This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone. I just made two single-word edits and they were reverted within 3 minutes. There is severe ownership going on here. Please take a look.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 04:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be edit warring around both the POV tag and the word "unwarranted". SageRad ( talk) 14:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
We are straying off the point. The problem is not references but the style in which the article is written. There is far too much polemic and use of derogatory words to describe climate sceptics. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not reading every comment given in this discussion, however I think it's more productive if specific lines are addressed for NPOV concerns. A good example of this is the "unwarranted doubt" concern. Neither of the sources given use the word "unwarranted" when describing doubt. The Powell source does mention "unwarranted gloom" when speaking about the media's coverage of climate change, but this is not the same thing as "unwarranted doubt". So pending any counter evidence, I'd agree that "unwarranted" should be removed. Scoobydunk ( talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans.
...yawn... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"Point out"/"State", essentially semantics but I do see your point. On your disagreement with the term because it "is an emotive, pejorative term
; The current sources use the term 'climate change denial' it is not our place to make up 'more neutral terms'. The article is pretty clear in defining the term "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial,[1] dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts"
Climate change denial - they are not criticizing it they are denying it. If the conclusion readers draw from this is that the 'deniers' are not fully grounded in reality then that is fine because that is, in fact, the case. Any other claim would be
WP:FRINGE because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that what is being denied is in fact true to the best of the experts' ability to know.
Jbh
Talk 20:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"...questioning climate models. Climatologists do that all the time in peer reviewed publications..." Could you give me some examples of this questioning please? Biscuittin ( talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"Climate change denial" is a thing. Not everyone believes it is a thing, but it's a thing. So is "commodity status of animals" (to use another disputed concept, currently discussed at Talk:Veganism). Both of these are concepts that are well-defined in a huge number of sources, but they are also controversial in that there are groups of people who don't believe they're real things but who believe that they're rhetoric that "the other side" is using to attack them. This the nature of points of view. Wikipedia can document this, as it is. Wikipedia doesn't have to necessarily "endorse" that climate change denial is real, but can point out that it's a phenom observed by a huge number of reliable sources, and denied by a vocal and politically-aligned minority. Same, with slightly different details and demographics, for "commodity status of animals". There are those who deny the reality of that concept, and Wikipedia can document that. SageRad ( talk) 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I assume the above is addressed to Martin Hogbin. What I am trying to do (and I think MH is too) is to get the tone of the article changed. It is not wicked or mad to have a different view from the IPCC about climate change or global warming so the article should not use language which implies that it is. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm comparing one scientific view with another scientific view. I'm not comparing a scientific view with a religious view. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this has gone on long enough. Biscuittin, you have rather obviously failed to persuade in two venues now. I suggest that you do one of two things: (1) drop it or (2) start, and abide by the outcome of, an RFC on the article talk page. Guy ( Help!) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please check this addition. Radezic ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist" and thinks this description of his obituary on the Guardian website is a weighty enough source to support that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a pointless edit war over this so I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm 100% against included this terminology. The Guardian is a centre-left newspaper, so of course it would use that terminology. This should be removed from the opening sentence. — Calvin999 12:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, all! Since the first user posted this, I added additional sourcing including the original quotations in which Rhodes calls whites the 'supreme race' and blacks barbaric, etc. Mike, I like what you've done with the page--rather than culling the term from the top. Rhodes' racial ideology can't really be separated from his views on colonialism or imperialism, as it was at the foundation of his political career in South Africa and his beliefs on the expansion of the British empire.
From the NPOV page, neutrality means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." For contentious labels such as racist, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Rhodes said explicitly that whites are supreme, blacks are inferior, and he is widely and exclusively described as white supremacist and racist in the academic literature. There is no academic dispute or disagreement as to these adjectives. By using sentences like "detractors allege" he is a white supremacist, it implies that there are some who don't think he is--which is not true. Ultimately, this makes it sound like there's a dispute on whether he was a white supremacist when there isn't one (instead, the academic dispute is about whether his contributions outweighed all this.
If there is a dispute as to whether he's a white supremacist, I'd understand your concern. But given there is no dispute (unless you can find a source saying some argue he wasn't a white supremacist), I don't see what the issue is.
P.S. This is the current definition of white supremacy on Wikipedia's page: "a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people." The reason why no one disagrees with Rhodes being a white supremacist is because he has essentially said this, verbatim. 15:17, 15 January 2016 by 158.143.212.121 ( talk)
(Above was unsigned so i found the diff and added signature of the IP user. If anyone can do this better than me please change it. IP user, you have to sign your comments by typing four tildes after them, please.) SageRad ( talk) 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
On a meta-level, a few things:
SageRad ( talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed among a few editors on the talk page of the article and elsewhere but the person behind the piece that I'm trying to remove keeps putting it back in the lead of the article and giving it undue weight, even though the opinion pushed is far from being significant criticism (and it must be, according to WP:LEDE). Below is a copy of what I said on Talk:Michael Greger not long ago, with some links now leading to the actual discussions:
Back in April 2015 on Talk:Veganism and WP:NPOVN, Alexbrn argued for keeping the part that said "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people". The wording and how it didn't match what was in the sources cited is similar to "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits not backed by sound medical evidence". Alexbrn's version didn't end up in the veganism article at the conclusion of the discussion. Now it's even worse, because on top of the claims made by Alexbrn not being supported by the source, the source itself is questionable and the weight of this opinion is not enough for it to be presented at the beginning of the article. -- Rose ( talk) 06:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to close. Although I broadly agree with Rose on this point, this is not the right forum. It's a BLP issue (specifically WP:BLPSPS) and Alexbrn is correct that this smacks of WP:FORUMSHOP. There are broader issues about when WP:PARITY can be applied to use an SPS in a BLP, in overt defiance of policy. Alexbrn pointed out on Talk:Michael Greger that this is commonplace already in certain cases which he cited, and I suggested changing policy in order to allow it. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 07:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
During the latest weeks the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article has lost a lot of it's NPOV and would need a review. I've listed specific points at the talkpage that are related to NPOV, recentism, bias,libel/defamation under the section 'Review of article'. KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 00:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The article 0.999... promotes an academic point of view and disparages a common sense point of view. I added an external link to an article which defends this common sense point of view. My link was removed and the ensuing discussion is on my talk page. It was suggested that I bring the discussion here. My edit was made at 11:37, 8 January 2016. Kevincook13 ( talk) 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I first advised you to come here ( [8]) when you said: "Your refusal to allow the link violates the spirit of the neutral point of view policy." Then you said: "It does not appear to me that you are very interested in a neutral point of view.", so again I suggested you to come here ( [9]) to get a fourth opinion. So you got a fourth opinion, and a fifth, a sixth, a seventh and an eighth, some of them repeated twice or more. Nobody here seems to agree with you, so I am afraid there is not much to discuss anymore. The bottom line seems to be what I already told you in my very first message ( [10]) and what someone else has told you here too: your link violates wp:ELNO item 11. It blatantly does so. Actually, it violates a lot more (see your talk page and here above), but one is usually sufficient. - DVdm ( talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
See this RfC on which name to use in the infoboxes of military unit's active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016. SarahSV (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a serious instance of discrimination in Wikipedia. We have an article about The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia but not about the sexual lives of savages in Northern, Southern, Western, Eastern, South-Western, North-Eastern and South-Eastern Melanesia. Wikipedia should know that there are many peaceful tribes in these parts of Melanesia too and not be biased towards them, favouring only North-Western Melanesians. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.153.134 ( talk) 10:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Be nice, everyone. Humor does not translate well when strangers communicate through text. Be nice everywhere and assume good faith. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing some serious NPOV issues occurring at Paleolithic diet. I don't have much time to give this, but if you see the article's current content, edit history, and talk page, i think the problems would be obvious to an uninvolved observer. I'd rather not prejudice anyone by saying what i think about the issues, but just to highlight the article for more eyes. I'd ask for anyone's help there. I'm probably not going to be editing there much due to the toxic environment, but more eyes could be useful in helping this article conform to WP:NPOV basics. Thanks for anyone who has the willingness and energy to do so. SageRad ( talk) 17:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Like many things, i think it's about perspective -- and i have a strong sense that we need more editors with various perspectives to add their voices there. It seems like there are two strong perspectives currently butting heads and it's not very fruitful. SageRad ( talk) 18:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
To me eyes, the problem persists and is getting worse by the hour. Needs attention regarding NPOV compliance. SageRad ( talk) 17:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
POV editing continues on this article, and a small group of editors have essentially occupied the article, and they are maintaining the POV state of the article despite serious and well-intentioned attempts to work collaboratively, and to use proper sourcing to follow policy and to remove the intense attack POV that has already been pushed into the article. In other words -- good editors need to come and help untangle that mess there. Please.
I have no strong personal stake in the subject of the article, but i do believe in the potential for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia with integrity. We cannot suffer editors blatantly gaming the system and let them get away with it, and still pretend that there is a working system in Wikipedia. SageRad ( talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
.... and.... it's continuing, with even the onerous anti-consensus removal of an NPOV tag from the article, edit warred out of the article by one of the people who are occupying the article. Does anyone care? Is anyone listening? SageRad ( talk) 11:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Things are getting worse. The entire lede is trash writing. It looks like a blog post. I am listening but I do not have the time to spend hours reviewing sources to just get reverted in the end. If there were expert authority then it could be fixed. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Without explanation, sourced text was deleted and replaced with unsourced text and non-neutral wording. [11] QuackGuru ( talk) 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The part "proponents claim" [12] fails verification and the part "classed as a fad diet by mainstream authorities" [13] fails verification. Without explanation the tags were removed without removing the text that failed verification. [14] QuackGuru ( talk) 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lively discussion. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Original_research_in_the_lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is still highly POV in current form and seems to be held that way by several editors. It's contested and some are still claiming that there is "consensus" for the current form, and accusing those who want to change it of POV editing, etc.
Anyway, here is a recent talk page section as an example. Anyone who is uninvolved and unbiased and has some spare time to get into an interesting topic might like to visit and see the controvery. SageRad ( talk) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Expulsion of Cham Albanians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in dire need of non-partisan editors. I know a lot of people are reluctant to get involved in anything related to the Balkans, but I believe the only way to improve these articles is if they're overseen by neutral editors.
DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Between 72-78 Muslim Cham notables from Paramythia where executed by a Greek army irregular unit during this time.[34] Cham reports that some Albanian notables of Chameria were persecuted and killed by the Greek authorities had been officially refuted by the Greek government.[35]
The same report sent to the English Foreign Minister, which denounced murder and persecution of Albanian notables by Greek bodies and the Greek authorities. The report was later refuted by the Greek government with concrete evidence.
The lede of Jews, which has Good Article status, currently summarizes several millennia of Jewish history in two sentences as
while maintaining rule over their homeland during certain periods—such as under the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, the Hasmonean Dynasty, and the Herodian Kingdom—Jews also suffered various exiles and occupations from their homeland—from Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, in what is known today as the Jewish diaspora. neutrality is disputed [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
With the references:
References
Although Dio's figure of 985 as the number of villages destroyed during the war seems hypberbolic, all Judaean villages, without exception, excavated thus far were razed following the Bar Kochba Revolt. This evidence supports the impression of total regional destruction following the war. Historical sources note the vast number of captives sold into slavery in Palestine and shipped abroad." ... "The Judaean Jewish community never recovered from the Bar Kochba war. In its wake, Jews no longer formed the majority in Palestine, and the Jewish center moved to the Galilee. Jews were also subjected to a series of religious edicts promulgated by Hadrian that were designed to uproot the nationalistic elements with the Judaean Jewish community, these proclamations remained in effect until Hadrian's death in 138. An additional, more lasting punitive measure taken by the Romans involved expunging Judaea from the provincial name, changing it from Provincia Judaea to Provincia Syria Palestina. Although such name changes occurred elsewhere, never before or after was a nation's name expunged as the result of rebellion.
The summary was introduced in this edit by Jeffgr9.
I and other editors have raised issues with this summary on the article's talk page. I don't think anyone will doubt that great hardship befell the Jews in several periods of their history (and the Holocaust is mentioned later on), but all else is ignored here, except periods which saw Jewish statehood. Thus, we have an extremely one-sided view of history of exactly the kind that one of the sources warns against:
until a few years ago, most characterizations of diasporas emphasized their catastrophic origins ... [but] Jewish migratory experiences were much more diverse and more complex than the catastrophic tradition allows
— Cohen 1997, p. 21–22
Similarly, the thrust of the article by Botticini and Eckstein is ignored, which is to explain "additional 30 to 40 percent of the decrease in the Jewish population" in terms of voluntary conversion to other religions. Instead, a quote is lifted out that fits the preconceived story. To give one more example of the complexity of Jewish history that is glossed over, Barraclough's Times Atlas of World History (p. 102–103 in my 1981 Dutch translation) describes the first few centuries of the diaspora, noting that Jews formed a thriving merchant class throughout the Mediterranean basin in Roman times (with major persecution only starting after the Empire's conversion to Christianity ca. 330).
Unfortunately, discussion of these issues has stalled. My suggestion is to at least revert to the older version of the lede, which was a bit better. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Qwertyus. This section of the lead does not contain information relating how Jews also flourished and prospered in their respective diasporas; only their victimhood without an independent state is related and emphasised, providing a subtle Zionist slant on history. Yet their authoritative legal code was redacted in present day Iraq... Chesdovi ( talk) 14:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Summary style" is a "good thing." Condensing thousands of years into two sentences, is pushing it. Suppose the "more detailed version" (likely at least four paragraphs) were placed in a section below the lead, and the lead then reworded to something more like:
In short - make it short and readable, and leave the details to the body of the article. Too many details in two sentences does not help readers. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No Democratic party exists. However nearly all articles in WIKI contain this misleading error. Inacurractely naming Democrats, Democratic, conveys a false sense of identity to Democrats - inferring Republicans are not democratic. A global change is needed to correct this misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.153.1 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 January 2016
It's unclear what dispute the anon is referencing; Democratic party redirects to the Democratic Party disambiguation/set-index page, as one would expect. Assuming there is some actual dispute on this somewhere, I'll try to address it as broadly as possible: About the only potential legitimate use of "Democratic party" on wikipedia would be in reference to a comparison between two unrelated parties in two countries both with "Democratic" in their name ("the Democratic Party in the US and the People's Democratic Party of Kerblachistan"), but such a usage would be sloppy; "the two Democratic parties differ in their views on ..." can simply be rendered "the two parties differ in their views on ..."; it's also PoV pushing, because the equation of their uses of the word is a fallacy of equivocation and of false equivalence that ignores that words have different meanings in different contexts, and advances the original research implication that the parties are philosophically connected by their use of this term (this is obviously nonsense; many of the extremely undemocratic communist regimes of the 20th century included "Democratic" in the names of their nations and subnational entities as a propaganda move, and this has also been true of many political parties). In the case of two parties with genuinely connected political philosophies and both named "the Democratic Party" (perhaps in neighboring countries, or one being a later version of an earlier one in the same country), we'd use "the two Democratic Parties differ on ..." or, again, just "the two parties differ on ...". This is just basic copyediting, folks.
The objection that that often comes up in cases like this, summarizable as 'but it's in some of the RS that way, so I can use it no matter what' is wrong for three different policy reasons: MOS is not obligated to permit every known style that ever existed, and the guideline is based on editorial WP:CONSENSUS, as it is part of internal WP:POLICY, not an article subject to WP:CCPOL; editorial consensus on how to write a particular article is not required to accept and regurgitate the exact phrasing in previously published material (we're encouraged to not do this, per WP:EDITING and WP:PLAGIARISM); and WP:BURDEN clearly says we do not have to accept facts or sources as encyclopedic simply because they exist somewhere, and the most common rationale for rejecting something is WP:NPOV policy, though there are many others (all of which are valid, because what to include is also a matter of consensus). This tendentious campaign being waged by a handful of editors that whatever they can find in some source somewhere dictates exactly what MoS may and may not say or do, or what editors may or may not come to consensus about, has to stop. One of the parties here has already been topic-banned from a swath of the MoS for pursuing this kind of consensus-takes-a-back-seat stuff. This is strong evidence that the community's patience for pet-source and pet-style pushing has worn out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
We have an article specifically about people who call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party". See Democrat Party (epithet). All very juvenile. — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The User
Volkstod (
talk ·
contribs) seems to have a massive NPOV problem. The user name "Volkstod", translated roughly "Death of a nation" is a slogan of german far-right groups stating that immigration would destroy the german people and that immigrants would have to be removed from Germany to prevent this. In the german Wikipedia, the user was indefinetely blocked immediately after the first edit was performed. Here, the user is obviously showing their far-right political bias in their edits. A few examples:
* Removing criticism out of the article about annother right-wing group, calling the Washington Post "moonies"
[21]
-- 84.59.84.9 ( talk) 14:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, i would like to respont to the allegiations, that were make against me by the user 84.59.84.9. who has done only 5 edits or so. Please excuse my bad english, because i am not a native speaker.
1. there is a lot of discussions going on about the media couverage of the New Years eve sexual assaults in Cologne (and other german cities) 2016. Mostly of the participations, who claimed that there was some kind of coverup about these scandalous incidents could hardly described as rightwing extremists, or neo nazis or things like that. 2. it is possible to describe the alternative for germany (AfD) as a populist movement against the older establishment parties in the federal republic of germany. it is not necessearily needy to call the AfD right wing extremist. 3. in the article about the larouche movement there is no mention of the well-known Washington POST, but of the moonitie Washington TIME!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkstod ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a user who has had added a lot of the worst type of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COATRACK spam to Jun Hong Lu. I tried to remove it but I was reverted. Asking for help. Courtesy ping to User:Peace n Mercy. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This post is related to discussions on the talkpage Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri for the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article. (see (1/2) for reference articles within brackets ) Articles often mention both medial reports from 29 July 2014 about Muhahxeri allegedy appearing on beheading footage from Syria [17] and a warrant from Court of Ferizaj and Interpol from the 6 September 2014 in the same articles but they don’t claim that the warrant is issued for the alleged beheading footage [17]; ‘The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq’ [17]'. Published court records on 15 January 2016 only mention text messages as evidence for recruitment.[65] The question is about formulation of medial claims in regard to NPOV; avoid stating opinions as facts; shouldn't ‘On 29 July 2014 Muhaxheri uploaded photos to a Facebook page where he is seen beheading an unidentified young man in Syria.’(1/2) (2/3) be stated as 'According to Balkan media, on 29 July 2014 an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" that, to some extent, give the impression of a man having beheaded an unidentified young man.' or something to the effect of a neutral statement where it's mentioned who's claiming it?
(1/2) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700631550 (2/3) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700798610
KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 08:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC) fix; the part about court documents is from 15 January 2016 and not 15 January 2015 (type - o) KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 10:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC) and NPOV - link KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC) shortened KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Guccisamsclub has inserted the following contentious claim into the Kissinger article: "According to Ben Kiernan, [Indonesia's] invasion and occupation [of East Timor] resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of the Timorese population from 1975 to 1981." This material is sourced to Kiernan's Genocide and Resistance in Southeast Asia: Documentation, Denial & Justice in Cambodia & East Timor, in which Kiernan argues that Indonesia's atrocities during the war in East Timor are "proportionally comparable" to the (peacetime) mass killings perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from 1975-1979. This material is related to Kissinger only in that Kissinger accompanied President Ford on a trip to Indonesia shortly before the invasion, and the two men told the Indonesian president, Suharto, that the U.S. would not object to Indonesia's plan to invade and annex East Timor. The U.S. maintained close ties to Suharto's government for decades during the Cold War, while the largest share of deaths in East Timor may have occurred under President Jimmy Carter, who continued to arm Indonesia despite his reputation as a global champion of human rights. (Carter would later claim that he had not been adequately briefed on the subject.) While the Indonesians certainly committed atrocities in East Timor, however, there is strong reason to doubt that those atrocities were in fact comparable to those of the Khmer Rouge:
I am not sure that NPOV requires that we cover the death toll in Kissinger's WP:BLP. In fact, for many years it was not discussed, suggesting a quiet consensus to that effect—but that all changed when Bernie Sanders condemned Kissinger in a recent Democratic debate, inviting a number of drive-by editors to insert into the BLP whatever criticisms of Kissinger they could find. Even if the failure to mention the death toll was a serious omission, however, what is the point of cherry-picking a given percentage of the population that the death toll represents? Clearly, Guccisamsclub wants to portray the atrocities in East Timor as demographically exceptional, though the case for this is doubtful, and the choice of venue a poor one. (It's worth noting that East Timor is the only war/atrocity quantified in Kissinger's biography, with the exception of the American bombing of Cambodia, which he was intimately involved in. For example, the Cambodian genocide itself is not quantified, let alone in percentage terms, nor is the Pathet Lao's post-1975 campaign against the Hmong—even though both likely surpass Indonesia's crimes in East Timor. Similarly, the thousands killed by the U.S.-backed right-wing dictatorships in Chile and Argentina are not enumerated. What makes East Timor so extraordinary? Consider as well that not even Suharto—let alone other biographies of Western officials—makes any such claim regarding the percentage of the Timorese population killed.)
Nevertheless, I have proposed a compromise version of the "East Timor" section here, which includes Kiernan, Cribb, and the authoritative CAVR. As expected, Guccisamsclub quickly reverted the compromise with the nuanced and judicious edit summary "rv blogger". (Unfortunately, the bulk of Guccisamsclub's comments in our discussion of the matter consists of these kinds of personal attacks, suggesting why outside input will likely be necessary to reach an enforceable agreement: Guccisamsclub has accused me of being "hysterical", "wasting everyone's time", "cherry-picking", engaging in "ethnic hucksterism", being "supremely arrogant", "play[ing] little professor", and "doing preventive propaganda" while refusing to address my substantive argument on the grounds that "I'd be happy to pick a few holes in your story here too, as I've done in the past [referring to disagreements we have had on other, unrelated articles]. But I don't think your story has any bearing on the article or wikipedia policy." He has also accused me of considering "what happened in East Timor" to be "a footnote", based on my comment that Kissinger's personal involvement is a "footnote in Kissinger's career".) Beyond the edit summary, I can only guess that Guccisamsclub may have reverted me for the following reason, which he enunciated on the talk page several days ago: "I don't see any particular reason to prefer Cribb or CAVR to Kiernan. I think it's important that readers get the full range of estimates and caveats, but ... I am reluctant to accept your right [emphasis added] to dictate what that range should be." (Note how Guccisamsclub avoids explaining why Kiernan is preferable and should be the only source—or why we need to include Kiernan's percentage and comparison with Cambodia—and the ownership mentality evident in the comment regarding my "right" to edit the page.) Buried within the lengthy series of vituperative personal attacks, Guccisamsclub has also asserted that there is an important distinction between my "explicit comparison" with Cambodia and his implicit comparison, and strongly condemned me for mentioning on the talk page (though certainly not in the article itself!) that Kiernan's work on Cambodia has been criticized for understating the death toll (a very real topic—consider Kiernan's role in Cambodian genocide denial).
TL;DR: Which of these three proposed versions of the "East Timor" section in Henry Kissinger is most neutral: The long-standing consensus version, Guccisamsclub's version, or my version? Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that this edit [23] is NPOV. It assumes without evidence that Heilman is telling the truth and Jimbo is telling a lie. (See extensive discussion on Jimbo's talk page). Could someone take a look at the entire article and make sure that it does not favor any one POV (including mine, of course)? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Who is Australia's Head of state?, which revolves around the issue of how to apply the WP:NPOV policy. Interested editors are most welcome to contribute. St Anselm ( talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, there are major concerns about the aforementioned topic & related 'dispute' article, being expressed there. GoodDay ( talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All info on the Peyton Manning article concerning the subject's highly publicized scandals has been completely removed. Previously this content was in a "Controversy" section, but was moved to a section entitled "Off The Field" after a consensus to do so was met. This is a fear, shared by me and at least one other editor, that the page may be being cleaned by PR representative of Peyton Manning; there is no proof of this as of yet and we have agreed to assume good faith, but this is a fear of ours. Also, there are multiple users which have disputed the neutrality of this article since the removal of the content of the scandal, but there have been a couple of users which continue to remove the POV tag from the page.
I understand that we need to come to a consensus on how to add the info on the scandals, but it clear that the article violates WP:NPOV if there is no information on the scandals at all. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have checked the Talk:Tom Brady page and when Ballghazi happened there was a similar discussion but with worst fights. It's disproportionate to compare both cases but finally a part of Brady's scandal was include in his BLP (I think it was because there was a main page for Ballghazi). I'm in faith that an accurate section of Manning's controversies will be presented soon, and as ongoing information is published, I consider some part of the original information should go to the Tennessee Volunteers football page and not in Manning's bio. I think the section "Off the field" is the most accurate. And I can apologize for writing about a potential PR staff involvement despite I clearly said there was no accusation and it was just a comparison with past cases. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Some mention of these controversies should be included on the page, and so far it seems that this can be worked out on the talk page. What I don't understand, though, is why the tag has been removed repeatedly, even though there is an actual ongoing discussion of the problem and no consensus to omit the subject entirely. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please write a proposal of what they would like to see included so that we can discuss specifics and stop bitching at each other? I am in favor of keeping all of the previous section and simply moving it to an "Off The Field" section. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I encourage Wikieditors to read this article: http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/. Moreover, there is a tag about BLP on NSNYC talk page:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
So I propose the content blanked about Manning might be restored (after being rewritten) but with a same kind of tag, just until all this controversies comes to a clear point. Why? Because even if the information is really well sourced, the information is dispute is considered by several people harmful to Manning's name in sense of people could focus in short term on this controversies more than on his career, as in some point happened to Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, but this information should not be censored. The point is that we need to reach a consensus. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The redacted claims clearly violated
WP:BLP as containing statements of allegations as the equivalent of fact, in using argumentation in Wikipedia's voice about the allegations, and in being given absurdly undue weight. In addition, there is absolutely no apparent
WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of the allegations in such massive detail. A total of two sentences would reasonably cover the locker room incident (trainer's claim, Manning's denial), and the HGH incident is not even of any direct value at all, as involving a person who denied making the allegation as initially reported. And please avoid claims of "whitewashing" -
WP:BLP has specific strictures, and following the strictures of policy is simply what Wikipedia requires. (iterating my belief "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.")
Collect (
talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I made a big review. First of all I apologize if I took side with anyone's opinion and it was libelous. Now let me report: this is a case when a part of an article POORLY WRITTEN creates dispute. There are parts which concern more about Al Jazeera's credibility than Manning's involvement in those issues (in part due to he is not the only athlete mentioned), at least for now. Currently, there is a part on Al Jazeera's page related to the documentary and the posteriors reactions to its publication; and by the way, the "Performance enhancing drugs allegations" title could be totally rewritten as "Mention in The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers documentary" whether in the 'controversies' or 'off the field section', or mention the event in his 2015 career year section (he gave an interview to ESPN talking about the issue) like it appears in Tom Brady's BLP with the Deflategate reference, as well as not write out on Manning's BLP parts which are included in AJ channels' pages. The part about media coverage of Manning's life MUST NOT be in the article as it concerns more the sources than the reports themselves, whichever relation Jim Nantz has with Manning should go at Nantz's BLP, and comparisons with Cam Newton's career coverage are JUST opinions which people can share or not. But I do believe the following facts should be included on Manning's article: the NFL, MLB and USADA investigations; why Manning hired Ari Fleischer; and the 911 call and the incident related. It's a considerable shorter recapitulation. Now let's talk about Jamie Ann Naughright. I think the incident related to her should be summarize with specific details of and related to the affidavit and not every version of the history, plus the 2000 Manning's autobiography reference and the posterior Naughright's sue for defamation (but no more than this specific fact) and the New York Daily News's publication. Now in that recapitulation wouldn't reduce the content in more than a 20% but I think would be more accurate than how it was. I HOPE I CAN HELP FOR THE CAUSE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Editor Ttt74 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has put a "geographical imbalance" tag on the Subaru article, claiming in the edit summary "concerning the American pronunciation over-weighting". This is the latest development in a dispute over the IPA pronunciation which started over a week ago, and has resulted in talk page discussion nearly 60% of the length of the article. In that discussion, Ttt74 has stated that s/he opposes the inclusion of what s/he calls "the American pronunciation". (It is not identified as "American" in the article; as the references (linked YouTube videos) show, it is common to both the US and the UK.)
There is no noticeboard for "geographical imbalance"; I picked NPOV as the closest, and also because Ttt74 has, in the talk page discussion, accused me of POV-pushing - that including an English language pronunciation violates NPOV.
WP:MOSIPA#Foreign names says "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first."
WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
My stance is that even if the common English pronunciation is labeled as the "American" one, this is hardly any sort of bias or non-NPOV. MOS requires that we include the IPA for the English pronunciation, or pronunciations. And it would be very hard to argue that the common English-language pronunciation does not have significant usage.
The fact that there are other pronunciations used elsewhere in the world, or even in specific regions of the United States, does not preclude many, many articles from including an English pronunciation. Nor should it here. If Ttt74 finds references for other pronunciations that have significant usage she or he is free to add them.
So, my question: Is this "geographical imbalance" tag warranted by the article as it now stands? (Personally, I think it's ridiculous.) Jeh ( talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
DJokerNr1, who has contested the sources used in the article List of films featuring whitewashed roles based on their application of the U.S. Census and personal knowledge, has made a very pointed POV edit here. He has pushed for his own changes to be implemented despite opposition from me and one other editor so far. I have started a discussion on the talk page and have stopped editing, but I found this latest edit extremely problematic. Can editors review the situation as well as this editor's particular conduct? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Editor has also mocked the use of sources as seen here. The editor is only interested in applying their own logic and not actually following sources for Wikipedia to summarize their coverage. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
To that i add Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States. Forcing a cultural identity on someone, when he/she denies the identity in question voids the source as a reliable source, since it's POV pushing on an epic scale by the author. DJokerNr1 ( talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC for Deepak Chopra involving concerns about NPOV at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F. BlueStove ( talk) 00:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
After several weeks, it has been determined that the source for a particularly accusatory paragraph against the Jewish Settlers in Hebron was bias and not compliant with the NPOV policy. It was discovered that the author downplayed murders of Jews and and used language which maximized the emotional value of deaths of Palestinians within the conflict. The author was described by a non-participant in the dispute and as anti-Israeli agitator, and best.
The response be the editor of that paragraph has been to remove the observations, lock up the talk section and most importantly, now claims that Wikipedia doesn't adhere to a NPOV policy. How do we get this past an editing war and into a real dispute resolution?
166.84.1.2 ( talk) 22:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure as to whether the sourcing on this article is up to standard. As far as I can see, there only seems to be one reference on the article that meets reliable source criteria- the Globe and Mail article- and said source certainly does not describe the concept of charging meat producers more to kill beasts without stunning them beforehand as an 'antisemitic canard'. The vast majority of other references are to clearly biased advocate groups, self-published books, or sources that do not mention the 'kosher tax' as such (c.f. Blee 2009).
Would appreciate it if someone could have a good look over the article. 121.75.209.143 ( talk) 11:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)#Historical fiction as to whether a quote in the article needs to have attribution. It currently says "The Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction," but previously it said "According to Michael Coogan, the Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction." Which one is best, per WP:YESPOV? St Anselm ( talk) 19:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I started this article because I kept finding sources that identified this topic. Certain editors think the article is not NPOV and have proclaimed this vociferously on the talkpage, but I have had a hard time identifying exactly what their objections are beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I am suspicious that many are anti-GMO activists who don't want this page to exist on Wikipedia for reasons having less to do with concerns over neutrality rather than wanting to paint their position in the best possible light).
It would be nice to get someone who is independent of the ongoing controversies related to GMOs on Wikipedia to review the article to see if the tag should still be there. Right now, we have only longtime disputants editing so it may not be possible for us to see where actual problems lie (if any do).
Thanks.
jps ( talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Given the recent goings on concerning some major online publications not paying their contributers, (huffpo, mary sue are two named), does it warrant reevaluating their uses as reliable sources for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.168 ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Prada gender discrimination case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm concerned about the way this article addresses matters that may currently be under litigation, particularly insofar as the background section appears to solely present the side of one of the litigants; from a BLP standpoint at least, I think it may need to be edited... but I'm not sure how to address it fairly without simply gutting the article. I've already made a number of changes to some of the sections, but I'm just not sure what more to do here and would like some more eyes to look at this article. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. The neutrality of the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto is disputed. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is very one-sided, not exploring reasons for stops and searches!!-- Petebutt ( talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Entropic force#Fringe theories. (AFAIU, WP:FRINGE is part of WP:NPOV series.) Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There is edit-warring going on in the article "Astra" [ [29]]. I seek consensus from those who have studied/interested in hindu mythology,on the neutrality of one of the weapons mentioned-Sudarshana chakra. The personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity-Brahma,Vishnu and Shiva are considered to act,or desist at will of their owners only.1.Please look into the weapons Trishula and Pashupatastra,where the description reads "cannot be stopped by anyone" and "cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Shiva" respectively.This is in stark contrast to the description of Sudarshana Chakra,the personal weapon of Lord Vishnu,where it reads "Cannot be stopped by anyone, except Lord Vishnu himself & Lord Shiva".I seriously doubted the authenticity and neutrality of this information.The editor,who added the part "&Lord Shiva" in describing Sudarshana Chakra hasn't provided any source or link to verify it.2.Also,the Wikipedia article "Ambarisha" relates the story how Lord Brahma and lord Shiva "pleaded their inability to save him(durvasa)" from Sudarshana.[ [30]] 3.Since authoritative sources on Hindu mythology are hard to come by over the internet,I am forced to provide the following sources on ambarisha-durvasa story,all of which conform to the view that Sudarshana cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Vishnu.[ [31]] [ [32]] [ [33]] and so forth.I hope the administrators look into this,deliberate and strive to make this article neutral again. Ankisur2 ( talk)
I was not familiar with WP:FORUMSHOPPING,but I looked up and it says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards".To be clear,I raised two separate issues.With the administrators noticeboard,I raised the issue of personal attack by Adamstraw99,and didnot discuss the content of the article.With Neutral point of view discussion board,I questioned the content of this article,and refrained from mentioning anything about Adamstraw99,which seemingly Fortuna.. failed to notice.Hope this clears things up.
Drmies If the edit is "minor",and does not affect the neutrality,why not make it accurate and correct as well?Have you checked out the page "Ambarisha"?
Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in the discussion happening at Talk:Nuckelavee#RfC regarding the use of the term "simple islanders". — Nizolan (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
Whatever any given sources say, this article is written in a POV, nonencyclopedic manner and needs to be reviewed for neutral tone. I just made two single-word edits and they were reverted within 3 minutes. There is severe ownership going on here. Please take a look.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 04:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be edit warring around both the POV tag and the word "unwarranted". SageRad ( talk) 14:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
We are straying off the point. The problem is not references but the style in which the article is written. There is far too much polemic and use of derogatory words to describe climate sceptics. Biscuittin ( talk) 23:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not reading every comment given in this discussion, however I think it's more productive if specific lines are addressed for NPOV concerns. A good example of this is the "unwarranted doubt" concern. Neither of the sources given use the word "unwarranted" when describing doubt. The Powell source does mention "unwarranted gloom" when speaking about the media's coverage of climate change, but this is not the same thing as "unwarranted doubt". So pending any counter evidence, I'd agree that "unwarranted" should be removed. Scoobydunk ( talk) 15:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial of the scientific consensus that climate change is significant and is caused by humans.
...yawn... Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"Point out"/"State", essentially semantics but I do see your point. On your disagreement with the term because it "is an emotive, pejorative term
; The current sources use the term 'climate change denial' it is not our place to make up 'more neutral terms'. The article is pretty clear in defining the term "Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial,[1] dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts"
Climate change denial - they are not criticizing it they are denying it. If the conclusion readers draw from this is that the 'deniers' are not fully grounded in reality then that is fine because that is, in fact, the case. Any other claim would be
WP:FRINGE because the overwhelming scientific consensus is that what is being denied is in fact true to the best of the experts' ability to know.
Jbh
Talk 20:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"...questioning climate models. Climatologists do that all the time in peer reviewed publications..." Could you give me some examples of this questioning please? Biscuittin ( talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"Climate change denial" is a thing. Not everyone believes it is a thing, but it's a thing. So is "commodity status of animals" (to use another disputed concept, currently discussed at Talk:Veganism). Both of these are concepts that are well-defined in a huge number of sources, but they are also controversial in that there are groups of people who don't believe they're real things but who believe that they're rhetoric that "the other side" is using to attack them. This the nature of points of view. Wikipedia can document this, as it is. Wikipedia doesn't have to necessarily "endorse" that climate change denial is real, but can point out that it's a phenom observed by a huge number of reliable sources, and denied by a vocal and politically-aligned minority. Same, with slightly different details and demographics, for "commodity status of animals". There are those who deny the reality of that concept, and Wikipedia can document that. SageRad ( talk) 14:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I assume the above is addressed to Martin Hogbin. What I am trying to do (and I think MH is too) is to get the tone of the article changed. It is not wicked or mad to have a different view from the IPCC about climate change or global warming so the article should not use language which implies that it is. Biscuittin ( talk) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm comparing one scientific view with another scientific view. I'm not comparing a scientific view with a religious view. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this has gone on long enough. Biscuittin, you have rather obviously failed to persuade in two venues now. I suggest that you do one of two things: (1) drop it or (2) start, and abide by the outcome of, an RFC on the article talk page. Guy ( Help!) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please check this addition. Radezic ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist" and thinks this description of his obituary on the Guardian website is a weighty enough source to support that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a pointless edit war over this so I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm 100% against included this terminology. The Guardian is a centre-left newspaper, so of course it would use that terminology. This should be removed from the opening sentence. — Calvin999 12:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, all! Since the first user posted this, I added additional sourcing including the original quotations in which Rhodes calls whites the 'supreme race' and blacks barbaric, etc. Mike, I like what you've done with the page--rather than culling the term from the top. Rhodes' racial ideology can't really be separated from his views on colonialism or imperialism, as it was at the foundation of his political career in South Africa and his beliefs on the expansion of the British empire.
From the NPOV page, neutrality means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." For contentious labels such as racist, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Rhodes said explicitly that whites are supreme, blacks are inferior, and he is widely and exclusively described as white supremacist and racist in the academic literature. There is no academic dispute or disagreement as to these adjectives. By using sentences like "detractors allege" he is a white supremacist, it implies that there are some who don't think he is--which is not true. Ultimately, this makes it sound like there's a dispute on whether he was a white supremacist when there isn't one (instead, the academic dispute is about whether his contributions outweighed all this.
If there is a dispute as to whether he's a white supremacist, I'd understand your concern. But given there is no dispute (unless you can find a source saying some argue he wasn't a white supremacist), I don't see what the issue is.
P.S. This is the current definition of white supremacy on Wikipedia's page: "a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore white people should politically, economically and socially rule non-white people." The reason why no one disagrees with Rhodes being a white supremacist is because he has essentially said this, verbatim. 15:17, 15 January 2016 by 158.143.212.121 ( talk)
(Above was unsigned so i found the diff and added signature of the IP user. If anyone can do this better than me please change it. IP user, you have to sign your comments by typing four tildes after them, please.) SageRad ( talk) 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
On a meta-level, a few things:
SageRad ( talk) 13:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue has been discussed among a few editors on the talk page of the article and elsewhere but the person behind the piece that I'm trying to remove keeps putting it back in the lead of the article and giving it undue weight, even though the opinion pushed is far from being significant criticism (and it must be, according to WP:LEDE). Below is a copy of what I said on Talk:Michael Greger not long ago, with some links now leading to the actual discussions:
Back in April 2015 on Talk:Veganism and WP:NPOVN, Alexbrn argued for keeping the part that said "There is no good evidence that a vegan diet helps prevent cancer in people". The wording and how it didn't match what was in the sources cited is similar to "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits not backed by sound medical evidence". Alexbrn's version didn't end up in the veganism article at the conclusion of the discussion. Now it's even worse, because on top of the claims made by Alexbrn not being supported by the source, the source itself is questionable and the weight of this opinion is not enough for it to be presented at the beginning of the article. -- Rose ( talk) 06:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Move to close. Although I broadly agree with Rose on this point, this is not the right forum. It's a BLP issue (specifically WP:BLPSPS) and Alexbrn is correct that this smacks of WP:FORUMSHOP. There are broader issues about when WP:PARITY can be applied to use an SPS in a BLP, in overt defiance of policy. Alexbrn pointed out on Talk:Michael Greger that this is commonplace already in certain cases which he cited, and I suggested changing policy in order to allow it. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 07:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
During the latest weeks the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article has lost a lot of it's NPOV and would need a review. I've listed specific points at the talkpage that are related to NPOV, recentism, bias,libel/defamation under the section 'Review of article'. KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 00:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The article 0.999... promotes an academic point of view and disparages a common sense point of view. I added an external link to an article which defends this common sense point of view. My link was removed and the ensuing discussion is on my talk page. It was suggested that I bring the discussion here. My edit was made at 11:37, 8 January 2016. Kevincook13 ( talk) 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I first advised you to come here ( [8]) when you said: "Your refusal to allow the link violates the spirit of the neutral point of view policy." Then you said: "It does not appear to me that you are very interested in a neutral point of view.", so again I suggested you to come here ( [9]) to get a fourth opinion. So you got a fourth opinion, and a fifth, a sixth, a seventh and an eighth, some of them repeated twice or more. Nobody here seems to agree with you, so I am afraid there is not much to discuss anymore. The bottom line seems to be what I already told you in my very first message ( [10]) and what someone else has told you here too: your link violates wp:ELNO item 11. It blatantly does so. Actually, it violates a lot more (see your talk page and here above), but one is usually sufficient. - DVdm ( talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
See this RfC on which name to use in the infoboxes of military unit's active only during the Third Reich/Nazi Germany and leave a well-considered !Vote. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016. SarahSV (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a serious instance of discrimination in Wikipedia. We have an article about The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia but not about the sexual lives of savages in Northern, Southern, Western, Eastern, South-Western, North-Eastern and South-Eastern Melanesia. Wikipedia should know that there are many peaceful tribes in these parts of Melanesia too and not be biased towards them, favouring only North-Western Melanesians. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.153.134 ( talk) 10:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Be nice, everyone. Humor does not translate well when strangers communicate through text. Be nice everywhere and assume good faith. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing some serious NPOV issues occurring at Paleolithic diet. I don't have much time to give this, but if you see the article's current content, edit history, and talk page, i think the problems would be obvious to an uninvolved observer. I'd rather not prejudice anyone by saying what i think about the issues, but just to highlight the article for more eyes. I'd ask for anyone's help there. I'm probably not going to be editing there much due to the toxic environment, but more eyes could be useful in helping this article conform to WP:NPOV basics. Thanks for anyone who has the willingness and energy to do so. SageRad ( talk) 17:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Like many things, i think it's about perspective -- and i have a strong sense that we need more editors with various perspectives to add their voices there. It seems like there are two strong perspectives currently butting heads and it's not very fruitful. SageRad ( talk) 18:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
To me eyes, the problem persists and is getting worse by the hour. Needs attention regarding NPOV compliance. SageRad ( talk) 17:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
POV editing continues on this article, and a small group of editors have essentially occupied the article, and they are maintaining the POV state of the article despite serious and well-intentioned attempts to work collaboratively, and to use proper sourcing to follow policy and to remove the intense attack POV that has already been pushed into the article. In other words -- good editors need to come and help untangle that mess there. Please.
I have no strong personal stake in the subject of the article, but i do believe in the potential for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia with integrity. We cannot suffer editors blatantly gaming the system and let them get away with it, and still pretend that there is a working system in Wikipedia. SageRad ( talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
.... and.... it's continuing, with even the onerous anti-consensus removal of an NPOV tag from the article, edit warred out of the article by one of the people who are occupying the article. Does anyone care? Is anyone listening? SageRad ( talk) 11:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Things are getting worse. The entire lede is trash writing. It looks like a blog post. I am listening but I do not have the time to spend hours reviewing sources to just get reverted in the end. If there were expert authority then it could be fixed. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Without explanation, sourced text was deleted and replaced with unsourced text and non-neutral wording. [11] QuackGuru ( talk) 00:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The part "proponents claim" [12] fails verification and the part "classed as a fad diet by mainstream authorities" [13] fails verification. Without explanation the tags were removed without removing the text that failed verification. [14] QuackGuru ( talk) 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a lively discussion. See Talk:Paleolithic_diet#Original_research_in_the_lede. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is still highly POV in current form and seems to be held that way by several editors. It's contested and some are still claiming that there is "consensus" for the current form, and accusing those who want to change it of POV editing, etc.
Anyway, here is a recent talk page section as an example. Anyone who is uninvolved and unbiased and has some spare time to get into an interesting topic might like to visit and see the controvery. SageRad ( talk) 13:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Expulsion of Cham Albanians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in dire need of non-partisan editors. I know a lot of people are reluctant to get involved in anything related to the Balkans, but I believe the only way to improve these articles is if they're overseen by neutral editors.
DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 18:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Between 72-78 Muslim Cham notables from Paramythia where executed by a Greek army irregular unit during this time.[34] Cham reports that some Albanian notables of Chameria were persecuted and killed by the Greek authorities had been officially refuted by the Greek government.[35]
The same report sent to the English Foreign Minister, which denounced murder and persecution of Albanian notables by Greek bodies and the Greek authorities. The report was later refuted by the Greek government with concrete evidence.
The lede of Jews, which has Good Article status, currently summarizes several millennia of Jewish history in two sentences as
while maintaining rule over their homeland during certain periods—such as under the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah, the Hasmonean Dynasty, and the Herodian Kingdom—Jews also suffered various exiles and occupations from their homeland—from Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, in what is known today as the Jewish diaspora. neutrality is disputed [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
With the references:
References
Although Dio's figure of 985 as the number of villages destroyed during the war seems hypberbolic, all Judaean villages, without exception, excavated thus far were razed following the Bar Kochba Revolt. This evidence supports the impression of total regional destruction following the war. Historical sources note the vast number of captives sold into slavery in Palestine and shipped abroad." ... "The Judaean Jewish community never recovered from the Bar Kochba war. In its wake, Jews no longer formed the majority in Palestine, and the Jewish center moved to the Galilee. Jews were also subjected to a series of religious edicts promulgated by Hadrian that were designed to uproot the nationalistic elements with the Judaean Jewish community, these proclamations remained in effect until Hadrian's death in 138. An additional, more lasting punitive measure taken by the Romans involved expunging Judaea from the provincial name, changing it from Provincia Judaea to Provincia Syria Palestina. Although such name changes occurred elsewhere, never before or after was a nation's name expunged as the result of rebellion.
The summary was introduced in this edit by Jeffgr9.
I and other editors have raised issues with this summary on the article's talk page. I don't think anyone will doubt that great hardship befell the Jews in several periods of their history (and the Holocaust is mentioned later on), but all else is ignored here, except periods which saw Jewish statehood. Thus, we have an extremely one-sided view of history of exactly the kind that one of the sources warns against:
until a few years ago, most characterizations of diasporas emphasized their catastrophic origins ... [but] Jewish migratory experiences were much more diverse and more complex than the catastrophic tradition allows
— Cohen 1997, p. 21–22
Similarly, the thrust of the article by Botticini and Eckstein is ignored, which is to explain "additional 30 to 40 percent of the decrease in the Jewish population" in terms of voluntary conversion to other religions. Instead, a quote is lifted out that fits the preconceived story. To give one more example of the complexity of Jewish history that is glossed over, Barraclough's Times Atlas of World History (p. 102–103 in my 1981 Dutch translation) describes the first few centuries of the diaspora, noting that Jews formed a thriving merchant class throughout the Mediterranean basin in Roman times (with major persecution only starting after the Empire's conversion to Christianity ca. 330).
Unfortunately, discussion of these issues has stalled. My suggestion is to at least revert to the older version of the lede, which was a bit better. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Qwertyus. This section of the lead does not contain information relating how Jews also flourished and prospered in their respective diasporas; only their victimhood without an independent state is related and emphasised, providing a subtle Zionist slant on history. Yet their authoritative legal code was redacted in present day Iraq... Chesdovi ( talk) 14:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Summary style" is a "good thing." Condensing thousands of years into two sentences, is pushing it. Suppose the "more detailed version" (likely at least four paragraphs) were placed in a section below the lead, and the lead then reworded to something more like:
In short - make it short and readable, and leave the details to the body of the article. Too many details in two sentences does not help readers. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No Democratic party exists. However nearly all articles in WIKI contain this misleading error. Inacurractely naming Democrats, Democratic, conveys a false sense of identity to Democrats - inferring Republicans are not democratic. A global change is needed to correct this misnomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.153.1 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 January 2016
It's unclear what dispute the anon is referencing; Democratic party redirects to the Democratic Party disambiguation/set-index page, as one would expect. Assuming there is some actual dispute on this somewhere, I'll try to address it as broadly as possible: About the only potential legitimate use of "Democratic party" on wikipedia would be in reference to a comparison between two unrelated parties in two countries both with "Democratic" in their name ("the Democratic Party in the US and the People's Democratic Party of Kerblachistan"), but such a usage would be sloppy; "the two Democratic parties differ in their views on ..." can simply be rendered "the two parties differ in their views on ..."; it's also PoV pushing, because the equation of their uses of the word is a fallacy of equivocation and of false equivalence that ignores that words have different meanings in different contexts, and advances the original research implication that the parties are philosophically connected by their use of this term (this is obviously nonsense; many of the extremely undemocratic communist regimes of the 20th century included "Democratic" in the names of their nations and subnational entities as a propaganda move, and this has also been true of many political parties). In the case of two parties with genuinely connected political philosophies and both named "the Democratic Party" (perhaps in neighboring countries, or one being a later version of an earlier one in the same country), we'd use "the two Democratic Parties differ on ..." or, again, just "the two parties differ on ...". This is just basic copyediting, folks.
The objection that that often comes up in cases like this, summarizable as 'but it's in some of the RS that way, so I can use it no matter what' is wrong for three different policy reasons: MOS is not obligated to permit every known style that ever existed, and the guideline is based on editorial WP:CONSENSUS, as it is part of internal WP:POLICY, not an article subject to WP:CCPOL; editorial consensus on how to write a particular article is not required to accept and regurgitate the exact phrasing in previously published material (we're encouraged to not do this, per WP:EDITING and WP:PLAGIARISM); and WP:BURDEN clearly says we do not have to accept facts or sources as encyclopedic simply because they exist somewhere, and the most common rationale for rejecting something is WP:NPOV policy, though there are many others (all of which are valid, because what to include is also a matter of consensus). This tendentious campaign being waged by a handful of editors that whatever they can find in some source somewhere dictates exactly what MoS may and may not say or do, or what editors may or may not come to consensus about, has to stop. One of the parties here has already been topic-banned from a swath of the MoS for pursuing this kind of consensus-takes-a-back-seat stuff. This is strong evidence that the community's patience for pet-source and pet-style pushing has worn out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
We have an article specifically about people who call the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party". See Democrat Party (epithet). All very juvenile. — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The User
Volkstod (
talk ·
contribs) seems to have a massive NPOV problem. The user name "Volkstod", translated roughly "Death of a nation" is a slogan of german far-right groups stating that immigration would destroy the german people and that immigrants would have to be removed from Germany to prevent this. In the german Wikipedia, the user was indefinetely blocked immediately after the first edit was performed. Here, the user is obviously showing their far-right political bias in their edits. A few examples:
* Removing criticism out of the article about annother right-wing group, calling the Washington Post "moonies"
[21]
-- 84.59.84.9 ( talk) 14:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, i would like to respont to the allegiations, that were make against me by the user 84.59.84.9. who has done only 5 edits or so. Please excuse my bad english, because i am not a native speaker.
1. there is a lot of discussions going on about the media couverage of the New Years eve sexual assaults in Cologne (and other german cities) 2016. Mostly of the participations, who claimed that there was some kind of coverup about these scandalous incidents could hardly described as rightwing extremists, or neo nazis or things like that. 2. it is possible to describe the alternative for germany (AfD) as a populist movement against the older establishment parties in the federal republic of germany. it is not necessearily needy to call the AfD right wing extremist. 3. in the article about the larouche movement there is no mention of the well-known Washington POST, but of the moonitie Washington TIME!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkstod ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a user who has had added a lot of the worst type of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COATRACK spam to Jun Hong Lu. I tried to remove it but I was reverted. Asking for help. Courtesy ping to User:Peace n Mercy. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This post is related to discussions on the talkpage Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri for the Lavdrim Muhaxheri biography article. (see (1/2) for reference articles within brackets ) Articles often mention both medial reports from 29 July 2014 about Muhahxeri allegedy appearing on beheading footage from Syria [17] and a warrant from Court of Ferizaj and Interpol from the 6 September 2014 in the same articles but they don’t claim that the warrant is issued for the alleged beheading footage [17]; ‘The demand comes from the Basic Court of Ferizaj, which has issued a warrant for Muhaxheri after he is accused of terrorism and organized groups to go to Syria and Iraq’ [17]'. Published court records on 15 January 2016 only mention text messages as evidence for recruitment.[65] The question is about formulation of medial claims in regard to NPOV; avoid stating opinions as facts; shouldn't ‘On 29 July 2014 Muhaxheri uploaded photos to a Facebook page where he is seen beheading an unidentified young man in Syria.’(1/2) (2/3) be stated as 'According to Balkan media, on 29 July 2014 an individual posted two (2) images to a Facebook page under the pseudonym "Lavdrim Muhaxheri" that, to some extent, give the impression of a man having beheaded an unidentified young man.' or something to the effect of a neutral statement where it's mentioned who's claiming it?
(1/2) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700631550 (2/3) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=700798610
KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 08:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC) fix; the part about court documents is from 15 January 2016 and not 15 January 2015 (type - o) KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 10:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC) and NPOV - link KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 13:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC) shortened KewinRozz KewinRozz ( talk) 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Guccisamsclub has inserted the following contentious claim into the Kissinger article: "According to Ben Kiernan, [Indonesia's] invasion and occupation [of East Timor] resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of the Timorese population from 1975 to 1981." This material is sourced to Kiernan's Genocide and Resistance in Southeast Asia: Documentation, Denial & Justice in Cambodia & East Timor, in which Kiernan argues that Indonesia's atrocities during the war in East Timor are "proportionally comparable" to the (peacetime) mass killings perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from 1975-1979. This material is related to Kissinger only in that Kissinger accompanied President Ford on a trip to Indonesia shortly before the invasion, and the two men told the Indonesian president, Suharto, that the U.S. would not object to Indonesia's plan to invade and annex East Timor. The U.S. maintained close ties to Suharto's government for decades during the Cold War, while the largest share of deaths in East Timor may have occurred under President Jimmy Carter, who continued to arm Indonesia despite his reputation as a global champion of human rights. (Carter would later claim that he had not been adequately briefed on the subject.) While the Indonesians certainly committed atrocities in East Timor, however, there is strong reason to doubt that those atrocities were in fact comparable to those of the Khmer Rouge:
I am not sure that NPOV requires that we cover the death toll in Kissinger's WP:BLP. In fact, for many years it was not discussed, suggesting a quiet consensus to that effect—but that all changed when Bernie Sanders condemned Kissinger in a recent Democratic debate, inviting a number of drive-by editors to insert into the BLP whatever criticisms of Kissinger they could find. Even if the failure to mention the death toll was a serious omission, however, what is the point of cherry-picking a given percentage of the population that the death toll represents? Clearly, Guccisamsclub wants to portray the atrocities in East Timor as demographically exceptional, though the case for this is doubtful, and the choice of venue a poor one. (It's worth noting that East Timor is the only war/atrocity quantified in Kissinger's biography, with the exception of the American bombing of Cambodia, which he was intimately involved in. For example, the Cambodian genocide itself is not quantified, let alone in percentage terms, nor is the Pathet Lao's post-1975 campaign against the Hmong—even though both likely surpass Indonesia's crimes in East Timor. Similarly, the thousands killed by the U.S.-backed right-wing dictatorships in Chile and Argentina are not enumerated. What makes East Timor so extraordinary? Consider as well that not even Suharto—let alone other biographies of Western officials—makes any such claim regarding the percentage of the Timorese population killed.)
Nevertheless, I have proposed a compromise version of the "East Timor" section here, which includes Kiernan, Cribb, and the authoritative CAVR. As expected, Guccisamsclub quickly reverted the compromise with the nuanced and judicious edit summary "rv blogger". (Unfortunately, the bulk of Guccisamsclub's comments in our discussion of the matter consists of these kinds of personal attacks, suggesting why outside input will likely be necessary to reach an enforceable agreement: Guccisamsclub has accused me of being "hysterical", "wasting everyone's time", "cherry-picking", engaging in "ethnic hucksterism", being "supremely arrogant", "play[ing] little professor", and "doing preventive propaganda" while refusing to address my substantive argument on the grounds that "I'd be happy to pick a few holes in your story here too, as I've done in the past [referring to disagreements we have had on other, unrelated articles]. But I don't think your story has any bearing on the article or wikipedia policy." He has also accused me of considering "what happened in East Timor" to be "a footnote", based on my comment that Kissinger's personal involvement is a "footnote in Kissinger's career".) Beyond the edit summary, I can only guess that Guccisamsclub may have reverted me for the following reason, which he enunciated on the talk page several days ago: "I don't see any particular reason to prefer Cribb or CAVR to Kiernan. I think it's important that readers get the full range of estimates and caveats, but ... I am reluctant to accept your right [emphasis added] to dictate what that range should be." (Note how Guccisamsclub avoids explaining why Kiernan is preferable and should be the only source—or why we need to include Kiernan's percentage and comparison with Cambodia—and the ownership mentality evident in the comment regarding my "right" to edit the page.) Buried within the lengthy series of vituperative personal attacks, Guccisamsclub has also asserted that there is an important distinction between my "explicit comparison" with Cambodia and his implicit comparison, and strongly condemned me for mentioning on the talk page (though certainly not in the article itself!) that Kiernan's work on Cambodia has been criticized for understating the death toll (a very real topic—consider Kiernan's role in Cambodian genocide denial).
TL;DR: Which of these three proposed versions of the "East Timor" section in Henry Kissinger is most neutral: The long-standing consensus version, Guccisamsclub's version, or my version? Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 18:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that this edit [23] is NPOV. It assumes without evidence that Heilman is telling the truth and Jimbo is telling a lie. (See extensive discussion on Jimbo's talk page). Could someone take a look at the entire article and make sure that it does not favor any one POV (including mine, of course)? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Who is Australia's Head of state?, which revolves around the issue of how to apply the WP:NPOV policy. Interested editors are most welcome to contribute. St Anselm ( talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, there are major concerns about the aforementioned topic & related 'dispute' article, being expressed there. GoodDay ( talk) 21:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All info on the Peyton Manning article concerning the subject's highly publicized scandals has been completely removed. Previously this content was in a "Controversy" section, but was moved to a section entitled "Off The Field" after a consensus to do so was met. This is a fear, shared by me and at least one other editor, that the page may be being cleaned by PR representative of Peyton Manning; there is no proof of this as of yet and we have agreed to assume good faith, but this is a fear of ours. Also, there are multiple users which have disputed the neutrality of this article since the removal of the content of the scandal, but there have been a couple of users which continue to remove the POV tag from the page.
I understand that we need to come to a consensus on how to add the info on the scandals, but it clear that the article violates WP:NPOV if there is no information on the scandals at all. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have checked the Talk:Tom Brady page and when Ballghazi happened there was a similar discussion but with worst fights. It's disproportionate to compare both cases but finally a part of Brady's scandal was include in his BLP (I think it was because there was a main page for Ballghazi). I'm in faith that an accurate section of Manning's controversies will be presented soon, and as ongoing information is published, I consider some part of the original information should go to the Tennessee Volunteers football page and not in Manning's bio. I think the section "Off the field" is the most accurate. And I can apologize for writing about a potential PR staff involvement despite I clearly said there was no accusation and it was just a comparison with past cases. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Some mention of these controversies should be included on the page, and so far it seems that this can be worked out on the talk page. What I don't understand, though, is why the tag has been removed repeatedly, even though there is an actual ongoing discussion of the problem and no consensus to omit the subject entirely. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 21:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please write a proposal of what they would like to see included so that we can discuss specifics and stop bitching at each other? I am in favor of keeping all of the previous section and simply moving it to an "Off The Field" section. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I encourage Wikieditors to read this article: http://time.com/4180414/wikipedia-15th-anniversary/. Moreover, there is a tag about BLP on NSNYC talk page:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
So I propose the content blanked about Manning might be restored (after being rewritten) but with a same kind of tag, just until all this controversies comes to a clear point. Why? Because even if the information is really well sourced, the information is dispute is considered by several people harmful to Manning's name in sense of people could focus in short term on this controversies more than on his career, as in some point happened to Tom Brady and the New England Patriots, but this information should not be censored. The point is that we need to reach a consensus. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The redacted claims clearly violated
WP:BLP as containing statements of allegations as the equivalent of fact, in using argumentation in Wikipedia's voice about the allegations, and in being given absurdly undue weight. In addition, there is absolutely no apparent
WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion of the allegations in such massive detail. A total of two sentences would reasonably cover the locker room incident (trainer's claim, Manning's denial), and the HGH incident is not even of any direct value at all, as involving a person who denied making the allegation as initially reported. And please avoid claims of "whitewashing" -
WP:BLP has specific strictures, and following the strictures of policy is simply what Wikipedia requires. (iterating my belief "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.")
Collect (
talk) 15:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I made a big review. First of all I apologize if I took side with anyone's opinion and it was libelous. Now let me report: this is a case when a part of an article POORLY WRITTEN creates dispute. There are parts which concern more about Al Jazeera's credibility than Manning's involvement in those issues (in part due to he is not the only athlete mentioned), at least for now. Currently, there is a part on Al Jazeera's page related to the documentary and the posteriors reactions to its publication; and by the way, the "Performance enhancing drugs allegations" title could be totally rewritten as "Mention in The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers documentary" whether in the 'controversies' or 'off the field section', or mention the event in his 2015 career year section (he gave an interview to ESPN talking about the issue) like it appears in Tom Brady's BLP with the Deflategate reference, as well as not write out on Manning's BLP parts which are included in AJ channels' pages. The part about media coverage of Manning's life MUST NOT be in the article as it concerns more the sources than the reports themselves, whichever relation Jim Nantz has with Manning should go at Nantz's BLP, and comparisons with Cam Newton's career coverage are JUST opinions which people can share or not. But I do believe the following facts should be included on Manning's article: the NFL, MLB and USADA investigations; why Manning hired Ari Fleischer; and the 911 call and the incident related. It's a considerable shorter recapitulation. Now let's talk about Jamie Ann Naughright. I think the incident related to her should be summarize with specific details of and related to the affidavit and not every version of the history, plus the 2000 Manning's autobiography reference and the posterior Naughright's sue for defamation (but no more than this specific fact) and the New York Daily News's publication. Now in that recapitulation wouldn't reduce the content in more than a 20% but I think would be more accurate than how it was. I HOPE I CAN HELP FOR THE CAUSE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Editor Ttt74 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has put a "geographical imbalance" tag on the Subaru article, claiming in the edit summary "concerning the American pronunciation over-weighting". This is the latest development in a dispute over the IPA pronunciation which started over a week ago, and has resulted in talk page discussion nearly 60% of the length of the article. In that discussion, Ttt74 has stated that s/he opposes the inclusion of what s/he calls "the American pronunciation". (It is not identified as "American" in the article; as the references (linked YouTube videos) show, it is common to both the US and the UK.)
There is no noticeboard for "geographical imbalance"; I picked NPOV as the closest, and also because Ttt74 has, in the talk page discussion, accused me of POV-pushing - that including an English language pronunciation violates NPOV.
WP:MOSIPA#Foreign names says "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first."
WP:NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
My stance is that even if the common English pronunciation is labeled as the "American" one, this is hardly any sort of bias or non-NPOV. MOS requires that we include the IPA for the English pronunciation, or pronunciations. And it would be very hard to argue that the common English-language pronunciation does not have significant usage.
The fact that there are other pronunciations used elsewhere in the world, or even in specific regions of the United States, does not preclude many, many articles from including an English pronunciation. Nor should it here. If Ttt74 finds references for other pronunciations that have significant usage she or he is free to add them.
So, my question: Is this "geographical imbalance" tag warranted by the article as it now stands? (Personally, I think it's ridiculous.) Jeh ( talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
DJokerNr1, who has contested the sources used in the article List of films featuring whitewashed roles based on their application of the U.S. Census and personal knowledge, has made a very pointed POV edit here. He has pushed for his own changes to be implemented despite opposition from me and one other editor so far. I have started a discussion on the talk page and have stopped editing, but I found this latest edit extremely problematic. Can editors review the situation as well as this editor's particular conduct? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Editor has also mocked the use of sources as seen here. The editor is only interested in applying their own logic and not actually following sources for Wikipedia to summarize their coverage. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
To that i add Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States. Forcing a cultural identity on someone, when he/she denies the identity in question voids the source as a reliable source, since it's POV pushing on an epic scale by the author. DJokerNr1 ( talk) 22:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC for Deepak Chopra involving concerns about NPOV at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#RfC:_Is_the_lead.2C_among_other_parts_of_the_article.2C_reflective_of_the_sources_and_a_NPOV.3F. BlueStove ( talk) 00:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
After several weeks, it has been determined that the source for a particularly accusatory paragraph against the Jewish Settlers in Hebron was bias and not compliant with the NPOV policy. It was discovered that the author downplayed murders of Jews and and used language which maximized the emotional value of deaths of Palestinians within the conflict. The author was described by a non-participant in the dispute and as anti-Israeli agitator, and best.
The response be the editor of that paragraph has been to remove the observations, lock up the talk section and most importantly, now claims that Wikipedia doesn't adhere to a NPOV policy. How do we get this past an editing war and into a real dispute resolution?
166.84.1.2 ( talk) 22:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure as to whether the sourcing on this article is up to standard. As far as I can see, there only seems to be one reference on the article that meets reliable source criteria- the Globe and Mail article- and said source certainly does not describe the concept of charging meat producers more to kill beasts without stunning them beforehand as an 'antisemitic canard'. The vast majority of other references are to clearly biased advocate groups, self-published books, or sources that do not mention the 'kosher tax' as such (c.f. Blee 2009).
Would appreciate it if someone could have a good look over the article. 121.75.209.143 ( talk) 11:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)#Historical fiction as to whether a quote in the article needs to have attribution. It currently says "The Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction," but previously it said "According to Michael Coogan, the Book of Daniel, like Ruth and Esther, is historical fiction." Which one is best, per WP:YESPOV? St Anselm ( talk) 19:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I started this article because I kept finding sources that identified this topic. Certain editors think the article is not NPOV and have proclaimed this vociferously on the talkpage, but I have had a hard time identifying exactly what their objections are beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I am suspicious that many are anti-GMO activists who don't want this page to exist on Wikipedia for reasons having less to do with concerns over neutrality rather than wanting to paint their position in the best possible light).
It would be nice to get someone who is independent of the ongoing controversies related to GMOs on Wikipedia to review the article to see if the tag should still be there. Right now, we have only longtime disputants editing so it may not be possible for us to see where actual problems lie (if any do).
Thanks.
jps ( talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Given the recent goings on concerning some major online publications not paying their contributers, (huffpo, mary sue are two named), does it warrant reevaluating their uses as reliable sources for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.168 ( talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Prada gender discrimination case ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm concerned about the way this article addresses matters that may currently be under litigation, particularly insofar as the background section appears to solely present the side of one of the litigants; from a BLP standpoint at least, I think it may need to be edited... but I'm not sure how to address it fairly without simply gutting the article. I've already made a number of changes to some of the sections, but I'm just not sure what more to do here and would like some more eyes to look at this article. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. The neutrality of the lede of section Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation of article Ford Pinto is disputed. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is very one-sided, not exploring reasons for stops and searches!!-- Petebutt ( talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Entropic force#Fringe theories. (AFAIU, WP:FRINGE is part of WP:NPOV series.) Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
There is edit-warring going on in the article "Astra" [ [29]]. I seek consensus from those who have studied/interested in hindu mythology,on the neutrality of one of the weapons mentioned-Sudarshana chakra. The personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity-Brahma,Vishnu and Shiva are considered to act,or desist at will of their owners only.1.Please look into the weapons Trishula and Pashupatastra,where the description reads "cannot be stopped by anyone" and "cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Shiva" respectively.This is in stark contrast to the description of Sudarshana Chakra,the personal weapon of Lord Vishnu,where it reads "Cannot be stopped by anyone, except Lord Vishnu himself & Lord Shiva".I seriously doubted the authenticity and neutrality of this information.The editor,who added the part "&Lord Shiva" in describing Sudarshana Chakra hasn't provided any source or link to verify it.2.Also,the Wikipedia article "Ambarisha" relates the story how Lord Brahma and lord Shiva "pleaded their inability to save him(durvasa)" from Sudarshana.[ [30]] 3.Since authoritative sources on Hindu mythology are hard to come by over the internet,I am forced to provide the following sources on ambarisha-durvasa story,all of which conform to the view that Sudarshana cannot be stopped by anyone other than Lord Vishnu.[ [31]] [ [32]] [ [33]] and so forth.I hope the administrators look into this,deliberate and strive to make this article neutral again. Ankisur2 ( talk)
I was not familiar with WP:FORUMSHOPPING,but I looked up and it says "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards".To be clear,I raised two separate issues.With the administrators noticeboard,I raised the issue of personal attack by Adamstraw99,and didnot discuss the content of the article.With Neutral point of view discussion board,I questioned the content of this article,and refrained from mentioning anything about Adamstraw99,which seemingly Fortuna.. failed to notice.Hope this clears things up.
Drmies If the edit is "minor",and does not affect the neutrality,why not make it accurate and correct as well?Have you checked out the page "Ambarisha"?
Editors at this noticeboard may be interested in the discussion happening at Talk:Nuckelavee#RfC regarding the use of the term "simple islanders". — Nizolan (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)