope. - I'll repeat what I said elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. -- allthefoxes ^{( Talk)} 16:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an open RfC on the Campus Sexual Assault page regarding how to deal with an argument from an opinion columnist regarding a sexual assault statistic. The case is explained in more detail on the page, but I'm posting a request for participation here because it deals, in part, with a question about neutrality.

This is a fairly old dispute, and a previous RfC was inconclusive largely due to a lack of participation. If you have time, an outside voice might help us move toward consensus. Nblund ( talk) 23:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Other editors have persistently been forced to revert or take action on edits made by them on these topics. In particular, they seem to be toeing the official line, making edits ostensibly defending the actions of the Syrian or Russian governments (under the guise of countering "POV-pushing"), relying on original research and unreliable sources as opposed to citing more reliable sources available. Is it possible to look into or take action on this? (Also, seems like there's some global block evasion? See CentralAuth/ru.wp ArbCom.) Thanks. 108.2.58.56 ( talk) 01:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I visited two related articles, Koshare Indian Dancers and Koshare Indian Museum in the course of doing research on my current topic of interest. I found the content to be drawn from the Koshare Dancer's own website, or from travel websites that copied that content almost verbatim. Many of the links were also dead, since neither article had received much attention since the 2009 Anniversary of the group. Failing to find alternative sources of the material to fix the dead links, and generally finding the content to be unsupported by reliable, unbiased sources, I deleted much of it in preparation for merging both articles into a section in the article Otero Junior College. A merge had previously been discussed and approved in 2009 but not done, for some reason.

I place a NPOV tag on both articles, but this generated no interest, perhaps due to the holidays.

I later found some secondary sources referring to the Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers, all providing the Native American POV. Adding content from these sources drew the attention of Kintetsubuffalo, who instead of engaging in a discussion began by removing my edits, presenting his own interpretations of WP guidelines as rules, and then resorted to making personal insults.

FriendlyFred ( talk) 17:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I made two changes to the lead section of Koshare Indian Dancers that use neutral language to describe the nature of the group and its performances. If these remain along with the viewpoints of Native Americans, the balance of the article is now acceptable. I attempted to begin to resolve the notability and NPOV issues with Koshare Indian Museum by merging its content into Otero Junior College, but was reverted. The content of the museum article is taken mainly from the organizations' own websites, and from travel websites which use uncritical descriptions to promote the museum and its activities as and educational and entertaining tourist attraction. I can find no RS that attests to the authenticity or educational quality of the museum's collection, which would be essential in establishing its notability for an independent article. The "tourist" information indicates that there is a mixture of historic Native American objects and art by contemporary artists who may or may not be Native American. There is none of the identification of expert curation one would expect for a museum located on a college campus. FriendlyFred ( talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Although I have been actively editing since 2012, I cannot claim much experience (or interest) in the administrative side of WP, since I am only researching and writing about topics that interest me personally. Previous issues have been quickly resolved when other editors participated in discussions to reach a consensus. This does not mean I agreed with the result, but was willing to accept it as the way a collaborative work must be written. It is now approaching two weeks with no additional participation here or on the talk pages. Admittedly the articles are of little consequence, which is one of my points. I see no justification for having articles on one boy scout troop, and a "museum" with no secondary sources establishing any notability, only travel-related sites promoting it as an interesting place to visit. There is also a biography of J. F. Burshears whose only claim to notability is being the scoutmaster who founded the Koshare Dancers. All three might be combined and merged into the section in the Otero Junior College article. Or they could simply deleted, but as long as they exist the NPOV issue would remain.

I found one scholarly reference mentioning the Koshare Dancers specifically as a modern example of the book's thesis, and did not think there is any option but to include a summary of that thesis, so I added:

In his book Playing Indian, Native American historian Philip J. Deloria presents his thesis that, from the Boston Tea Party to the present, white people have used their version of "Indianness" to build an American identity while ignoring the conquest and dispossession of the actual original inhabitants of this continent.

referencing not only the book itself, but a synopsis of the book on the publisher's website, Yale University Press. This content was reverted three times by Kintetsubuffalo, so I posted to the edit warring noticeboard. That posting has been archived with no action having been taken. I questioned this by posting here. FriendlyFred ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A new user ( Dontmakemetypepasswordagain) who is very fluent in Wiki-speak has openly challenged basic facts about the events in Germany and has made having a simple discussion about a NPOV page title extremely difficult. The user also continues to edit the article page selectively to remove views that differ from their own. Talk page discussion statements by the user that "It was a mass sex assault of white women by Arab/North African men" is clearly fringe theory and indicates the user's POV. I suspect that this user, who is strangely fluent in Wiki-speak and uses terms like NOTFORUM with only 100 or so edits, is up to something. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 17:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "basic facts" I've "openly challenged", or what that would entail, exactly. I'm just making sure the article conforms to sources and eliminating some unsourced things. The comment about "mass sex assault" was in response to a complaint that RS's were characterizing the event in that way; I was merely commenting that the RS characterization was fairly accurate while also complaining that, IMHO, complaints about mainstream sourcing aren't really a fit talk-page topic. In any event, even if they are, as I mentioned at the article Talk page, it's not really our place to second-guess widely circulated press accounts from RS's even if we do complain about them. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain ( talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd feel better about it if there were sources commenting on the impact of Breitbart's and The Daily Stormer's articles. Neither of them is RS on anything but their own opinions, and I don't see what the opinion of either has to do with racism is Germany. It feels like the section is only there to make the reader jump to a conclusion that cannot be explicitly stated, for want of support. Torven ( talk) 04:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sex offender registries in the United States has serious advocacy issues and appears to have been written primarily to provide a soapbox for changes in the law. The editor that started and has been the primary author is an admitted SPA who has made few edits outside this platform. The article needs massive adjustment to conform with NPOV or if that is not possible should be deleted if policy continues to be violated and the article persists in being hopelessly biased.-- MONGO 11:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That article contains 178 notes of this writing, most of which are citations of reliable sources which support positions taken in the article. If there are other reliable sources taking issue with those which are cited, then the first step is to cite them and take issue within the article with its allegedly non-neutral positions.

The article also cites (in sidebar, primarily) three national and five state organizations, all of which have WP articles and all of which are calling for changes in sex offender laws.

It is correct that the main editor is a SPA. However he or she is not a U.S. citizen or resident (s/he's Finnish) which makes the case for personal bias harder to demonstrate.

I have removed the NPOV label as I do not see that Mongo has provided meaningful justification for its application. deisenbe ( talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is a one-sided advocacy piece that was created purely to soapbox on behalf of changes to sex offender legislation. Until sufficient neutral editors chime in to determine if changes are needed, you cannot as one of the editors unilaterally remove an NPOV tag.-- MONGO 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

These other articles, the three national an five state organizations, have articles because the primary author also wrote those. They themselves might need to be deleted due to a lack of notability. There may need to be a topic ban added should this SPA and his cohorts continue to misuse this website for their promotional POV agenda.-- MONGO 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is true. I wrote those, although I only included two most notable in the article as I thought not all of them needed to be included. The rest were added by Deisenbe. I'll go ahead and ping all the editors I know of having shown any interest on these topics in the past (mainly here): ScrapIronIV, DHeyward, Tom harrison, Flyer22, Etamni, Cityside, Kevjonesin, Lucutious, James Cantor, Ivanvector, Herostratus, Epeefleche, FourViolas. Note: MONGO, ScrapIronIV, DHeyward, Tom harrison on one side, and I and James Cantor on the other were involved in dispute related to Adam Walsh Act article as anyone may verify from the link above. It got somewhat personal at times (e.g. [22], [23] and [24]). I personally believe hard feelings, rather than legitimate concerns of neutrality, might play major part in this NPOV notification. After all the article cites 44 peer reviewed studies, one book compiling topic specific studies, two reports by Human Rights Watch + handful of studies by government entities. The rest of the refs are news, including few editorials and links to government pages supporting the content. Relevant discussion related to our last dispute can be found from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Sex_offender_and_Adam_Walsh_Act. I was looking to have this article nominated as Good Article at some point where it would be put under scrutiny. Since I'm not expecting much attention from un-involved editors to this NPOV and possible future AfD, I'm afraid that I and Deisenbe will be railroaded by MONGO and his allies from Adam Walsh Act incidence. That happened in AWA case: me and James Cantor got eventually tired of trying as these four kept pushing their side while numerous un-involved editors merely passed by dropping their opinion (all of them siding with me and James BTW) but never really engaged in the discussion. Hopefully, unlike the last time the discussion revolves more around the content of the article rather than the fact that I'm currently pretty much SPA. ViperFace ( talk) 20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, at the Adam Walsh page your efforts were rebuked so you created a POV fork as a new place to misuse the website for the purposes of advocacy.-- MONGO 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No they were not, I just got tired like James Cantor did. Numerous un-involved editors told you and your gang to back down, but you didn't. I have pinged all of them. I and James were chased out from the AWA article by your personal attacks and persistent unwillingness to seek consensus. I have also posted RfC since I want more editors contributing to this article. This far only 4 or so have made good contributions and no NPOV issues has been raised by those editors. You on the other hand, with no editing history on this article just happened to bump into it and wanted to pick a fight immediately. Unless I can't find enough good faith editors to watch this article you and your buddies will attempt to introduce false parity by removing sourced material as you can't block it by reverting anymore as you did in AWA. This article is split from sex offender registry as the U.S. section covered more than half of it. This is how it was after the split. Anyone may compare the first draft and current article and decide for them selves how much I have POV-pushed in any other way than raising the number of peer reviewed citations from 6 to 44 which you so much would like to have excluded of these articles. It's too late now. I am not interested in chatting with you MONGO. I rather wait for others to comment so please do not respond to this post. ViperFace ( talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My "gang"...oh you must mean the MONGO-bots...Yeah...that's it. Look, I'm sure from your perspective you're trying to do the right thing, but it seems to me that you have a serious conflict of interest that is interfering with your ability to edit neutrally and dispassionately in this controversial subject matter. The fact that your edits have no other focus also raises alarm bells.-- MONGO 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By gang I meant those who I felt were acting counter-consensus back then. Thank you for assuming good faith. You are right, I am trying to make this article as good as possible. Due to my POV other editors are needed to ensure neutrality. This is a controversial subject and we need to get this right. Unfortunately not much interest has been given to this article. Now that the article is there, could you point to some paragraphs that need to be changed to be more neutral and I'll try to take care of it. I already made an attempt to improve the paragraph pointed out by Herostratus. ViperFace ( talk) 04:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a non sequitur. My field of expertise is Wikipedia editing so I guess you all can defer to me...

Of course the article is not neutral. The I don't know whether it can be fixed or not, but for goodness sakes don't remove the tag. I don't know if it can be fixed because it's a difficult subject to discuss because what you have is, not so so much people with a fundamental disagreement about a particular law, but about the nature and purpose of laws in a democracy in general -- which is not an easy thing for people to talk about and end up shaking hands on. The question of to what extent "the public strongly supports it" versus "most experts support it" is the best basis for making laws is too complicated to hash out here. Since we can't agree, let's just keep the article short and descriptive and, to the extent reasonable, stick to anodyne facts ("law was passed on such-and-such date") that we can all agree on.

So that's why "While sections of the public strongly support [these laws], many experts... characterize them as ineffective and wasteful at best, and counterproductive at worst...", even tho probably true I guess, still does not belong in the lede and let's not do stuff like that, people. That's just one example and there're other instances where the general tenor is "look! these laws suck!" Maybe they do suck -- in fact, I think in their current form that they do suck, but my opinion on that matter has zero do with what I think should be in Wikipedia legal articles -- but let's let the reader come to her own conclusions, ok?

The law is a crude instrument. Get used to it, people. Life isn't fair. Many if not most laws suck. Many if not most laws let some offenders slip through while catching up some innocents. Earth is not heaven. Let's just stick to the facts. Herostratus ( talk) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the piece you raised up does not necessarily belong to the lede, maybe it should be in overview in a more neutral tone. This piece was added by Deisenbe, not me (just in case someone wants to accuse me of pushing it to front). How would you change the tone more neutral? What I have tried to do is to describe what sex offender registries in the U.S. are, where they came from, what restrictions comes with registration, how it affects people, how effective the laws are; what general populace, legislators, scholars and other stakeholders think of it; how courts have handled challenges and what law scholars think of that. I think that's what Wikipedia editors are expected to do. I'm not trying to introduce my personal opinion on this subject, it comes through the RS and it is hard to balance as there is not much academic RS in support of current registries to balance with. As far as I know there is RS in support how the registries were in early 1990's or how they currently are in 2 or 3 states, but this article is about current laws as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - After glancing briefly at this article's content and history, I'm inclined to agree with MONGO's assessment. Sadly, this type of single-purpose account soap boxing behavior is all too common WP. We lack good mechanisms to deal with it. To be frank, I think an immediate topic ban for ViperFace wouldn't be unwarranted here. This article covers a highly sensitive topic, and to have it turned into an advocacy piece really threatens the integrity of WP as a whole. NickCT ( talk) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Steps have already been taken to achieve more neutral tone by me and user DHeyward who was quite heavy handed but I also agree with his removals. MONGO actually thanked me twice for my attempts to seek neutrality. ViperFace ( talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Continued move towards neutrality gains points.-- MONGO 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@ ViperFace and MONGO: - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. NickCT ( talk) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Like I have said, I have strong personal POV on these matters but I also want to write neutral encyclopedia. Now that I have taken more closer look it seems that this NPOV notice was warranted. ViperFace ( talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

5 (UTC)

@ ViperFace and MONGO: - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. NickCT ( talk) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue is mainly the article. I'm concerned that trimming may be insufficient. It is clear ViperFace has a POV and critical analysis of existing laws is fine, but as you mentioned, soapboxing is not. A topic ban would essentially be a site ban since this is their primary focus.-- MONGO 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole article? Aren't most of the sections merely describing the reality as it is? At least 6 first sections are merely describing the history and different components of the legislation as they are. I don't know what you think of the "Impact" and sections following it, but that's what peer reviewed RS has to say about these subjects. Critical analysis is hard to balance with positive accounts as I can't find any other than general opinions of registries being "a useful tool". That's honestly all there is. This article can't be in 50%-50% balance with positive and negative accounts. Consensus among scholars is clear, they are critical to current registries. The only positive findings are already included in "Effectiveness". I deliberately put them on front of the section. What is currently missing is the rationale behind this legislation, which originally was keeping tab on sexually violent predators and habitual offenders, of which none of the scholars seem to have nothing to complain about. ViperFace ( talk) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to remove all the commentary throughout the history. Arguments for/against registries is out of place. that debate happens in legislatures. This article isn't the place to discuss how or if they work or whether they are effective. All that advocacy material needs to go. -- DHeyward ( talk) 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. What particular parts of this article you consider as commentary? Where in this article arguments for/against is taking place? Please, give me a copy/paste example and I'll do my best to make it more neutral. At this moment RS supporting current legislation seems to be lacking. I'd be more than happy to include such RS when provided. ViperFace ( talk) 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is such a thing as carrying an argument too far. Laws generally take a long time to be enacted, perhaps longer to be amended and even longer if ever to be repealed. Using Wikipedia as a platform for the amend and or repeal options is advocacy and is a violation of policy. I'd be more inclined this article could be saved if it previously had a history that was.more neutral...but since its new and this is where its at, even with the most recent alterations, I'm inclined to think the article should not exist. I'd recommend a move back to its original starting point before you split it off. None of these studies conducted indicate that the percentage of inconvenienced registrants that "do not deserve this penalty" can be quantified. The studies cite a few examples but all seem to fail to give us solid percentages, instead only citing small numbers as grounds for saying 'bad law'. Laws supposedly protect the law abiding from the law breakers and inevitably some people will end up being excessively penalized inadvertently.-- MONGO 10:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the article more neutral. If the quotes must go in order to make it more neutral I'm ok with it (DHeyward probably meant this), altough, at least, the Wetterling critique is kind of notable as she was the person who initiated the first federal legislation. The article does not try to quantify the number of "wrongly" or too "harshly" "punished" (officially registration isn't a punishment). I can't imagine how anyone could even construct such a number objectively as drawing a line after which life-long registration is ok, say, to age difference, would be arbitrary. I'm sure there are estimates of the percentage of sexually violent predators which I guess is somewhere between 5-20%, the rest of the registrants are something else (not saying that all of them should not be registered). You really think that the whole article should be deleted?? Honestly, would you propose this to be deleted had this been written primarily by someone else than me? I do understand that my username is pretty stigmatized, but that should not mean that all of my edits are garbage. To me it sound like ad hominem argument against otherwise relevant subject that warrants its own article. I wish more editors were involved, but not many are willing to touch this subject other than correcting my typos. They don't want to became "that sex offender editor". ViperFace ( talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty frustrated as not many seem to be interested providing comments. I propose we do this: I'll try to make this article "complete", which would mean (to me) improving "Public notification" -section, checking what was lost after DHeyward pared and adding relevant parts (if there is any) to appropriate sections, and splitting "state court rulings" into their own article page. After this I would nominate the article to be peer reviewed. I propose we do this in honest way, assuming good faith and without unnecessarily poisoning the well or trying to influence the opinion of the reviewers in any other way, maybe even removing NPOV tag for the time of peer review process. After all this should be about the quality of the article, not my editing history or my POV on these matters. I don't believe that any of us are able to be completely neutral. This NPOV notice is already somewhat poisoned as it started the way it started. We need truly neutral editors to determine what should be done. Tell me what you think of this proposal? PS. I have removed all but two of the reform groups from the sidebar template as it gave them way too much weight. I did not add them in the first place, BTW. ViperFace ( talk) 13:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't begun to trim. I just removed the blatant violations from a few sections and ViperFace restored some of it. A complete review would eliminate about 70-85% of the article as speculation or POV. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hence my rationale that until neutrality can be achieved, this is better off not being a stand alone article.-- MONGO 04:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@ DHeyward I almost entirely agree with removal you did. Eg. the lede is currently identical to how it was initially written by me. Much of POVish material was added by one or two other editors, although many of the sections written solely by me did, in fact, contain POVish expressions, which I have tried to pare off. The whole article has much more neutral tone now. To my knowledge I have not restored anything you removed other than the image of Zach Anderson. The text under the image is not necessarily neutral. I'll fix it right after this post. ViperFace ( talk) 14:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply here; my current schedule has kept me away from Wikipedia more than I would like this past month. When I signed in today, I found that I had been pinged to this conversation way up above someplace, and feel compelled to comment about this situation. This topic has been of interest to me for some time, but I don't normally do more on this subject beyond minor copy editing. (I did suggest a merge with some other articles but there was no consensus and I closed that discussion -- the removal of the merge-templates were probably my most major edits to the article.) In general, I am interested in subjects related to disproportionate treatment of certain populations within the US, especially within the criminal justice system. This includes, but is not limited to, the treatment of those labeled as "sex offenders" by society.

As ViperFace started editing this and other related articles, I was concerned that the sources might not have been legit or balanced, but I've found that with only two exceptions, every link I've checked has gone to sources that meet the definition of WP:RS, and I've been unable to find any counter-examples that are anything other than "opinion pieces" where non-expert commentators basically say that they approve of sex offender registries. On my user page, since well before this discussion started, has been a userbox link to Okrent's law, which states that the pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true. (Imagine if the suggestion that an article cannot contain any POV were applied to the article on The Holocaust.) Seriously, nearly every section of WP:NPOV supports the work that has been done with this article. The suggestion that ViperFace should be topic-banned is ludicrous; we need more editors who will dedicate themselves to improving the articles here. Etamni |  ✉ |  ✓  08:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm ludicrous then because I think ViperFace, a single purpose account, should be topic banned. If the laws are so bad, why are they not only virtually unchanged but in most cases, they have been strengthened. A few states have contested some federal guidelines but not a single state has ceased using registries.-- MONGO 08:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article makes an attempt to discuss why amendments are not happening, altough I removed the quote of one legislators. If "the Wetterling- critique" was allowed, it would also discuss why the laws are often strenghtened. Sex offenders as a group are frowned upon by the public as they associate the word "sex offender" with rapists and child molesters. Any move to further punish such people gains points to legislators. The problem is: the laws target every offense that has an sexual element and even some that don't. I have not found a single piece of RS arguing that registries should go away entirely, but virtually all RS says they should not target those who are not considered dangerous. This critical view is overwhelming in peer reviewed RS. ViperFace ( talk) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is such as thing as losing the argument because you take the argument too far. The article even with my updates and trimming reads like an apology piece on behalf of sex offenders. Of course there is going to be negative fallout from some laws, but the incidence of recidivism has declined BECAUSE of the registries...prior to their implementation, the recidivism rates were four times those for released prisoners that had been incarcerated for none sex related crimes. You're only telling the story you want to promote...that is a violation of NPOV.-- MONGO 01:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"the incidence of recidivism has declined BECAUSE of the registries..." This is nothing more than your personal opinion. Pretty much all RS says that registries do not seem to have noticeable effect on recidivism. A few studies have found some effect, and these studies were included in the article before you removed the whole Effectiveness- section because you don't like what the RS says. Everything you have removed recently was well supported by multiple high end reliable sources. ViperFace ( talk) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

By sources, you mean from biased sources. Explain why recurrence is significantly lower now than before the laws and registries were implemented. In the late 80's and early 90s the recividism rate was four times greater than for non sex crime parolees. You apparently did not look at my efforts to bring NPOV to the article. You've been deliberately cherry picking sources to promote your agenda.-- MONGO 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The source articles have been published in peer revieved scientific journals. Even studies by government entities find similar results. The whole Academia seems to be biased to you. The RS also says that sexual crime trends started to decline well before any registration laws were passed. It declined along with the general crime trend. Talking about cherry picking, you added findings of study by Dr. Gene Abel. This study is a survey on a small sub group of sexual offenders that are known to pose considerably higher risk of recidivism than all sexual offenders as category. It's a survey on sexual predators or preferential child molesters who molested "pre-pubescent boys outside the home". Unlike the sources you removed, it is not a statistical analysis on all those who have been ever convicted of any crime involving any sexual element or even some crimes that don't but still require registration. Although I don't dispute the findings of that study (some scholars do BTW, the methodology can be seen as questionable), you are giving undue weight to a one study that was studying sexual predators (who are the correct target group for these laws) to push a POV that people who piss on the street, take nude selfies, have sex on the beach, "cop a feel" or have consensual teenage sex would pose an equal risk of attacking "young boys outside the home". Sex offender ≠ sexual predator. Furthermore, you cite a paper that is not a peer reviewed study. It is a paper by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The current president of the said organization, Patty Wetterling, is one of the most vocal critics of current registration laws. She's biased, right? ViperFace ( talk) 13:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This Gene Abel?? Ssscienccce ( talk) 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So one editor is adding pseudo-science sources, and calling for the opposing editor to be topic banned.

And I see he adds things like: but based on studies regarding recidivism of such crimes which, based on a 1994 report, was four times greater than recidivism for those convicted and sentenced for non-sexual related offenses.

Claiming that recidivism rates for the two groups are compared, while the source compares the sex offenses committed by both groups. Ssscienccce ( talk) 08:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

After adding that statement diff, the user removed material that contradicted his claim: diff with edit summary "remove biased falsehhods)" Ssscienccce ( talk) 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighting in. Yes this is the same Gene Abel. I did not know this guy was that controversial, but when writing my last post I did have a fuzzy memory of some scholars having questioned the results of his studies. Now, if I recall right, in this particular study the subjects were participating in a treatment program and they were constantly encouraged to disclose more victims. Failing to disclose more victims would lead into terminating the participation in the program and presumably longer stay in incarceration/civil commitment, pseudo-scientific methodology indeed (I'm not 100% sure, I'll verify this later). I relly hope that MONGO merely did not bother to check the sources, but just added what the NCMEC paper said. ViperFace ( talk) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Striking over as this is not the same study I assumed it was, although some problems of this particular study seems to be discussed in Gene Abel That being said, what MONGO wrote in the article is not entirely correct description of what the FBI (or NCMEC) paper actually says. [25] (page 15). Also, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to the victims of child molestation as "partners" in the article, even though FBI downplays the seriousness of those crimes by choosing to use such a word in their paper. ViperFace ( talk) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We can remove Abel but my removals of advocacy POV pushing stands. We have more trimming to do before this article could possibly be a neutral treatise on the subject. ViperFace has used this article as advocacy platform and that is a policy violation.-- MONGO 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dead wrong ViperFace...the report is merely the coversheet of an FBI produced report used for training purposes at that time at the FBI training facility in Quantico. To set the groundwork for why these registries were established it's important for NPOV to provide background on the available data at the time. Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates on behalf of sex offenders also have their place, but interestingly, courts have routinely rejected their arguments because of a lack of empirical evidence. The evidence compiled by such sources as the bureau of prisons as well as probationary and enforcement data better reflects trends in post release than some newspaper or some pro sex offenders advocacy group who cite one or two examples of how the laws have negatively impacted a tiny fraction of persons and then surmise that because this tiny fraction was inconvenienced then the laws are too heavy handed.-- MONGO 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You say: "Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates". The RS you removed as "biased falsehoods" includes:

• DUWE, GRANT; DONNAY, WILLIAM (May 2008). "THE IMPACT OF MEGAN'S LAW ON SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: THE MINNESOTA EXPERIENCE". Criminology 46 (2): 411–446. Criminology has an Impact Factor of 3.098 and has rank of 2/55 (Criminology & Penology)
• Agan, Amanda Y. (February 2011). "Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?". Journal of Law and Economics 54 (1): 207–239.
• Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (February 2011). "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". Journal of Law and Economics 54 (1): 161–206. Journal of Law and Economics: ranking: #16 out of 45 in Economics: Law
• Levenson, Jill S.; Brannon, Yolanda N.; Fortney, Timothy; Baker, Juanita (12 April 2007). "Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 7 (1): 6. Rank: 30/41 (Social Issues); 58/62 (Psychology Social). According to Google Scholar this paper has been cited 288 times.

You removed content stating that studies find lower recidivism rates than is commonly believed, and is for sex offenders as a broad category, actually second lowest among all offender groups. This was supported by:

• "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994". U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs.
• "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010" (April 2014). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs.
• Harris, Andrew J. R; Hanson, Karl R. Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

I have not had much problem with the paring you did earlier, but NOTE: There is clearly NOT consensus for ANY further trimming to be made by you without discussing about it on the talk page first as your recent edits were not accepted by Etamni ( diff, diff), nor user Ssscienccce, nor Me. When user Etamni asked you to show "any specific statement in the article that "advocates" for change?" you didn't even bother to answer. Further, when Etamni asked the same questions on your talk page, you asked him to go pack to the article talk page, the same page where you did not bother to answer.

JRPG ( diff) seemed to approve how the article read before you started deleting supported content. User JRPG also characterized your behavior as possible violation of WP:NPA against me and reminded you of WP:AFG ( diff). ViperFace ( talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep trimming it in hope it can be neutral and not the advocacy piece you would like it to be. If that's not feasible due to your incessant POV pushing and coatracking it will have to be sent to Afd where it will be voted on for deletion, merge or whatever.-- MONGO 07:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly WP:AGF is required. Neither ViperFace nor I are US citizens and neither of us have any personal benefit to be gained from the article -which isn't going to change US law. I came here following a RFC request and this is the first and last sexual article I will comment on. The issue has been much debated in the UK where public opinion favours publication. Successive UK governments have rejected this and WP:RS newspapers have highlighted the draconian effects of teenagers being registered for many years for unwanted but non forceful sexual approaches. Nothing that Viperface has written appears to be NPOV and whilst I have full respect for MONGO and his contributions, assuming the sources are WP:RS he is out of order here. FWIW I have had a school governor role and therefore have had training in child protection UK style. JRPG ( talk) 08:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If content supported by WP:RS is further removed without seeking consensus on talk page I will revert on sight and request the article to be fully protected. We do not need another edit war. It is obvious now that most editors have concerns with your behavior MONGO, rather than mine. ViperFace ( talk) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, looking at this in a dispassionate way, and the terms you use when making edits or describing ViperFace’s motives, I suspect you have reasons for your obviously very strongly held views. I note you’ve contributed very little to this discussion but have simply deleted material from the article as you saw fit. Whilst there is consensus that the article is too long , I don’t think you’re helping. You’ve previously asked your friends to tell you when to shut up and as someone who respects your massive contributions over the years I think you should consider taking a voluntary break from this topic. I propose restoring an earlier version as a base and remove the state by state section to a separate article. JRPG ( talk) 16:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I'll decline your suggestion. The trimmed POV pushing and advocacy that I removed was put in the article by a self admitted single purpose account and I am well aware of his editing history. These things may be fine in an article titled Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries but in the form they currently dominate this article, they are simply bloat and distraction. We still have much to do to get this disaster balanced.-- MONGO 17:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You are pretty much only one who sees considerable POV pushing in this article. The article from which this one originates as a split on the other hand seems to be as POVish as they come. I (pretty much single-handily) re-wrote and expanded the whole article according WP:RS. There is not a single revision where citations are from advocacy sites, or advocacy blogs, or studies by advocates (don't really know where you get that from). If there is a POV in this article it originates from the RS per WP:RS as it should. Yes, there was some unnecessary repetition and highlighting of some points which were already removed per the discussion we had here. Only thing I have problem with is the removal of the tiny section about reformists (which could be trimmed more) and the loss of a large part of the "effectiveness"- section. Other than that I consider the current revision as the most stable version this far. Also, having repeatedly reading through WP:SPA I seem to be well within the allowed boundaries. Other editors seem to have acknowledged this. Please, calm down a little and take time to reach consensus on the talk page. ViperFace ( talk) 18:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MONGO WP:NORUSH applies, it can be sorted -don't make yourself ill over this. JRPG ( talk) 22:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm not...but there are so many policy violations here it makes me question your ability to understand what neutral point of view is. ViperFace spun this article off and has used it as a platform to espouse his already well exposed POV. These "reliable sources" are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions. I've already seen your POV posted to ViperFace's talk page, whereby I have previously stated that there is always room for critique of laws, just not room for 90% of an article to be a soapbox for changing the laws. No idea why you or ViperFace would give a hoot since the laws and registries have little to zero impact in your native countries. ViperFace once said in his country they are considering strengtjing their sex offender laws and he was concerned that anyone reading en.wiki articles on American laws might cast a too favorable view to outsiders. I have dealt with SPAs with an agenda before and each time they end up banned.-- MONGO 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said that there was a short public discussion about having US style registries here, where professionals were quick to point out the obvious flaws of the US system. That's how I learned about the whole issue and the fact that WP did not have a sufficient article about US registries. You say: "These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions." I say: You are lying. Please put forward at least one "inaccurate advocacy opinion" as an example. It is pretty much your responsibility after making such a statement. Anyone may go and look previous diffs to verify that 1/3 of the RS was and still is from peer reviewed academic sources or studies by government entities. Rest are news reports used as secondary sources. There were initially a lot more academic RS included but they were removed per WP:Citation overkill, but no "inaccurate advocacy opinions". Someone is lying through his teeth here to gain an upper hand again as initial poisoning the well did not work. ViperFace ( talk) 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is how the original article was before the split: diff. The article initially said: "Studies almost always show that residency restrictions increase offender's recidivism rates" and other BS like that. I actually cleaned it up quite a lot and you say I spun it off??? I'm also worried that you might have some WP:COI issues as you seem to be working, or have worked for the Department of Homeland Security [26] and tracking of sex offenders seems to be within their remit. ViperFace ( talk) 02:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahem...I wouldn't have any idea if the DOHS is involved in overseeing sex offender registries...the legislation is passed at the federal level but its likely enforced by state regulators, parole boards and such. I am also not a liar. Four editors here have questioned the neutrality of this article so it's not just me nor my fault this board gets too few posters. I suppose if trimming the article of its inherent and obnoxious POV and advocacy is going to be so argumentative, it likely needs to be sent to afd to gain a wider audience. It might survive that venue now that it's been trimmed down some but I think it pretty obvious you need to be shown the door sooner rather than later.-- MONGO 05:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And four have OK'd the neutrality. There's also one editor who has not commented here but did contribute to the article relatively much ( Cityside). Like I have said, the article reads as more neutral after the paring we have done but I and couple of other editors were not happy with some of the most recent deletions. Still, I'm quite confident that it would have stood AfD even before any clean up, although comments of neutrality would have likely been seen. I was considering to send this to AfD myself to just to get this over with. These accusations really piss me off: "These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions." Either you have not really bothered to check the sources, or you are deliberately saying things that are not true, trusting that your good reputation is enough to sway the opinions of other editors. I really, really, really hope it is the former one. You really need to be able to post some diffs after such accusations. One option would be put this trough peer review process but I'm ok with AfD if you want to do that. ViperFace ( talk) 11:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I promise to self impose myself a ban for some time on these topics after we have reached consensus with respect the few controversial deletions you did. ViperFace ( talk) 11:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A note to anyone in this place who still gives a crap: In response to my changing one word [27] that MONGO had previously edited in [28] which mis-characterized the source material (and providing clear reasoning why it was a mischaracterization), MONGO deleted the whole paragraph with a mocking comment of "good point...its POV" [29]. When I reverted and asked for reasoning or sources [30] rather than a hand wave, he immediately got the help of a friend ( ScrapIronIV) to revert it again in the same fashion ("Per WP:NPOV") [31].
When I challenged ScrapIronIV for reasoning or sources [32], he responded "Not happening" [33] and began blanking [34] everything that didn't match his and/or MONGO's POV, with only token attempts to pretend his reasoning was any more than an echo of MONGO's "POV" claim. (Now he's all-but admitted they were deliberate POV edits [35] in retribution.) Meanwhile, MONGO is bragging about how this is what happens to people who contradict him and his friends [36], and accusing me of being a ban evader based on the evidence that... I'm an IP [37] who disagreed with him.
Gee. I wonder why I ever left, this place is a paradise... oh wait, now I remember. It is a paradise... for those who know how to game the system, because the rules make it easy for them to make others waste much more time following the spirit of the rules than they themselves waste by pretending to follow the letter of the rules (well, usually [38]). And for some strange reason, people give up once they realize this. That was why.
So, yeah. Good luck with it, and I'll go back to remembering there's no point in caring about an organization that doesn't mind being used for the ends of small groups with an agenda [39]. (Not to mention an organization that has refused to learn from its own history, or Stephen Colbert's attempts to warn it about Wikiality.) 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I never asked anyone to revert your revert. It's entirely possible that others disagree with you.-- MONGO 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was never asked anything by anyone. I came across it patrolling recent changes, which is one of the things I do here. My edits were to remove a slew of predetermined and biased information. Even when something is sourced, it does not necessarily belong. So many small sourced statements were being made that it led WP:UNDUE weight to the information presented. Errata, like a rule in one place where Registered Sex Offenders are not allowed to pass out Halloween candy. Make enough statements like that, and each little item adds a straw to the camel's back - the article was overloaded with loaded - but sourced - statements. I reduced it, and removed clearly biased and argumentative information. The article is about Sex Offender Registries, not about homelessness among sex offenders, or how their rights are being violated (particularly when the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise). Let's keep a clean article about registries, and leave the activism for sex offender rights out of it. Scr★pIron ^IV 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It was much more believable when you openly admitted they were POV edits ("Any additional cruft to show criminals as victims will be promptly addressed.") and simply refused to provide any rationalizations ("Not happening") when asked for reasoning or sources. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A glance at your contributions page shows you were indeed extremely busy making edits on a variety of pages, I'll concede.

So how, pray tell, were you able to read a very large article, fairly determine the weight that should be given to each of multiple POVs based on what the sources actually say, and discern that MONGO was in the right and should be assisted using all of the above rationalizations that you've given... in the space of under a minute?

It certainly couldn't be that you didn't, and simply reverted because you had been asked to. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 23:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved with a number of these pages. You will find my contributions on at least four registry/law pages on this topic. The third highest of my contributions to talk pages is on one of them. I was quite familiar with the contents of the page long before I saw that pointed addition. Coming to that conclusion should not have taken a full minute, if it did - I'm slipping. Stalk much? Keep this up, and I will open up a thread on YOU here. Scr★pIron ^IV 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Threatening an editor, IP or not, for revealing the fact that you're being blatantly dishonest isn't particularly becoming. The only "crime" I'm guilty of is taking a look at your contributions, which show you decided to back MONGO up in the space of a minute between edits. If there's a policy that says no one is allowed to look at others' contributions, please cite it.

As to your claim that you already knew MONGO was right by virtue of familiarity with this page, it strains credibility. You weren't on the list of the last 500 edits until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever performed recent change patrolling? By it's very nature, you only see edits performed in the last few seconds. See, identify what looks questionable - or see an article that you are familiar with - follow the link, evaluate; not rocket science. My last 500 edits? I often put in 500 edits in a week. I may not have ever edited that particular article, but have read it, and it's on my watchlist. So, go bark up another tree. Anyone here with actual experience can tell you it's not a big deal. And yes - running to contribute to discussions you have never been involved in because I reverted your edit on Millennials? Yeah. Somebody has a problem, and it ain't me. Makes me feel nostalgic, I'd almost think one of my favorite banned editors is back. (Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!) Scr★pIron ^IV 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to add any more fuel to the fire but to me it is hard to overlook the fact that the three editors who have been blanking this article (today and in the past, regardless of the comments left here and the talk page by numerous un-involved editors) are the same editors who were involved in the debate in the Adam Walsh Act article. To me the behavior in both cases resembles remarkably well what is described in Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics. Before this day the article was being improved step by step, but it looks like the minor edit (a single word) by an IP initiated a response that resulted in wholesale blanking of some 20% of the article with simple WP:JUSTAPOLICY justification. ViperFace ( talk) 00:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This needs special note: If you knew that MONGO was right because you were familiar with the page, why did you claim in your previous comment that you reverted a "pointed addition"?

You should probably go back and read the history [40] before you continue. If you actually knew what was going on and made a considered decision as you pretended, you would have known that I added nothing. I edited one word ("rare" to "some") to match what the sources actually said, MONGO deleted the section in response, I reverted that, and you restored his deletion.

I'm not talking about your edits. I'm saying that you weren't in the last 500 edits on the page - i.e. the last two months - until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. And what you're saying sounds suspiciously like an admission that you are not making your edits as considered decisions, but as snap judgments. Whether or not they're at others' request is now the only thing in doubt.

On to your new claim - where in the blazes did you come up with the lie that I'm a banned editor? I'm nothing of the sort, and I suspect you already know that but are trying to muddy the waters. Either give some evidence that you're not pulling that out of your tail end, or retract it. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting more and more personal. Hugs and kisses.-- MONGO 00:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV - Good call getting MONGO to come and muddy the waters again, but it's not "personal" to provide clear evidence that an editor is lying and acting in bad faith. Let's review:

You're lying about knowing MONGO was right because you were familiar with the article. You hadn't seen it in at least two months, during which it went through massive changes. To boot, you didn't even know what you were reverting, as evidenced by the mistaken claim that you were reverting a "pointed addition". You're also making an accusation (that I'm a banned editor) that is demonstrably false, based on no evidence.

So where would you like to start in trying to climb out of the hole the two of you have dug? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 00:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What hole? That an editor was checking recent changes and since he edited a related article that was also a POV mess and so he decided to jump in and start cleaning this one up too...how is that a hole? That you changed "rare" to "some" and I decided the whole statement was a POV synthesis...so I removed it...how is that a hole.-- MONGO 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with MONGO about the existing POV bias and think that part of content can be easily deleted, however removing other parts is actually too much. This could be shortened and rephrased, but this is basically a valid and well sourced info on the subject. But whatever. I do not have time for this. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks...while it will likely be seen as a POV fork, the peripherals on this matter should be on a new page as I mentioned earlier in this discussion.-- MONGO 04:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• You suggested above that removed content belongs to "Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries". How come if the content you removed [41] includes the following subtitles: "Registration process", "Public notification", "Additional restrictions", "Effectiveness", "Perceptions", etc.? This is not about any "legal challenges". Look, you made this posting on the noticeboard to have opinions by 3rd uninvolved parties, and here is it. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

These sections were supposed to be worked on to make them more neutral. Mongo and NickCT were on to it, but for some reason ScrapIron came in like a Rambo and blew up like half of the article. I really can't see Mongos' reasoning for not allowing these sections to stay on the page and rework them as the original plan was. The accusations of the ip editor do not seem far fetched to me as I have seen this go down on another article related to this subject. 3/4 of the editors who did this in the Adam Walsh Act article are now involved in blanking this article, regardless of multiple opposing opinions of uninvolved editors. Mongo did not have a problem with these sections (at least ostensibly) before ScrapIron removed them, but now he is suddenly edit warring for ScrapIron. This same counter-consensus behavior took place in AWA article. All of the sections are relevant to this article. I have now reinstated them. Just stick to the original plan you and NickCT had, Mongo. ViperFace ( talk) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not see any reason for these paragraphs (in my last diff) be removed, and I do not even see a reason for them to be significantly reworked. Now, speaking about a similar removal on another page, I too agree that it was unwarranted, because it merely describes and explains the application of Law. Yes, this is a serious offense and must be described as such - with all consequences, per sources. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that page, the revert on the Adam Walsh Act was the same material that he had removed based on COPYVIO. I looked it over as well and felt it was at the very least an extremely close case of paraphrasing material. [42]-- MONGO 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this removal? Can you give any link where this came from? This is different from the text removed as alleged copyvio [43], and according to the edit summary by ViperFace it was taken from another WP page. But this is a peripheral issue. Looking at discussion on article talk page [44], it appears that idea was indeed to improve the text rather than remove. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct on the revert issue in that the COPYVIO revert was different and that material was added by an IP, which originates from Helsinki, Finland. [45] Yes, ViperFace, I am sure that must be you...it seems rather implausible that another Fin would be editing these articles on en.wiki. We're not here to discuss a different article. I'll look over ScrapIrons latest revert but it does appear to be very COATRACKish for this article.-- MONGO 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, please take a look. I think this is personal bias. Texts in question describe real life consequences for people who committed the crime and their families. The consequences might be viewed as "unfairness" of the US law and practices, but that's irrelevant as long as the content is properly sources, and yes, it is about the subject. My personal bias would be different: people have every right to know the results of application of the law in their country, no matter if something was "fair". My very best wishes ( talk) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When you are going to remove the pseudo-science piece of Gene Abel you added, Mongo. Also, inb4 "Boo-hoo! Viper is a SPA!".— Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace ( talk • contribs)

MONGO is blatantly gaming the rules, and will continue to do so for as long as he is allowed. First he brings in his old ally ScrapIronIV to agree with him [46]... at least until ScrapIronIV slipped badly and revealed [47] that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to [48], continued to repeatedly [49] (and demonstrably [50]) lie about why he started with that then went on to blank 20% of the article [51]oldid=689869232] (and demonstrably and finally upped his bluster to crude threats[https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=689878136&oldid=689874603, [52]. Then when a new genuinely-uninvolved editor became involved [53] and explained why he felt both sides had a point, but undid ScrapIronIV's blanking until a compromise could be reached, a "long term articled" editor whose talk page reflects repeated personal and noticeboard support from MONGO just coincidentally happened to stop by and feel very strongly that the blanking should be restored [54], [55]. This story seems to have been repeated, here and elsewhere [56].

MONGO repeatedly "jokes" about bringing in his "army" to come agree with him if you make edits he doesn't like. At the very least it's not funny, and it doesn't appear to be a joke either. If I had a great deal more spare time, it would be well worth bringing it to AN/I... well, it would be if (big "if") anyone cares enough about ending routine collusion to address even blatant cases, or the rules that make it easy.

To be fair, I don't like addressing nasty, time-consuming problems either. But sooner or later someone has to, or ArbCom might as well be renamed "Top-Level Dispute Resolution". 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 14:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hum...you should log in with your regular account. Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article.-- MONGO 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I love the fact that you and ScrapIronIV are so fond of insinuating/asserting/threatening that I'm a banned editor - without a shred of evidence. For the third (or is it the fourth?) time, I'm not. I left long ago of my own accord when it became obvious that you and people like you will always win unless WP is willing to reform the rules.

It's far too easy for those who (usually) pay lip service to the letter of the rules to bury editors of good will under dozens of hours of work following the spirit of the rules. Your appeal to AGF just now by implying "Who, me? I have no idea what you mean, let's start aaaall over again and now you can beat your head against my 'army' of 'Mongo-bots'‡ to game consensus until you give up in despair" is a perfect case-in-point.
I can read histories just fine, thank you, and I do well enough at creating my own despair. So no, I'm not interested in returning to editing and wasting dozens of hours demonstrating how long you've been doing this, if you can just bat your eyes and say the magic words "But I've changed and I've learned how wrong I was, soIapologizeandnowIdeserveanotherchance (or a dozen)." Nor am I interested in hoping you'll dig your own grave a hundred feet deep by continuing to use allies who make mistakes as obvious as ScrapIronIV's.
No one, except perhaps those who try to pretend that you and your ilk haven't made WP fodder for comedians, is that obstinately blind. If not even an admin is willing to tackle you - even when your group has made it this obvious that you're colluding - there's little point in me alone trying to do so.
‡ - "Why yes I do keep saying it, but I'm only joking, you big silly. Tee hee. Like I said, let's start over again." 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 18:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To imitate ViperFace's wisecrack, "In b4 someone praises MONGO and ScrapIronIV as prolific editors‡, the usual defense of those whose misbehavior is so egregious as to actually get in trouble for it."

‡ - I swear, I have never understood why anyone would consider this a mitigating circumstance. To me it's appalling to know that someone has been getting away with driving other editors away from "their" articles this long. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If I thought ScrapIron had made a mistake I wouldn't have reverted. In fact, this article still needs more trimming to maintain focus and achieve NPOV. Aside from that, schreeching about alleged collisions that are unrelated to whether we are closer to neutrality are about as helpful as the average pile of donkey doo.-- MONGO 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

By "mistake", I'm not referring to the fact he blanked 20% of the article [57].

I'm referring to his having accidentally admitted that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to [58], [59] when he reverted on your behalf [60]. He then compounded this mistake by demonstrably [61], [62]) and repeatedly [63], [64] inventing false reasons for it.

Would you like to try to justify that, or will you continue trying to bluster your way out of it? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 20:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mongo said: "Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article." If this is the case, why an earth are these three edit warring for deleting this piece [65]? This well sourced 20% of the page content has one trivial "citation needed" and one "NPOV statement"- tag. The former can be easily cited or deleted. The latter one should go into the "debate" section as originally planned, or to the "effectiveness" section that was deleted earlier in similar manner, and the citation should be changed from NYT op/ed piece to this considerably more reliable US Government publication which says the same thing. Majority of uninvolved editors have now disproved with the latest deletions. Why ask for third opinions if one does not care about third opinions? ViperFace ( talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that this topic hasn't generated more input from uninvolved editors after all this time on this noticeboard. As it stands, the article has been gutted and the original editor has moved on to other topics of interest (possibly disproving the claim that it was an SPA). I'm really disappointed that, as a community, we have apparently decided to ignore the WP:RS and instead go with practically a bare bones de minimus article on the subject. Yes, it's more than a stub, but certainly not the encyclopedic work I was hoping to see when all was done. As it stands now, the article supports beliefs from popular culture (i.e. beliefs supported by television crime dramas and the like) and does nothing to inform the reader, based on RS, the way an encyclopedic article should. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing doesn't end up on WP:LAME! Etamni |  ✉ |  ✓  12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ViperFace is much braver than I am and this is an emotional topic involving reputable editors from different cultural backgrounds. There have been suggestions that the UK follow the US -a view firmly rejected by the UK government who seem to share many of ViperFace's arguments. Important, properly cited material has been deleted but the article was too long. I would support splitting it along lines previously suggested. It should be available. JRPG ( talk) 13:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Even this discussion has become a wall of text that many will not read. --sigh-- I'm all in favor of organizational changes that make the article easier to read and understand. My concern is the wholesale deletion of WP:RS from the article that has gone unchallenged by the larger community, even when such deletion supported a particular POV. Etamni |  ✉ |  ✓  14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I believe Mongo is concerned that this article could influence US opinion. Could we build a consensus on a link to a new article Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries containing the wp:RS deleted material? I had thought this was going to happen weeks ago. JRPG ( talk) 15:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this if anything should be in Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries. This piece was imported from Sex offender registry when I did the split [66]. The rest of the content that has been thrown out, that is, the Effectiveness section and the part that has now been subject to edit warring belongs to this article. Anything else would be WP:POVFORK. I personally think this version covers the subject quite well, but it should be checked for balance and POV expressions by someone else than the deletionists. I get that my version had some balance issues but the ultimate bias the deletionists hold is pretty clear from the Adam Walsh Act case. After all, MONGO said that I and — James Cantor, who happens to be an expert notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article James Cantor, are "apologists for deviant behavior and want to misuse the article as a platform for their agenda." We did provide around 50 peer reviewed articles to support our position [67] but these same three editors kept on reverting any mention of them. I have deep mistrust to these editors and I genuinely believe that MONGO's intention was never follow through with NickCT's plan as Nick was not going to remove WP:RS, he was simply going to reword and re-organize the article. Suddenly, wild ScrapIron appeared out of nothing. ViperFace ( talk) 19:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Its comical that anyone would assume that since you finally went and edited an unrelated article or two that this now means you aren't a POV pushing sex offender apologist. All laws tend to have more writings that oppose the laws than ones that support them. The key is whether any of that advocacy has led to alterations of any significance to the laws and in this case they haven't. The laws regarding the death penalty in the U.S. have similar advocacy against them....yet in many states in the U.S. the death penalty is still legal. I'm sick and tired of your POV pushing and advocacy and misuse of this website to attack laws in a country that isn't even your own...I don't need to read my wiki resume to you to demonstrate that I've always followed our policies such as BLP, NPOV and SOAP long before some of these were even policies.-- MONGO 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The key is to follow what WP:RS says, not what your gut feel says. If all of the RS take critical position, that's the position the article takes. Another key policy is to flow with the consensus. It is true that I came here as an WP:Advocate to correct great wrong. My early ways of editing was intercepted by many long term editors. Since then I have tried my best to stand corrected. You and your bots are the only editors who seem to have hard time of acknowledging this. Your wiki history demonstrates the fact that the community is not able to address your violations properly. You are one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo. Also, I'm striking over your blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA. ViperFace ( talk) 16:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't alter anyone's comments...funny you might do that while at the same time stating that I am "one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo.", and referring to others who see your POV pushing and sex offender SPA platforming for what it is as "bots". We're done here...I'm going to revert you on sight.-- MONGO 07:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps on joking(?) about Mongo bots. The IP brought that up and I happen to agree with his/hers account. You also seem to be able to avoid sanctions even when ArbCom finds you guilty. You and the "others", who are non-neutral editors, have been removing WP:RS which has been objected by majority of neutral editors who have responded here. You posted this here "in hopes of soliciting neutral contributions for balance." The questions of neutral editors still remain unanswered. How about answering them? You also fail miserably in keeping your own promises. [68] ViperFace ( talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• ViperFace, I can completely understand getting furious at being called a "sex offender apologist". But Wikipedia has a policy for the correct way to do everything, including removing blatant personal attacks against you. At least as I understand it, the correct way is to add a template. Big surprise. (-_-)
• MONGO, did you seriously just pretend to be offended that you infuriated someone by calling them a "sex offender apologist"? I guess that means you consider even de minimis alterations of others' comments to be worse than breaking the hell out of NPA. If that's the case, how should the community respond to someone who unabashedly deletes comments they don't like on an article talk page? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 ( talk) 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position. I think we should try to build consensus around what MONGO and JRPG have proposed above. I try to see this as more of a WP:SPINOFF rather than WP:POVFORK. The problem is this. To save the deleted RS what MONGO considers peripheral for purposes of this article, multiple separate articles are needed. Could we add the debate section, which would have subsections with minimal coverage on each topic which would provide links to the main articles? ViperFace ( talk) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I freely admit I am utterly bewildered at the intensity of the emotion shown in this discussion. I suspect it reflects both the European v US backgrounds of the editors + perhaps some victim experience. The UK has considered publication of the register and the RS are therefore useful. A debate section may be the best way of continuing to avoid excessive article length. JRPG ( talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of response from those who initially removed the debate section and other RS material. It's very frustrating to try to build the section if it gets arbitrarily removed without much of an explanation. ViperFace ( talk) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

( arbitrary break)

I don't know if you have already noticed that I have created WP:SPINOFF article Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States and removed what might be considered as "peripheral" from the Constitutionality section. I'm planning to do this to other sections as well. I'd like to hear opinions of other editors, specifically of those who have been opposing my earlier work. Would this resolve the POV issue sufficiently so that we could at some point remove the POV template? ViperFace ( talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In other words...unable to get clear consensus to POV push in the aforementioned article, you are creating new articles where you can POV push there. Why am I not surprised?-- MONGO 10:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is hard to get consensus when you do not reply, even when pinged. This is what you wanted earlier - to have the "peripheral" content to be moved into articles with appropriate names so I did just that. You have a very frustrating habit of not answering the questions of other editors you are in dispute with. You are simply doing what is described in Wikipedia:POV railroad ViperFace ( talk) 15:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Now one of the cabal members is attacking the WP:SPINOFF articles [69] with allegations [70] that pretty much exposes their WP:BIAS. That being said, I'll tag the assertions made in the history section as they are not supported by any sources. If the source is not added to tie the recidivism studies to the evolution of these laws this piece has to be deleted. ViperFace ( talk) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

[71] raises an interesting question.

A person buys a property at public auction. Is it proper to add the parenthetical claim "at a price significantly below value" where no claim of collusion at the auction is made or supported by sources? Or is that added claim a non-neutral imputation that the person really should have raised his own bid at an auction to reach actual "value"? Collect ( talk) 15:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

through public auction at a price significantly below value, in the owner's attempt to avoid paying the tax-hike

First, that comma after "value" is unnecessary and "tax hike" doesn't need a hyphen. Next, there are two assertions being made in this case: 1) that the price was significantly below value and 2) that this low value was part of the attempt to reduce the tax burden." If you have a reliable source for only #1, then put that information in a separate clause so that #2 is no longer implied. If you have reliable sources for both #1 and #2 (and they're not contradicted by better sources), then the sentence is good. Remember, Wikipedia must be neutral, but that means that we report the consensus views of reliable sources. If that consensus is skewed one way or the other, it's okay if the article reflects that. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 21:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The person making the edit was trying to say that it was a "forced sale" as the seller did not pay the required taxes. The "new tax" was a "war profits tax" and a new "wealth tax" which was arrived at by government "assessment" of wealthy persons, as far as I can determine in the available sources. The problem here is that the apparent intent of the edit is to imply the buyer somehow took improper advantage of the seller. The only really solidly sourced claim is "the person bought the property at public auction during WW II." Collect ( talk) 23:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be relevant on an article about the property, if one existed, or in an article about say the mis-valueing of property due to shenanigans by the government, I cant see how it has any relevance at all to a BLP of someone who bought the house unless they were responsible in some way for it being sold off? Otherwise 'Person X buys house at auction' is pretty much all there is. Why is that even relevant to the biography? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Only in death does duty end. It is hard to see what the disputed text is doing in the article at all except as an attempt to smear the subject. Anything said must at least be impeccably sourced. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your attention is called to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment, where a discussion is being held concerning the Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, article. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Article: History of Kyrgyzstan

Revision: http://en.wikipedia.com/?title=History_of_Kyrgyzstan&diff=693129384&oldid=693112682

Issue: Implication of an Indo-European origin of turkic-speaking Kyrgyz people without clear evidence. The phrase concerning the genetic origins of the Kyrgyz people is being misused for ethnic point of view. That the haplogroup R1a is thought to have been connected with a part of Proto-Indo-European speakers is true, however there is also considerable scholarly evidence that in the essence we are not able to determine which R1a haplotypes were carried by early Turkic tribes and which carried by early Indo-Indo-European tribes. Since Wikipedia is not a place for ethnic POV clashes, such phrases generally should not stand in this kind of articles, except there is a clear evidence of an affiliation with this ethnos-article. Currently there is no direct evidence. Thus I request an administrative intervention. -- Sikkkk ( talk) 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to bring to attention the move discussion currently under way at Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016 in which issues of neutrality have been raised. Thanks, 101.175.138.28 ( talk) 07:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In this edit at the Free Syrian Army, user Nulla Taciti returned quotes to the phrase "senior military officials" quoted by one source, explaining, "actually quoting an assertion in the article."

There is no reason why the phrase senior military official should be quote, and this appears to be an obvious case of scare quoting. Ordinarily I'd view this as just disruptive, but Nulla Taciti may not be a native speaker of English. If anyone's interested can they please verify that putting quotes around the source name cast editorial doubt upon the existence or authenticity of the source? - Darouet ( talk) 23:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not scare quoting, it's indicating that it is our cited source, not WP itself, who claims it was a military official at all, and that they were senior, claims that no one can verify because we don't have access to who that source [in the quoted person sense] was. WP is not in a position to make such a claim in our own voice when we don't even know who it is. Both the factual claim and the subjective one in the same construction are primary source claims by the author of what we're citing, even if the piece is otherwise secondary. We could probably dispense with the quotes by using a non-subjective paraphrase, e.g. "a military source whose identity was protected by [insert publication title here]".  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There are problems with POV editing, cherry picking, undue weight, coat racking and soapboxing at my bio.

Certain editors have attempted to place false information at my bio about a court trial verdict, my affiliations and why I am notable.

Certain editors at the bio appear only interested in making the bio as negative as possible regardless of reliable sources, often ignoring the historical record. They also favor minority opinions or fringe theories and cite unreliable sources that offer false and/or misleading information.

One editor said, " if [I make] suggestions non-stop [sic] and provide sources to substantiate [my] arguments, the edits based on these sources may not be to [my] liking." The point here is what? Seems like a threat of negative editing to induce me to stop making suggestions at the talk page. Another editor requested that I stop for 6-8 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the guidelines at Wikipedia and in my opinion the guidelines are not being followed by some of the editors at my bio.

Is it possible for someone to please look this over? Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 21:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There have been extensive discussions at Talk:Rick Alan Ross, with many editors, including multiple postings at WP:BLP/N. So, before anyone weighs in, I suggest reading the threads there. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Cullen328, Figureofnine, Ronz, JzG, Collect, Fyddlestix, GB fan, and Jbhunley - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel is the editor that threatened me with negative editing. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 21:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not threaten you in any way or manner. You asked to add material about a book you wrote, and provided sources [72]. When these sources were used, you objected to the material derived from these sources. So yes, if you provide sources, we will follow them, and the edits may or not be to your liking. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It reads to me like a threat. Your editing pattern has been to make the bio as negative as possible. IMO you use undue weight, coat racking cherry picking. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am done with that article. I'd let others attempt to convince you to stay away, and let the article develop. I had enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You said this before and then came back even more aggressively. Frankly you behave like a bully. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 22:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You should heed the advice given to you by many editors, and back off. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey you two - knock it off. Ross has some valid issues with some of the claims and their wording on his BLP, and with some Scientology-specializing editors, and unfortunately does not understand that iterating valid points does not gain more opinions from editors. And those editors who appear unwilling to write conservatively-written biographies should also be aware that being loud about "Ross had a hung jury and was not acquitted" when the contemporary news accounts and the actual court records agree on "acquittal" that sometimes "scholarly journals" can be absolutely wrong on facts especially when the factoid is not stressed as being important. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 22:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That issue was discussed and resolved in talk. No idea why you bring this up again, unless this is you again shit-stirring unnecessarily. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Given Rick Alan Ross' conflict of interest and need to self-market himself for his livelihood, it seems he's so entrenched in his pov that he simply doesn't understand what a neutral article about him would be. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I spent quite a bit of time reading and noting Wikipedia guidelines. I may not be as sophisticated as you concerning Wikipedia, but I understand NPOV and my bio isn't even close. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 22:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• The matter of Rick Alan Ross should more properly be addressed at WP:COIN. I, and others, have brought up the problem of him overwhelming the talk page and the editors there and his civil POV pushing - most recently today [73]. Personally, I am at near wits end about how to make him understand that NPOV is not ROSSPOV. Jbh ^Talk 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It was previously decided that though I cannot edit my own bio there is no conflict of interest in my participation at the talk page. This is the editor that suggested that I not comment or offer reliable sources at the talk page for 6-8 months. I have responded at the talk page to certain editors pushing a POV. Because I point out POV editing doesn't mean that I somehow don't understand NPOV. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 23:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Because I hate out of context remarks the quote was: "There are now enough people editing here that the article is assured to be well looked after. I second the suggestion you have been given by the other editors here - take a long break, six or eight months, and let a stable article emerge by consensus without your constant input. After it has become stable for some months come back and comment. Right now your constant walls of text seem to be annoying many if not most of the editors who are trying their best to make this article meet Wikipedia's requirements. Remember we are here for Wikipedia not for you. So please, back off for a few months. Thank you." [74] @ Rick Alan Ross: when you make accusations or quote people you need to provide the related WP:DIFF. Thanks. Jbh ^Talk 00:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• • ( edit conflict)Previously at WP:COIN (archives): [75] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I had the same issues with Ross and walked away eventually and even stopped watching. That is always an option for all of you. You could also keep watching and just WP:SHUN unless something actually useful is offered. Jytdog ( talk) 03:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons BLP rules have been ignored at my bio. Facts are deleted or when suggested rejected despite reliable sources. Undue weight is given to anything negative. When I point this out certain editors posted personal attacks, tried to silence me or threaten me. Now I should to be shunned? NPOV editors have been overwhelmed by a persistent POV core group, which seeks to control my bio. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 10:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So you say, but you appear to just be casting aspersions rather than working cooperatively with the editors that are helping you.

I'm tending to agree with the other editors here that we wait for RAR to learn how to properly cooperate with others. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You are being vague. What does "properly cooperate with others" mean? This is a biography of a living person. We give special consideration to the real-time effects our encyclopedia has on people's lives as they are being lived. You say "I'm tending to agree with the other editors here that we wait for RAR to learn how to properly cooperate with others". Others may have the luxury of waiting but the subject of the biography understandably wants certain issues addressed in a timely manner. Bus stop ( talk) 16:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Bus stop: Please read the article talk page and the sections of my talk page relating to the subject. We have all been extremely responsive to RR's requests. What we have not done is agree with his interpretation of what is wrong all of the time. To give you an idea of the talk page RR has made 300+ edits there in the last 2 months [76]. He has not been ignored. Jbh ^Talk 16:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I have suggested on the article talk page that Rick Alan Ross open a new thread here about the specific NPOV issue he has [77] and to address that issue and only that issue. I am not quite ready to give up on him but my frustration is very high. I sincerely hope he takes on board all the advice he has been given. Jbh ^Talk 16:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

( edit conflict) As concerns proper cooperation I think the subject of the biography has exercised restraint. The Talk page has been used. Sources have been presented. Arguments have been levelheaded. Bus stop ( talk) 16:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am becoming increasingly skeptical about fairness at Wikipedia. Editors say one thing, then they say another and often contradict each other. One editor says to point out errors and provide reliable sources. I do that according to the rules. Then another editor says I am doing it too much. Meanwhile yet another editor is heavily editing and making more mistakes or misleading statements. I point that out, but then I am again criticized for doing too much. Everything is detailed explicitly on the talk page for anyone to see. [78] IMO certain editors seem to be gaming the system to make the bio as negative as possible. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Break to discuss the actual material at issue

Posting this as I recommended RR do so the current issue at hand can be discussed. In the article Rick Alan Ross the subject, Rick Alan Ross feels the text below does not fairly represent the sources cited to describe the publication of my his book in China.

There is probably a better way to summarize the sources but RR does not want the content of the articles discussed at all. He only wants to use the sources to say he has been "published" in China and his book is no longer "self published". My opinion is either the publication of the book in China is a significant event in his biography, in which case we summarize the response in China, or it is not, in which case we cut the section. Jbh ^Talk 17:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No. That's not what I said. Please look at the talk page. [79] I suggested several ways to make this NPOV. WP: Biographies of Living Persons One suggestion was to pare it back to a version completely sourced, neutral and on topic. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 18:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope - and this is on point for NPOV. We do not put in one fact (that "the book was published") and then attribute all the other claims which verge strongly on WP:SYNTH at best to discredit that book. Note that the person was earlier the target apparently of pro-Scientology editors on Wikipedia (per ArbCom decision), and thus he is likely to be quite cognizant of any sideways attacks on his positions. In short - mention the fact of publication, but do not try adding (more-or-less) "the Chinese welcomed the book to support their evil suppression of a religious group". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The current treatment in the article appears undue. While "self-published" vs "published in China" obviously mean a great deal to RAR, it's barely more than trivia.

Judging by the other comments, please correct me if I'm wrong, basically all RAR did was write something that supported the official Chinese government position, correct? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:15,

Wp: Civility Being condescending and insulting isn't helpful. I wrote a 584-page book with more than 1,200 research footnotes, an 18-page bibliography and 15 page index. It has one chapter about Falun Gong and another about a Falun Gong intervention. The book has 23 chapters. it includes chapters concerning the history of modern cults, family cults, abusive controlling cult-like relationships, "cult brainwashing," intervention, case vignettes, and chapters about Scientology, large group awareness training, recovery, etc. I published the English version through CrateSpace at Amazon/Kindle. I sold the Chinese language rights to Peace Book in Hong Kong who published the book in complex Chinese for the Chinese market. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 18:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So you assume bad faith? I'm no longer surprised

We don't care how you promote yourself. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are some facts:

• RAR self published a book at Amazon. A year later the same book was published in Hong Kong, and according to RAR, that book contained a section on the Falun Gong which was not in the self-published book. On the basis of the published book in Hong Kong, RAR requested that we mention in his bio that he is a "published author", so we requested sources for that claim.

• RAR provided PDFs of two Hong Kong newspapers' articles in which he said the book was mentioned (the Wen Wei Pao and the Ta Kung Pao).

• I researched these two and found copies of the articles online. A cursory read of these two articles, show that the articles refer mainly to Falun Gong, following the line of arguments of the Chinese government against that sect.

• There are about thirty-two newspapers in Hong Kong, of which three of them are LOCPG controlled. The articles describing the book appeared on two of these three and none others, most probably because these newspapers toe the Chinese government's line against Falun Gong (see Persecution of Falun Gong).

• We have been very careful not to engage in SYNTH, and only describe the facts of publishing in Hong Kong, the name of the newspapers and their provenance, as well as some quotes from the articles to denote the basic thrust of the sources. This is the edit which summarizes these sources: [80], about which RAR is complaining, demanding that we just mention that he is a published author.

• As a compromise, we offered to remove the entire thing including the mention of the self-published book, but he is relentless in his demands that we edit the article to say just that he is a "published author".

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I leave you with that, and will no longer get involved in this article, had enough! What is the point of researching and responding if all that work is relentlessly dismissed with ad hominem and lack of AGF? Good luck to you all. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Cwobeel made the misleading statement, "according to RAR, that book contained a section on the Falun Gong which was not in the self-published book." Both my books in English and Chinese contain the same identical chapters about Falun Gong and a Falun Gong intervention. The Chinese publisher added some short articles in the back I had written about Falun Gong that were not in the English version. I also mentioned that I did an interview on Phoenix Television (not owned by the government) and lectured at the 2015 Hong Kong Book Fair. IMO purging all mention of my book is not a compromise. Rick Alan Ross ( talk) 15:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• It does look to me like this editor-subject is being hounded inappropriately. While he should refrain from editing his own article, this is difficult to do if he feel's it's being manipulated to be pointedly negativem, so he's right to to take the matter to a noticeboard or other WP:DR process.

  Frankly, the "published author" dispute is WP:LAME. It was self-published, but has now been published independently, so it's published. If the book is a significant factor in the subject's life in an encyclopedically relevant way, it's permissible to mention it (consider that if a football player is also an avid golfer or on the board of a nonprofit organization, their bio article will almost always mention this). Every article on a blogger we have mentions their blog, but they're self-published. WP's antipathy toward WP:SPS is with regard to their use as sources, not the fact of their existence. That said, it's up to WP editorial discretion whether Ross the subject is described as "a published author"; I would oppose it on redundancy grounds. If someone is notable and is described as an author in their article here, it's presumptive that their work has been published, so the word "author" is sufficient, and is appropriate to include in the lead. If someone is notable for some other reason, but also has self-published some stuff, this would be mentioned in the "Personal life" section, or in passing in the main body if directly relevant to what they're notable for, but it wouldn't be in the lead, and we'd say something like "has self-published a book...", not call them an author. Ross is published, so he's an author. The end.

  That mountain—molehill dispute aside, Ross the editor clearly needs third-party help ensuring that Ross the subject's article follows WP:CCPOL. My own watchlist is too long to for me to promise any long-term help, but as I have no connection to the subject or the editor, and with no knowledge of or opinion about Falun Gong other than I know they're controversial, for reasons the details of which don't interest me. I'd be willing to look into the matter as an informal mediator (I'm a WP:DRN volunteer, though a recent one), if this is desired, and if this NPOVN concludes without sufficient resolution. In that event, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page, as I don't watchlist NPOVN. Or open a formal WP:DRN request and ping me.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, RAR keeps asking for help at various noticeboards (BLP being a common venue) then when experienced BLP editors take a look, they either find no problem, or that the article is actually being skewed in a NPOV manner towards RAR. RAR then takes exception to this, and the circle continues. Basically RAR would like his BLP to say what he wants, with nothing negative, and puffing up his side-jobs in order to detract from his main reason for notability. Its pretty much tiring out a lot of people and will probably end up going badly for him. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just volunteering to look at it with new eyes if the venue fails to resolve the matter. It's been my observational experience that minor-notable figures often have crap articles here and legitimate complaints. We enacted BLP for a reason, and Jimbo, back when his views mattered a very great deal, was always on the warpath about it. That said, it's been all our experience that people who are both editors and subject usually have a very hard time not trying to tweak their article to be rosy, and that COIs in general usually are not capable of neutrality about themselves. The latter problems happen much more frequently than the former, but in an particular case the potential fallout is worse in the former. This means we should take the subject's complaints seriously (and their desires with a grain of salt), but when the two categories coincide, there's a tendency to dump hard to the editor-subject because of all the bad experience with COIs. I've had some experience helping some professional cue sports player navigate the NPOV process, some successfully, some not. So, I know what I'm getting into and why it sometimes won't work.  :-)  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: I think this issue has been addressed but there is always something going on at the article talk page. I have been working with him for the last several months so you might want to read through the threads on my talk page [81] as well as the last couple of talk page archives [82] [83] to see how things have been going. I can think of at least three cohorts of editors that have cycled through the article and become frustrated since RR returned to editing. I think RR has taken on board some of the suggestions to let the normal editing process work. I mentioned the phenomenon of COI push back to RR and that I feared that might become an issue. RR's does have reason for concern, in general, but it is hard to get him, as the subject, to understand that just because he does not like something does not mean it fails NPOV - sometimes it does though but the harder he presses the harder it is to see. More eyes and a fresh opinion can only help. Jbh ^Talk 15:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I won't have endless time to devote to it, but hopefully can help even this out to some extent.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

LouisAragon raised an interesting point here which I found to be quite controversial. I must say that the user has also been pasting such questionable material into the leads of several articles important articles which is quite worrisome if unchecked. He also appears to make rather bold POV statements such as this. The user's justifications for employing the term "Iranian Empire" is that "scholars use Iranian and Persian interchangeably for all post-Achaemenid periods, while Iranian is inarguably less ambiguous." So before I reach any conclusions, I would like to ask the community a fundamental question: is it Persian Empire or Iranian Empire? WP:NCGN states:

Use of widely accepted historic names implies that names can change; we use Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul in discussing the same city in different periods. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases.

Would that apply here in this case as well? Though the term Iranian has existed for millennia, I know that Persians never called themselves Iranians back then. Also, I've always believed that Iranian is much more of a modern nationalist term, and that we shouldn't retrospectively apply it to the Persian empire which was quite different in nature. Thanks, Étienne Dolet ( talk) 04:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your “concerns” as formulated here contain numerous blatant errors and, what is factually seen, as a lack of research. Let me help;

1) First of all. You opened this case regarding your “concerns” about the interchangeable usage of “Iranian” and “Persian”, yet in already the second sentence, you link a totally unrelated diff here. Seems to me like you’re trying to fish for something as well. That being said (I always assume WP:GF first, but I'm here for long enough to realize whats going on in such ANI boards), that edit was totally legit, for the Achaemenids indeed conquered most of what is modern-day Bulgaria, as well as the fact that the demise of the Achaemenids saved Greece and Europe from a different fate of history;

("In addition the Persians gained Thrace (modern-day Bulgaria) -- Kidner et al. Making Europe: The Story of the West. (e.d 2). Cengage learning. ISBN  978-1111841317 page 57.
"(...) conquering the Indus Valley and much of modern-day Bulgaria (...)" -- Thonneman, Peter.; Price, Simon (2010). The Birth of Classical Europe: A History from Troy to Augustine Penguin UK, ISBN  978-0141946863.
"at its greatest extent the empire included Afghanistan (...) adjacent areas of Central Asia to the north: Iraq, Turkey, Bulgaria", parts of Greece (...) -- C. Howard, Michael (2012). Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel McFarland ISBN  978-0786490332 page 39)

2) To me, it seems as if you don’t seem to grasp the usage of both aforementioned words, or how they were actually used in historiography and/or politics. Iran (the nation) was universally called “Persia” by outsiders prior to 1935, but to natives, it was always known as “Iran”. Hence, post 1935-historiography very often uses Iran and Persia interchangeable. And yes, thats for ALL post-Achaemenid Empires of Iran.

3) Oh, in fact, I even found numerous references that refer to the Achaemenid Empire as an Iranian Empire as well. Doesn’t seem rocket science to me given that it had an Iranian identity and was based in what is modern-day nation of Iran.

“The Achaemenian Empire remains to this day the largest Iranian Empire ever (…)”

“Be that, as it may, it is the Persian Empire, ruled by two consecute dynasties, the Teispid and the Achaemenian, that can be considered the first Iranian Empire”

• Shenkar, Michael (2014). Intangible Spirits and Graven Images: The Iconography of Deities in the Pre-Islamic Iranian World. Brill, ISBN  978-9004281493 Page 5.

“Iran, as a region, is defined by borders that have fluctuated over time. For most of its history, it was more than a region; it was notionally an empire, meant to be ruled by a king of kings. Such a notion of a cohesive Iranian Empire…(...)”

• Johnston Iles, Sarah (2004). Religions of the Ancient World; A Guide. Harvard University Press. ISBN  978-0674015173 page 598

4) Now, lets drop some more sources that confirm that all empires that were based in Iran (from after the Achaemenid period), were and are known as Iranian Empires as well, shall we?

SASANIAN EMPIRE:

Muhammad had just died, but the triumphate which then assumed command of the Moslem nation, Abu Bakr, Umar, (...) after the success of the expeditions in Syria, those which were directed against the Iranian Empire.

(...) things seemsed about to turn in favour of the Persians, when reinforcements arriving unexpectedly from Syria brought about the defeat and rout of the Iranian army."

:(...) and a catastrophe was about to overthrow the ancient fabric of the Iranian monarchy - the Arabs were at the gates."

• Huart, Clement (2013). Ancient Persia and Iranian Civilization. Routledge. ISBN  978-1136199806 page 136

(Chapter: Sasanian Iran: "Thew new King of Kings, Ardashir I, and his son and successor Shapur I, ruled an Iranian Empire that would remain a lastig rival of the Romans and Byzantines (...)"

• Bladel van, Kevin (2009). The Arabic Hermes : From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science: From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science Oxford University Presss. ISBN  978-0199704484 page 23

SAFAVID EMPIRE:

(...) that sought to profile a newly constituted Safavid Iranian Empire (...)

• Mitchell, Colin P (2009). The Practice of Politics in Safavid Iran: Power, Religion and Rhetoric Chapter: The practise of politics in Safavid Iran. I.B. Tauris. ISBN  978-0857715883 page 182

“During the Safavi era, Iranian Armenia was divided into two administrative units, Yerevan (then called Chukur-e Sa'd) and Ganjeh. Nakhjavan was part of the former, Qarabagh of the latter. Shifting fortunes of the Iranian Empire as a whole…”

• Atkin, Muriel (1980). Russia and Iran, 1780-1828. U of Minnesota Press, ISBN  978-0816656974

Basically the whole book; New Perspectives on Safavid Iran: Empire and Society (Mitchell, Colin P, 2011, Taylor & Francis, 3 mrt. 2011 ISBN  978-1136991943 pp 1-256)

The peace Treaty of Amasya (1555) between the Iranian shah and the Ottoman sultan (...)

• Floor, Willem,; Herzig, Edmund (2015). Iran and the World in the Safavid Age I.B. Tauris. ISBN  978-1780769905 page 21. (but read other pages as well, many more examples of Iran and Persia being used for the Safavid state, and in general quite a nice book)

QAJAR EMPIRE:

"By the end of the eighteenth century, the Qajars took control of the Safavid domains, thus unifying the Iranian empire again."

• Daryaee, Touraj. (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History. Oxford Univeresity Press. ISBN  978-0190208820 page 306.

"The basis for the relationships between the Iranian and Ottoman Empires in modern times was the Treaty of Qasr-i Shirin (17 May 1639). (...) eastern Anatolia remained under the Ottoman Sultan, while the Caucasus remained in Iranian hands, later to fall to Russia".

• Fisher et al (1991). Cambridge History of Iran. chapter 8 (Iranian relations with the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries), Cambridge University Presss. ISBN  978-0521200950 page 297

And here another 62.700 results for Qajar Iran and 86.700 results for Safavid Iran at Google.books, including the continous and widespread usage of it by the most highly accredited scholars in Iranian/Near Eastern history - take a look at it, if you'd like to.

I can post tons more from other historians, analysts, specialists, lecturers, general scholars and what not, that further show, that its indeed completely legit and correct to refer to all these empires as Iranian Empires, Iranian dynasties, or Iranian entities, apart from the usage of referring to them as Persian Empires, dynasties, or entities. But I really don't believe that would be needed (overkill).

Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 16:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fishing for anything. That edit can be viewed as POV and this is a NPOV board so I want to have that clarified. As for the rest, I would like neutral observers to see whether WP:COMMONNAME should apply here. Calling it Iran would perhaps confuse readers into believing Iran was a continuum of a state since the post-Achaemenid period. And per WP:NCGN, I've always assumed that historical names must take precedence or at least be mentioned when it comes to the distant past. For example, we had a recent discussion at Azerbaijanis in Armenia where Yerevan was added next to Erivan. This situation may not be so different. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your attention is called to an RfC at the 'Veganism' article, where a discussion is being held concerning the use of 'the commodity status of animals' in the lead. More neutrally-minded editors welcome. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)