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 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
I created a page on a notable dance genre, Whirling. Part of the motivation was to distinguish it from particular styles of religious-rooted movement traditions, i.e., Sufi spinning. The page was bumped, inexplicably, to list of Islam-related deletion discussions by Everymorning. Since then, a veritable war has developed, with User:Ibadibam and several others arguing for a merge, but on grounds that show extreme systemic bias and Orientalism. There is a strong need for neutrals to intervene in the debate, because the AfD debate has gotten to the point where it is detracting from substantive edits. Viapastrengo ( talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In the article about University of Tartu one user is trying to force in a section that in its form is damaging to the university and what is based on alleged accusations. Could someone please help with this? Situation itself is hardly of anything important and case itself unproven. User in question has started revert war. See talkpage for more info. Ivo ( talk) 11:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I've posted the following in the Village Pump, and was made aware that perhaps this should be here too
The article on SodaStream keeps pressing that they employ 500 Palestinians, and they mention more than once how the company had to let go of them because they had to move the factory from Ma'ale Adumim in the West Bank after boycotts.
The whole tone of the article is biased, it quotes the people, and states the facts that help its case in regards to the Palestinian land situation & the controversy that surrounded it and led to the move in the end.
I find it biased to keep mentioning that they employed 500 Palestinians (and not mentioning other employees, which include Jewish Israelis, and Palestinian-Israelis) without mentioning what the same process might have done to other workers. They also mention that they are expected to employ Bedouins (who are in fact Israeli citizens) in an upcoming plant.
I'm requesting a neutral-party reading of the article. And I need more details on this particular situation (reporting only the facts that give a good image, but not all the facts or the ones related to it), vis-a-vis Wikipedia's editing policy ( WP:SOAP, WP:NPV). I'm also asking if the way it's written warrants a {{advert}}, or if it reads like it was written by a PR firm to present a better public image as means of damage control after the controversies and boycotts. ¬ Hexafluoride ( talk) 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. @ LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. 2016 (UTC) First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs . This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government , just see his latest contributions . Enough 's enough of this pov pusher . And personal attacks , simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015 , already knows the community pages of Wikipedia and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account , perhaps even banned.@ Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @ LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Regards. Panam2014 ( talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please lock the map module for 1 week? I'm sick and fed up with all the POV-pushing and edit warring that I'm still witnessing there. Despite the discussion here and the repeated attempt to discuss with User:Kiluminati, he is still using unreliable or seriously biased sources to reshape the map to his own views. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The final section header in the biographical entry for actor John Dye#After Life contains 11 inline cites, but those are not about the actor, but about the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare. Because of such overabundance of irrelevant cites, the deletion of this controversial, as well as misplaced, section should have some form of consensus/support/agreement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor (it could be one person or multiple people using IP addresses) is currently pushing the idea that Timothy Leary is a philosopher (see here, for instance). I think this is pretty obviously outrageous, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Leary has absolutely no recognition as a philosopher: his name is not mentioned in works of reference dealing with philosophy, and not one professional philosopher would recognize him as one. An IP has added a citation for the philosopher claim here, but in my view the source used is in no way reliable enough for this kind of extraordinary claim. I think the IP's edits need to be reverted, and if need be the article should be protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher (among other things). The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the "philosopher" label. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A similar point came up a while back in respect of more contemporary activist. As I noted in that debate, and as the RFC concluded, we need surely to be quite strict and consistent about what we mean when we describe someone as a "philosopher". The term is often used quite loosely in the real world for anyone who has opinions or theories about life and the wider world, as well as in a more formal academic or historical sense, and it should be latter that we focus on. Sources that may well be "reliable" in the broadest sense can often be found that say X or Y is a "philosopher", but we shouldn't blindly follow one or two randomly selected ones, especially when there's no guarantee they mean the same thing as others. This isn't a matter of sourcing per se but, as noted, a matter of what sources and what is meant by the term. N-HH talk/ edits 12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is squatted on by someone who prevents any attempt to remove non-neutral language, and who may be associated in some way with the subject of the article. The article should obviously start by saying neutrally and verifiably what PokerStars is - an online poker web site. However, the user concerned disruptively replaces this with a non-neutral and uncited claim that it is "the largest online poker cardroom in the world". Over the last two years, they have reverted attempts to change this without ever seriously attempting to justify this in an edit summary. See [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Further biased edits by this user include [12], [13]. 217.144.146.41 ( talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC:_section_lede_of_Safety_section. RfC update: To date, this request for comment has brought one (1) new editorial voice to the discussion. The discussion involves issues of due weight and neutrality of point of view in a section lede. Respectfully request editors with experience in issues of neutrality please join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Evening Standard, a free newspaper, wrote of a restaurant, mentioning that "according to chef Fergus Henderson, drinking a Black Velvet at Sweetings "puts you in the mood for romance"". There is a debate here whether this sentence can be used as a humorous hook for a DYK or it should rather be regarded as advertisement. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka ( talk) 02:30, 8 April 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.
Links to discussion: [14], [15], [16] and [17]
Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Perceived problem: The title of this section (as of 21:28 April 8) is "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". The heading looks POV and needs to be-written. Several editors are removing any and all attempts to rephrase the section title — diff, diff, diff.
Proposed changes: Reports of war crimes, Human rights concerns, Allegations of war crimes [18], Civilian casualties and criticism [19], Allegations, accusations and reports of war crimes [20], Alleged violations of international humanitarian law [21].
Related Articles:
Thanks for the help. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest Allegations of war crimes as the surest way. Dorpater ( talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh please. This is doubly ridiculous. First, it's ridiculous because the argument is that WP:TITLE prevents a section title from actually describing what the section is about. Which is of course nonsense. Second, it's ridiculous because, after getting completely worn out, frustrated and at the end of my patience with Tobby72's edit warring (which he does across multiple articles, against numerous editors - but always very carefully not to break 3RR or 1RR in this case) I actually started an RfC here. Even though it was really Tobby72's responsibility to start one since he's the one who wanted to make the change. Well, guess what? Unsurprisingly the RfC is not going according to Tobby72's wishes. Probably because it's absurd to insist that a section title cannot describe the contents of the section. So this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Which is bad faithed and disruptive.
(and no, the sources don't say "allegations of", that's a Wikipedia invention, an attempt to POV and WP:WEASEL what sources say). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
(unindent) There is nothing wrong with pursuing more than one form of dispute resolution and trying to get opinions from other users. One Rfc and one noticeboard post are hardly "forum shopping". You keep repeating it and repeating and repeating it, as if that would somehow make it true. It doesn't. Nor is this the first time you "accuse" others of pursuing dispute resolution. You have been warned and blocked recently for making bad faith accusations. Stop. Athenean ( talk) 10:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Possible violation of WP:NPOVTITLE is just one part of the problem. Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? This article, which has obvious POV issues, has been guarded to preserve its current content. Attempts to include contrary well-sourced information have been reverted (for example, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants were accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields – this information has been repeatedly removed see diff, diff, diff) – link to discussion: [22]. I think this is violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
This is regarding the article for the Iran nuclear agreement ( Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) ( link to prior discussion). It has been claimed that legal expert commentary arguing that the Iran nuclear deal violates international law—by failing to prohibit Iran's genocidal threats against Israel—reflects a fringe view and cannot appear at all in the article.
The "major legal experts" in question are extremely renowned Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz ( extended bio here), extremely renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin ( extended bio here), former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Lee A. Casey, and Louis René Beres ( extended bio here), an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.) The disputed views by these highly notable figures appeared in independent reliable sources such as The Wall Street Journal ( example) and The Hill ( example).
Material reflecting these views has been repeatedly removed because, according to the roughly 2 or 3 members of a supposed consensus against inclusion, the views are "random fringe", "pathetically tenuous", "simply ridiculous", and "tenuous leaps of judgment strung together, not a serious legal claim", and that they "completely lack[] credibility" and "cannot be taken seriously". No pretense is made that these are anything other than the completely uninformed, non-expert opinions of the WP editors themselves. (Separate query: do these really sound like straightforward, unemotional analyses by neutral and detached editors?)
To my mind, the FRINGE policy is quite clear: it deals with pseudoscience, preposterous theories such as Moon landing conspiracy theories, allegations that Paul McCartney has really been dead since 1966, etc.
Major expert commentary with which a Wikipedia editor might disagree is simply not included. This remains true even if the commentary amounts to criticism, and even if the object of the criticism is a diplomatic effort led by a popular U.S. President. I do not think there is any way the above figures and their commentary can be put within one earth orbit of WP:FRINGE, nor does WP:WEIGHT demand that these views be given a minimal presentation.
On a related note, it was even argued that because two of these authors were already cited on a separate point elsewhere in the article, it would somehow be "undue" to cite them again for some other point—a claim that I don't think has any basis anywhere in WP policy. They're major legal experts, and that is why RS's are soliciting and publishing their opinions in the first place. If RS's publish their significant expert opinions on two different issues, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including the published views on both issues, especially in an article that is already complex and deals with a vast array of conflicting viewpoints.
Proposed text is below.
Proposed text 1: In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey wrote that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an "obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide," Iran remained publicly committed to Israel's elimination. [1]
Proposed text 2: In September 2015, emeritus professor of international law Louis René Beres argued that Obama's refusal to demand Iran abandon its genocidal incitement and threats, before being permitted to nuclearize under the deal, constituted a serious violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and, thereby, also of U.S. law due to the priority given to international treaties under the Supremacy Clause and related case law. Beres also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT. [2]
Proposed text 3: Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said in an interview that the convention against genocide prohibits aiding genocide, and that by giving money to Iran under the deal, the U.S. was "aiding genocide. We're accessories to terrorism." [3]
Thanks in advance for feedback on the policy ramifications of these figures and commentary. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain ( talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Yes I think it is fringe, though interesting fringe. I do not think it belongs in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article and to have it there as well as giving a fringe opinion unwarranted attention it violates undue weight guidance. However what is fringe in one article can be notable in another - maybe a mention of it should be made on another article. It is taking a legal precept, the obligation to prevent genocide, and extrapolating it out into fields beyond that intended under that original legal precept. I do find the concept behind it to be important, but in this case it is just playing rather distasteful politics games at the expense of an important legal concept. However, personally I am encouraged to see it has been used, even if used wrongly and insincerely. I have in the past suggested that Armenia use this concept to demand international recognition of Nagorno Karabakh because Azerbaijan has, without doubt, a genocidal intent against Armenia and its actions if it were to ever regain NK would constitute genocide. From this, under the obligation to prevent Genocide, to support Azerbaijan's territorial position is to advocate genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
The Wikipedia Android app. shows candidate preference.
When viewing the "New York Democratic primary, 2016" page using the small screen of and Android device, you only see the picture of Hillary Clinton. The same does not occur from a PC browser where both Clinton and Sanders appear.
I believe this is due to the faulty display of the InfoBox Candidate. It only shows candidate1 which happens to be Clinton.
I find this bug disturbing at best. It should be fixed immediately. Alternately the infobox for candiates should be disabled. Believe it or not, this kind of structural prejudice influences voter choices thus subsequent elections. TimSpangler —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
How about not having a picture of either? Kitfoxxe ( talk) 21:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You can reproduce the issue using the official Wikipedia Android app, not a browser. Indeed it is a giant banner of Clinton, and no Bernie. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Wendell Potter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP added some caveats to this article, suggesting neutrality concerns in the edit summary. I just reverted as they didn't seem particularly WP:BLP compliant, but the article could use some extra eyes as it has needed depuffing/neutralizing in the past. VQuakr ( talk) 03:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir. Gone through the description of Kushwaha/Kushwah/Maurya/shakya on your site.it was totally factually incorrect. You have taken the view of some unknown writer pinch,without understand the India conflict of brahiminsm & kastriya. On going under current of classifying other caste as low by Brahmins to maintain their ego & do greater harm to kastriya. I request you to kindly go through authentic docs at royal places & established history. Your article on Kushwah has hurted the sentiment of some 120 millions people.how 120 million can be wrong for centuries. If pif people living in England are not called English. Then whom so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.178.2 ( talk) 14:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy John's ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article just got protected after an edit war over an entire subsection dedicated to a supposed boycott that happened (or was proposed) last summer during the Cecil the Lion outrage. Basically, the founder has been criticized in the past for his big game hunting trips in Africa. I initially reverted the addition per WP:BRD because I think the recent event about the founder was given undue weight in the article about the company. The editor who added it and an anonymous editor then proceeded to edit war over it, rather than discuss it at Talk:Jimmy John's. So the article's protected.
Any additional input or advice would be highly welcome. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
At Authorship of the Bible an IP serially commits WP:ERA violations. Please help. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The IP is a corporate proxy. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This page needs the following edits:
I raised an RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland#RfC: Should the Flag of Northern Ireland article say at the start there is currently no national flag for Northern Ireland. I believe the lead breaks NPOV by trying to make out that it is still the generally accepted flag of Northern Ireland as shown by its use in games and by being flown in some areas but playing down that it is banned from official use and lacking in overall community support. I'm not sure it'll make much difference to the outcome but it would be nice to know what some uninvolved people think one way or the other. Dmcq ( talk) 10:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a general dispute about WP:NPOV (and WP:SYNTH) as it applies to lists, and specifically an article consisting of a table. The point of disagreement is whether the table should be based on a single RS which all editors agree to use, or on all relevant RSs, which differ in their selection of rows (events) in the table. Below are the two latest comments in the exchange, which seem to summarize the two positions well enough (sariya refers to a type of event listed in the table):
The article is List of expeditions of Muhammad. Here's a link to the (long) discussion. Thanks in advance. Eperoton ( talk) 02:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here that could use some input, about whether to mention an article that compares the subject book to Mein Kampf. Toohool ( talk) 23:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is nominated at DYK and there are apparently concerns over it's neutrality. However, no specific point is mentioned there. Can any one please say how the issue can be fixed? Thanks. -- Mhhossein ( talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I wish I had time to look into this. I saw something go by on Recent changes, and was led to the section "Public Perception". It seems to me that statements and opinions are being presented as facts, and that the section, maybe even the whole article, needs some oversight. Thanks to whoever can help out. Drmies ( talk) 16:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
A discussion concerning neutrality is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy?. Input from editors with experience in neutrality would be helpful. Thank you.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the time at the moment, but someone should take a comb through John Thune. I already changed that he was "born in a small town, Pierre, South Dakota" to he was "born in the South Dakota state capital Pierre" but the entire bio is a marble-etched monument to Thune's blinding success in the face of his humbling modesty. There's also a lot of questionable sources, like genealogy websites. LavaBaron ( talk) 08:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality of this article is highly questionable. Someone keeps deleting my concerns off the Talk page.
There is obvious bias in that article; its dismissal section uses Jewish absence in parties other than Soviet communism (Bolshevism) as an argument for why they are not overrepresented in Soviet Bolshevism, which is ridiculous.
It also states in the beginning that this is an anti-semitic canard, but does not make an honest attempt at supporting that statement.
Third opinion needed.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism#Anti-semitic_canard.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.109.21 ( talk) 16:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps because her name has shown up on some longlists for Trump VP possibilities, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin has seen an uptick in editing, and some of the edits might be seen to be inconsistent with our NPOV policies. The article in its previous state was not perfect, and one persistent IP editor has made a series of changes that have consistently removed the negative content and added positive content, in some cases written in campaign-style promotional prose. [23] [24] [25] Attention from additional editors sensitive to NPOV issues would be very helpful. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Could we possibly get some more eyes on this article? I am an involved editor and do not have specific issues at the moment but the article is still missing significant implications for entire countries (Senegal and Uganda come to mind) and has been plagued by possibly-political edits by people who have not otherwise contributed. For example, the mention of international sanctions against Russia after it invaded the Ukraine was deleted, and nobody answered an invitation to discuss on the talk page. Mentions of Hillary Clinton have been moved into a subsidiary article which is AfD'ed, and supposedly erroneous material was deleted from the Bangladesh section. I have not had time to look into that one, and that editor may be correct, but that is the heart of the problem -- contentious material, and very few editors at the moment. Thanks to anyone who chips in. Elinruby ( talk) 22:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Currently, are we categorizing Crimea under Ukraine, Russia or both? While it seems that Crimea is currently mostly categorized under Ukraine, the head article ( Crimea) and some of the categories ( Category:Transport in Crimea, Category:Crimea geography stubs) are categorized under both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE violation at [26]. Please help. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussed with sources at Talk:New Testament#Reverting original research. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
— From a source removed as stated above
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the problem has been solved by compromise. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Due weight issue in the History section of our project's article Automobile safety. Contended content:
On November 30, 1965, the book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader, was published, and was a best seller in nonfiction by spring 1966. In February 1966, U.S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff asked Nader to testify before a Senate subcommittee on automotive safety. According to The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed helped the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles. [1] [4] [9] [10]
References
Nader, another poor boy, rose to national hero status on the critic's side of America's car wars. His 1965 best-seller Unsafe at Any Speed focused on the appalling accident record of Chevrolet's Corvair and was largely responsible for the congressional passage, in 1966, of the nation's first reasonably stringent auto safety law.
Few drivers could imagine owning a car these days that did not come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago motorists went without such basic safety features. That was before a young lawyer named Ralph Nader came along with a book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," that would change the auto industry. It accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. Less than a year after the book was published, a balky Congress created the federal safety agency that became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — an agency whose stated mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes...By the spring of 1966, "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a best seller for nonfiction...In September 1966 — about 10 months after the book was published — President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.
On this day in 1965, 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader publishes the muckraking book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile. The book became a best-seller right away. It also prompted the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, seat-belt laws in 49 states (all but New Hampshire) and a number of other road-safety initiatives.
Unsafe at Any Speed, investigative report on U.S. automobile safety published in 1965 by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who was then a 31-year-old attorney. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile excoriated the American automotive industry, based in Detroit, for its prioritization of style and design over consumer safety. Nader's book eventually became a best seller and helped spur the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, the country's first significant automobile safety legislation.
Breaking into the traffic safety inertia was the publication in November 1965 of "Unsafe At Any Speed," a book written by Ralph Nader a 32-year-old Connecticut lawyer who had served as a consultant for the Department of Labor and a Senate subcommittee in 1964–65. House Speaker John W. McCormack (D Mass.) Oct. 21, 1966, credited the final outcome of the traffic safety bill to the "crusading spirit of one individual who believed he could do something…Ralph Nader."
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)
Nader's advocacy of auto-safety issues, helped lead to the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This legislation sought to reduce the rising number of injuries and deaths from road accidents by establishing federal safety standards for American-made vehicles, including safety belts.
Auto safety legislation was also partly the result of the publication of Ralph Nader's book, Unsafe at Any Speed, which acted as a catalyst for turning the auto safety movement into a legislative force.
The legislative branch had focused on driver behavior and road design until Ralph Nader (1965) and others convinced Congress that many of the 50,000 annual auto deaths resulted from unsafe car designs. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, one year before Ford began designing the Pinto, produced America's first significant federal auto regulation.
Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on 9 September 1966, this act created the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Coverage in Wikipedia is of course proportional to coverage in reliable sources WP:DUE; beyond the proportionality demanded by policy, we have vast noteworthy reliable sources explicitly stating the pivotal role of Ralph Nader in the history of automobile safety, including The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time, and the United States Department of Transportation. The US is an industry leader, and the 1960s a watershed decade, and Ralph Nader a significant actor, in the history of automobile safety, and so they will always have due weight in History section of our article Automobile safety. Very obviously, the due weight of Ralph Nader, the book Unsafe at Any Speed, and Nader's congressional testimony in the History of Automobile safety is not none.
Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew? The contended content has been deleted multiple times. Arguments for exclusion advanced at article talk include tagging the contended content as off-topic, and a related claim of a bizarre undocumented editorial policy, local to our article Automobile safety, under which the History section is strictly limited to a simple listing of the dates of introduction of new safety features and new regulation, totally devoid of relevant context and background, see for example 11 April 2016, the intent of which seems to be to leave our readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety improvements delivered by benevolent manufacturers WP:READERSFIRST. At article talk the two (2) sentences mentioning Ralph Nader in the contended content were described as War and Peace and dismissed as "burning incense at the Shrine of St Ralph the Nadered." Further, in service of diminishing the significance of Nader, the significance of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself is non-neutrally deleted.
Our article Automobile safety is currently of size 22 kB (3538 words), "readable prose size", less than half of the size at which article length begins to be a concern WP:SIZE. Our article Automobile safety is unevenly sourced; the contended content is among the better sourced paragraphs.
Assistance from uninvolved colleagues with experience in the application of our project's neutrality pillar is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Attacking the motives editors in the NPOVN description is probably not the best way to start a neutral discussion. "Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew?" This is an attack on the motives of the other editors and an implication of bad faith. Springee ( talk) 17:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: HughD, please do not significantly modify or add to your comments after others have replied as you did here [ [27]]. It can create a false impression of the statements other editors were replying to. You have been warned about this several times including earlier today [ [28]]. Springee ( talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments on the contended content from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you! Hugh ( talk) 15:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: editing material after the fact without clear notification can create false impressions of the talk page discussion. You have been told to please not do that by at least three editors in the last week or so. Here you are doing it again. [29] Springee ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This is not really an NPOV issue, but rather one of understanding the scope of the article. The lead makes it clear that it is a technical article, outlining the various safety technologies and features invented and implemented by the engineers. Social aspects would be rarely dealt with in such an article, if at all. For dealing with your topics, you probably want a separate article on Automobile safety legislation or something of that sort. Moreover, the legislation has more to do with the delivery of safety technologies, not the technologies themselves. So, it is understandable that the editors of that page do not welcome your content. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The article has a section History. A "History" section is entirely appropriate in any article that is not itself a "History of..." article. The exclusion of context and background on the basis of a claim that the article is "technical" has no basis in policy or guideline. We are asked to not simply recount dates and events, but to write prose with sufficient context and background that our readers may understand our articles. There is simply no basis in policy or guideline for a local editorial policy excluding certain aspects of the history considered unfavorably by a local consensus, and simply no basis in policy or guideline for a local editorial policy which specifies a simple listing of the dates of introduction of safety features or the dates of passage of key legislation, to the complete exclusion of context or background. This local editorial policy can only be understood as a pointed attempt to leave readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety features delivered by a benevolent automotive industry. Editors opposing a balanced treatment of the history of automobile safety were asked at article talk to propose language for possible inclusion in the lede explicit stating their unusual ideas of scope, and declined, please see 27 April 2016. The discussion at Talk:Automobile safety is not of policy or guideline, it is of outright disdain for Ralph Nader, please see. Of course the resistance by the industry to safety features, and the roles of key actors, is widely represented in relevant reliable sources and is relevant to the history of automobile safety, but are conspicuously and non-neutrally excluded from our article. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 23:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Automobile safety is the study and practice of design cars, construction, equipment and regulation to minimize the occurrence and consequences of traffic collisions.
Led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a campaign was launched to force vehicle producers to pay more attention to safety. The state responded with a series of regulations in the 1960s, intended to force reluctant manufacturers to improve safety standards.
This is a request for neutral editor(s) for the article Oyu Tolgoi mine. The subject of the article is, within the context of Mongolia and global copper mining, important and notable, but currently the article is subject to occasional anonymous edits which are demonstratively inaccurate or untrue, use citations out of context to create a misleading narrative effect, and have editorial/political bent. I have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia guidelines, as I work for the subject of the article, so I am requesting that editor(s) with a neutral point of view take on curating this article for accuracy and neutrality.
The main body of the article could use substantial work in being more factually accurate and having better citation. An example is in the milling and mining section:
This line is not cited, so it is unclear where these numbers come from. They are also inaccurate. The nameplate capacity of the mine concentrator is 100,000 tonnes per day, and it is the capacity currently expected even when the underground mine comes on line.
The “controversial issues” section suffers from both factual errors and an editorial bent that appears to violate the neutral point of view guidelines. An example is the line:
The line is verbatim and unquoted from the cited source, and it is being used out of context to imply that Oyu Tolgoi is jeopardizing the livelihoods of the herders. The entire section is constructed this way with many of the citations either being used out of context or arguably unrelated to the point being made.
Instead of a point-by-point refutation, I have prepared an alternative construction of the article as a potential starting point. This builds on the current article, removing the factual inaccuracies and attempts to be neutral throughout. Are there editors who will take this up and ensure this article meets Wikipedia’s standards? --
Chimeramind-timetraveler
Proposed rewrite
|
---|
--
Oyu Tolgoi mineThe Oyu Tolgoi mine (Mongolian: Оюу Толгой, also Oyu Tolgoi, Turquoise Hill) is a combined open pit and underground mining project in Khanbogd sum within the south Gobi Desert, approximately 235 kilometres (146 mi) east of the Ömnögovi Province capital Dalanzadgad.
HistoryEarly exploration and prospective work was carried out by Soviet and Mongolian geologists in the area now known as Oyu Tolgoi in the 1950s, which was followed by detailed state mapping surveys in the late 1980s. Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP) acquired exploration licenses for the area in 1996. [3] After drilling 23 holes over three years, BHP suspended its exploration activities and entered a joint venture with Canadian miner Ivanhoe Mines to continue exploration in the license area. [4]
Ore BodyOyu Tolgoi’s ore body is a series of copper-gold porphyry deposits running north-by-east to south-by-west across the eight by 10 kilometer mine license area. [15] The primary reserve case deposits are the Central Oyu Deposit (open-cut) and Hugo Dummett Deposit (underground). [16] The deposits extend beyond the current mine license area, and there are suggestions of a 26 kilometer mineralization trend inclusive of the current mining area. [17]
Mining and MillingOyu Tolgoi currently is an open-cut only operation generating US$1.63 billion in revenue on production of 202,200 tonnes of copper in concentrates in 2015. Ultimately it will be an open-cut and underground mining operation. Ore is mined from the open-pit using shovels and haul trucks, and is crushed and conveyed overland to a concentrator. [20]
FinancingOyu Tolgoi is funded by a combination of equity and shareholder loans. [24] In December 2015, Oyu Tolgoi’s shareholders signed a US$4.4 billion project finance facility with a consortium of international financial institutions and 15 commercials banks. [25] Corporate StructureOyu Tolgoi is owned by Turquoise Hill Resources (a majority owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto) and the Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi (a Government of Mongolia owned holding company) with 66% and 34% stakes, respectively. The company is overseen by a board of directors with representatives appointed by the shareholders in proportion to their ownership stake. There are nine members of the board, including the Chairman, with three members appointed by the Government of Mongolia. [26]
ReferencesReferences
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeramind-timetraveler ( talk • contribs)
Restraining Order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.120.116 ( talk) 09:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The annexation of Crimea is a sensitive topic in general and it is often hard to find NPOV on it. This article, however, just openly promotes the Russian POV. It avoids anything that might make a reader question legality of the topic, fails to properly address a position of the international community and misleads a reader about the current legal status of the subject. It is also poorly categorized, being directly connected to both Ukrainian and Russian politics in the region as well as to the whole Russia-Ukrainian conflict, it have been put only into "Crimean politics" category, like it is some boring regional law of low global importance.
Unfortunately, my attempts to address these issues were altogether removed by User:Ymblanter. My attempts to discuss this with him directly did not work, he seem to be inclined to keep the article biased. To avoid the changes war, I made an account of the issues at the talk page and I ask the community to give it some attention.
AMartyn ( talk) 11:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Regrettably, this page is once more the subject of a dispute over whether or not the lede should acknowledge the organization's financial ties to the Koch family. I think some outside input would help, please see this removal and this section of the talk page. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple POV issues currently being discussed on the talkpage, but I'll start with one:
Talk:Suicide bag#Chabot is a euthanasia expert. The statement in question is in the
History section of the article. It says, Dutch psychiatrist Boudewijn Chabot, in his 2015 book Dignified Dying, calls the suicide bag with inert gas method "rapid, painless and safe",
which is sourced to a self-published book by Chabot. According to
Alexbrn, this is an NPOV issue as opposed to RS since the self-published source is reliable source for Chabot's own statements, and the question is if including controversial material from Chabot's self-published work is giving due/undue weight to his POV. Have I given enough context?
—PermStrump
(talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Multiple users in different places have requested review of information about LGBT issues at a Catholic school. I am asking for comment from the following places -
The article is Marian High School (Bloomfield Township, Michigan). Not all users have found their way to the talk page, but there are requests for comment from multiple people. Diverse perspectives would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Some editors have raised concerns that Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982) has a POV slant. At the very least, it takes some stances on the legitimacy of certain claims, and there are several instances where it uses words to avoid. Could an experienced editor who isn't afraid to wade into the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict take a look? See this DYK nomination for an idea of what specific concerns were raised. Thanks. ~ Rob Talk 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The following page: /info/en/?search=Caro%E2%80%93Kann_Defence contains a pointless, derogatory, offensive cultural slur that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to belittle the group in question. It in no way serves any instructional, historic, or factual function.
Specifically, the authors/maintainers of the Caro-Kann Defense Wiki page (a chess opening) refer to a certain line that is sometimes played as the "Hillbilly Attack," stating that the line is used by weak players. "Hillbilly Attack" is not an "official" name for the line and the word "hillbilly" is nowhere to be found in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). "Hillbilly" is a derogatory term. It is not "cute," it is not "harmless," it is an insult directed toward Americans of Southern heritage (whether it is specific to those in Appalachian regions is irrelevant).
The line in question would more accurately - and appropriately - be called the "2.Bc4 Attack" because that is the nomenclature of the move in question. I have edited the page but others insist on keeping the offensive and purposeless pejorative as is. It is nothing more than a derogatory gouge at Southerners, period.
I submit that there is no place in the lexicon of chess - or Wikipedia - for spiteful, pointless, derogatory nonsense like this. Other cultures/sub-cultures reserve the right to stand up against bigotry of this type, and my culture is no less worthy of respect than any other.
There is NOTHING UNREASONABLE in asking that the the line in question be referred to by a more accurate and civilized term. No one is going to object to the far more accurate and appropriate "2.Bc4 Attack." E1e10p ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I acted exactly in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, WP:RS and WP:RSOPINION in Religious views of Adolf Hitler, the User:Ian.thomson reverted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&action=history John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk) 09:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
What was in the article violated policies of Wikipedia. John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk) 09:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You should read the policies I cited. John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk) 10:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.", WP:RS/AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.", does it DIRECTLY say that in the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Source 2 is used because of:
[31]
@ Ian.thomson: Why did you pick this? Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Reading the link to Source 2, it does start out by saying that "one aspect of our understanding of Nazism remains largely uncontested: the belief that ... Nazism itself could not be described as a Christian movement." So that quote doesn't address Hitler's specific religious beliefs at all. But then, author Steigmann-Gall goes on to say that he, for one, isn't buying this 'academic consensus', but that he is going to challenge it by showing that many Nazi Party elite members were, in fact, Christian.
Google books preview of Source 1 is here: [32] I sure can't find any statement about near-unanimous scholarly views on Hitler's religion, neither at the cited p. xiv, nor on any other page by searching for the word 'Christian'.
The Wiki article states: "Steigmann-Gall concluded that Hitler was religious at least in the 1920s and early 1930s, citing him as expressing a belief in God, divine providence, and Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[78]"
So Steigmann-Gall does argue here that Hitler held Christian views, albeit far from orthodox.
Here is an RS confirming that there is a lively and ongoing scholarly debate on whether Hitler was an unorthodox Christian who believed in an Aryan Christ who was an opponent to the Jews: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/18/3480312.htm JerryRussell ( talk) 20:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here to get more eyes on this page, and for a discussion on whether a "controversies" page is appropriate. It seems like a well-wirtten and well-sourced article, but I'm not sure if the existence of a "contoversies about company X page" is allowed or desired. PLease use ping in your replies if possible. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The question posted by the RfC is as follows:
How should the current news story regarding the question over Kyle's awards be presented in the article?
In addition to the allegations of off-site canvassing, the text of this RfC is pathetic. Can an admin please step in here? 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
When I tried to tag the article for improvements, I was reverted without any fixes. The article on June 7th 2016 reads like an admissions brochure. The article is well-referenced but all of the references point to positive achievements and don't even try to give any kind of a balanced view. There's no mention of how Stanford failed to release the mugshot of its student rapist or any criticism whatsoever.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"...The university is also one of the top fundraising institutions in the country, becoming the first school to raise more than a billion dollars in a year ... Stanford's academic strength is broad with 40 departments in the three academic schools that have undergraduate students and another four professional schools.... and companies founded by Stanford alumni generate more than $2.7 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to the 10th-largest economy in the world .... It is also one of the leading producers of members of the United States Congress...." (okay, that is a criticism) ...The Stanford University Libraries (SUL) hold a collection of more than 9.3 million volumes, nearly 300,000 rare or special books, 1.5 million e-books, 2.5 million audiovisual materials, 77,000 serials, nearly 6 million microform holdings, and thousands of other digital resources, making it one of the largest and most diverse academic library systems in the world ...Notably, the Center possesses the largest collection of Rodin works outside of Paris, France ... Stanford has a thriving artistic and musical community ... Stanford is one of the most successful universities in creating companies and licensing its inventions to existing companies; it is often held up as a model for technology transfer..."
I am not sure why this discussion is happening here rather than on the article's talk page. Now that it is here, my feeback is not particularly sympathetic. I think Tomwsulcer would benenfit from a careful reading of WP:NPOV. There is nothing there that says that positives and negatives have to be balanced or that any negatives have to be present at all. It just says that all viewpoints found in reliable sources must be represented, paying attention to the WP:DUE weightage. If there are reliable sources that comment on "white privilege" issue, by all means include them. The only problem I see with the article is a bit of WP:PEACOCK wording, which can be cured by a good copy editing pass. To add a worthwhile negative issue, try looking up "stanford research grant overheads." -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, a World War II biography. The reassessment page can be found here. Part of the reassessment deals with the article's neutrality and thus falls within the scope of this noticeboard:
Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. Regards, K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that what looks like several editors are introducing non-neutral language into this article. Page protection might be needed. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue is with the paragraph describing his death. The current wording, insisted upon by User:Pmaster12 and inserted by him, says that Dejean-Jones "entered" the apartment where he was killed and then was attempting to "enter" the bedroom when he was shot. All of the sources describe the act of entering as either "kicking in the front door" or something close to that (rather than, say, opening the door with a key), and say that the resident shot through the bedroom door as Dejean-Jones was kicking at it/trying to break through it. See [33], [34], [35]. It seems to me that the manner of entering is an important aspect of this story and must be mentioned in this article, and that omitting such an important aspect creates a clear WP:WEIGHT problem. The article is currently posted on the main page via ITN, so this matter does need to be addressed quickly. Nsk92 ( talk) 02:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
See I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. I don't care I'm not looking for that. I'm doing my best to put the appropriate information and improving the articles. Not on how it looks or whether he's innocent or not like I said on numerous times that's irrelevant. That's it. So let's get that out. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of his team that's why I said that your argument is kind of getting a little delusional. You bringing famdom just shows me how low you get to try to convince others but yourself that you are obviously looking for something here to gain. Like I said numerous times keep your personal feelings about this situation to yourself because if that's not bias editing. You Jim Michael are the only one here in the discussion that cares about innocence or guilt and trying to measure intent which I've said multiple times now. It's means the same thing just worded differently. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The police would know what entering means. You Jim Michael know what enter means but you Jim Michael probably have a personal gain. Like I said before you Jim Michael are the only one that cares about the other irrelevant things. You are still trying to brainwash yourself and other editors that you don't understand the word enter means. I know you Jim Michael are smarter than that. I know you have your personal feelings about this situation while editors are the opposite the ones in this discussion. I could care less about the subject being innocent or guilt which that should not be in your mind when you are editing these articles especially something controversial like this if you were not bias. Otherwise you would not still be going on about this subject which to me this is a non issue. Pmaster12 ( talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Let me tell you something you are the one is ranting and raving about crime and the wording of this article. YOU Jim Michael ARE the one starting editing warring over something that's really a non-issue. That's what I'm saying. I'm going to tell you this again, hear me clearly cause you really are stretching this. I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's this is neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. If that makes you Jim Michael feel good go ahead. This is all about discussion. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
YOU NEED TO STOP ranting about innocence or guilt which that is irrelevant in these sources. YOU go somewhere else with that but don't start editing warring over something that's non issue. It's ok to disagree because that's what this noticeboard is about but turn this a edit war which you started. I'm the wrong editor for that. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You are the only one whining and complaining looking for agreement for your personal gain which that's not what this noticeboard is about it's about getting issues resolved. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about me being neutral that's your problem you are trying to measure every editors intend that works your personal gain or feelings about this article because if that wasn't the case you would not be edit warring. My editing it means same just worded differently. You keep on going and going on how this article should make the subject look bad which that should not matter to you at all. Where Previous discussions are you care is how the subject looks in the article and all I said is that argument is irrelevant. That's it and this is resolved. Pmaster12 ( talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice three issues after reading the sources: (1) There is no mention of DeJean-Jones taking a walk before the break-in, though it is obvious he left the g/f or acquaintance's apartment. Though to say he only took a walk is unknown, until there is more information (like the pending toxicology report mentioned in the sources). (2) There is no mention of the fact the resident called out to DeJean-Jones, but received no response. (3) There is no mention that after being shot, DeJean-Jones left the apartment and collapsed in the breezeway. At this point, only the known facts should be in the article, not any guesses onto what happened. As more facts are released, they should be added and linked as is, imo. Nobody1231234 ( talk) 08:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a relevant RfC about the content in the lead section of Singapore. See Talk:Singapore#RfC about lead section. Would appreciate more inputs there. Thank you. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Cleveland , see "Nickname yet Again" section
Basically, there is a contingent that feels "Mistake by/on the Lake" should not be included in the introduction, due to the nickname being old or pejorative. However, other nicknames in the same section, including "Sixth City" and "Metropolis of the Western Reserve", are even more old/outdated, and in the case of Sixth City, currently flat out false (Sixth City refers to the size of the city, of which Cleveland has not been the Sixth City for decades). In my opinion, there are three possible fixes: removing all of these nicknames from the introduction, keeping all of the names, or keeping it as is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?&diff=725338342&oldid=725288477 :Keeping all names versus as is https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=722056284&diffonly=1 :Line 102 edit would be an example of removing all nicknames from the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody1231234 ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm posting here in hopes of getting some feedback from uninvolved editors about the issue I started a discussion about at Talk:Universal_Windows_Platform_apps#NPOV. The article is Universal Windows Platform apps. The dispute seems to lie in that I perceive the tone of the article text in the "Distribution and Licensing" and "Lifecycle" sections as non-neutral, but not everyone does. I'd be very grateful for some more opinions from the community about what the best solution is here. Thanks! :) —{{u| Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹| T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Perceived problems:
Proposed changes (see diff):
"Civil rights activist told ARA News that "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes". The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Turkish-supported Jaysh al-Islam rebels were accused of using civilian residents of towns, Alawite civilians and captured Syrian soldiers as human shields."
References used in the proposed text:
Related Articles:
Thank you for any help you are able to provide. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 13:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page."Instead of discussing this rationally on the talk page, you've thrown various issues into the pot. Please don't use this noticeboard as a general complaints department board about all of things you don't like across articles. The ISIS business has been dealt with: it was not a tactic used specifically as insurance against attacks by the Russian military. Your other content complaints are being discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles, so prolonging this here is inappropriate. You are explicitly using this board to point your finger at specific editors as being 'culprits'. If that is your belief, it's an issue for the ANI, not for the NPOVN, the RSN, or any boards dealing with content issues. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Volunteer Marek, what the sources say is that ISIL and Jaysh al-Islam were using human shields to try to prevent Russian attacks. If the problem is that the use of this information implies an unwarranted conclusion, why do you say that more careful rewording can't prevent the reader from making this conclusion? For example, the article could add: "According to Amnesty International, war crimes by one party to a conflict do not justify war crimes by the other." Ref: https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/03/palestinian-armed-groups-killed-civilians-on-both-sides-in-attacks-amounting-to-war-crimes-during-2014-gaza-conflict/
On what basis are you asking for more sources, and what would you like those sources to say? If it doesn't belong in this section, perhaps it belongs in a new section? The article includes many items describing responses to the Russian military intervention, so this information certainly is relevant to the topic.
It would be more helpful if you would contribute to the process of finding a way to include this information that's compliant with all Wiki policies, rather than trying to exclude it. I agree completely with Tobby72, that simply excluding the information is a violation of NPOV, and does not make Wiki a better encyclopedia. JerryRussell ( talk) 21:51, 18 June 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.
This is regarding a content dispute at the chess article. User:Ihardlythinkso wants to include the term "orthochess" as a synonym for chess in the article's infobox. By way of explanation, "orthochess" is used by some to distinguish "orthodox chess" (i.e. chess played by standard rules) from the many chess variants. It is rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess; google book search and google ngram confirm this. The word appears to be the invention of one David Pritchard, an expert on chess variants, and appears in David Parlett's Oxford History of Board Games. IHTS is arguing that this single source justifies inclusion in the infobox. My argument is that the term "orthochess" is not widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public, and to include the term in the article's infobox is giving it too much prominence, amounting to undue weight. The term is mentioned in the section on chess variants and that is more than enough. MaxBrowne ( talk) 08:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sincere thanks to MaxBrowne for opening this item. The full discussion is here. As far as MaxBrowne's arguments, of course the term is "rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess" -- why would a work on chess have any need to use any term other than 'chess'? The term is used in contexts of other varieties of chess to distinctly identify the standard game defined by international chess body (FIDE) rules. When Partlett says in The Oxford History of Board Games "Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on", it seems plain those alternate names would only be used where there might be ambiguity with the standard game. The term "Western chess", which also appears in the article infobox as synonym for 'chess', is the same (would only need to be used in a context where there could be ambiguity), and, MaxBrowne clearly has no problem with that. In fact all of the game name synonyms listed are really only needed or used in that same context. The idea of an encyclopedic article is to provide readers pertinent info. How the game might be referred to in the context of other varieties of chess is part of that info. And sourcing it from The Oxford can't be a better reliable source. ¶ There is no WP requirement on the {{Infobox game}} template 'AKA' (Synonyms) parameter to be "widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public" as MaxBrowne states. (How do I know this? Because I am the editor who added the AKA parm to that template! I did so as a parallel to the same parameter which exists in {{Infobox chess opening}} template, and as can be seen by many article examples using both templates and the AKA/Synonyms parm, there's never been the requirement that MaxBrowne states. Rather, the synonyms listed just have to meet verifiability w/ a reliable source. (MaxBrowne specifically got involved to clean up synonyms at article Danvers Opening, and none of those synonyms meet the requirement MaxBrowne has stated above; again, they were acceptable to be included as synonyms by MaxBrowne if they met verifiability/RS requirement.) ¶ As far as the term having "too much prominence" in the infobox, my gosh, it is at the bottom, and the last synonym listed. (To be fair, an editor at one point changed the location of the AKA parameter which I had added, and moved it to the position of first parameter in the template. I moved it back to last place, like in the {{Infobox chess opening}} template, contending that the synonyms list was "nice to know" info, but shouldn't be displayed first, which could distract/obscure the more substantive subject content in the infobox. In other words in that case I would agree w/ MaxBrowne, that info would be in "too much prominence" in the infobox if listed first. At the same time I can also see the logic of the editor who moved the parm to first position, since in articles, MOS policy wants any article name synonyms listed in the lede opening in bold. In the case of game Nine Men's Morris, synonyms are listed in the lede opening according to MOS, but I still think listing them first in the infobox would be ill-advised for reason already stated. In the case of Chess, *none* of the game name synonyms in the infobox are listed in the lede, and I agree with that choice, since again, all those synonyms are in the context of other varieties of chess, whereas when synonyms are not in another context, e.g. Nine Men's Morris or Danvers Opening, they are best listed in the lede per MOS. So this is a bit more complex than first look. For example I'm wondering how MaxBrowne would feel if the infobox synonyms he does accept in the article Chess infobox, are listed per MOS in bold in the Chess article lede? If the answer is that he does not like that, then I would argue, that the entire Chess synonyms list in the infobox, should therefore go away. Bottom line is I think there are two different functions that infobox game name synonyms lists are serving, and current MOS doesn't reflect that, and we shouldn't force a policy onto something new which wasn't envisioned by the policy, unless were're consistent about doing so. And even then it'd be a bad idea, since it squashes useful info to the reader.) Ok, IHTS ( talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I really would appreciate some uninvolved admin intervention at this point because this guy (sorry to say) is utterly exasperating to deal with. Rather than discuss, he WP:BLUDGEONs with walls of text that are impossible to address point by point, mixed in with plenty of irrelevant ad hominem stuff. He has no consensus to introduce the obscure term "orthochess" into the infobox, giving it undue prominence, and is attempting to get his way by bullying. MaxBrowne ( talk) 09:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
See what I mean? The guy is a bully. Intervention is required. MaxBrowne ( talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This U.K. educator has apparently a bit of a cultus among home-schoolers and school reformers. The existing article is a rather hagiographical account of her life and methods, breathlessly recounting every detail of her doctrines and practices, almost all sourced solely to Mason's works and those of her advocates. NPOV is not preserved; and the total effect seems to me to push the walls of WP:UNDUE as well. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I changed the name of a section heading in Ahmed Mohamed clock incident preceding speculation on ulterior motives from Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories to simply Controversy. Some editors insist "conspiracy theories" must be maintained in the section heading. I find no clear support in RS for classifying all speculation as "conspiracy theories" or even that the suggested motives involved conspiracy. I'd be open to other neutral wording but I strongly object to including "conspiracy." D.Creish ( talk) 00:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The Dallas Morning News ... referred to some comments and claims that emerged in the aftermath of the incident as conspiracy theories.Labelling something a conspiracy theory is contentious and should be avoided unless there is clear consensus, which is not the case here. D.Creish ( talk) 01:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Multiple sources [...] specifically use the phrase "conspiracy theories"You're correct. Here are a number that don't: Dallas News which cites "police skepticism" about Ahmed's claims, a Guardian piece on doubts raised by Richard Dawkins, The Hill, National Review, Fox News. The claim is clearly contentious. I argue contentious claims make for non-neutral section headings. D.Creish ( talk) 02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
But officers still didn’t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story.under the heading
Police skepticism. Is this the one you suggest "doesn't mention it at all" or does it qualify as opinion, where Selk's later article in the same paper which is critical of the skepticism and currently cited qualifies as fact? D.Creish ( talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
See discussion here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 00:34, 2 July 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 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
I created a page on a notable dance genre, Whirling. Part of the motivation was to distinguish it from particular styles of religious-rooted movement traditions, i.e., Sufi spinning. The page was bumped, inexplicably, to list of Islam-related deletion discussions by Everymorning. Since then, a veritable war has developed, with User:Ibadibam and several others arguing for a merge, but on grounds that show extreme systemic bias and Orientalism. There is a strong need for neutrals to intervene in the debate, because the AfD debate has gotten to the point where it is detracting from substantive edits. Viapastrengo ( talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In the article about University of Tartu one user is trying to force in a section that in its form is damaging to the university and what is based on alleged accusations. Could someone please help with this? Situation itself is hardly of anything important and case itself unproven. User in question has started revert war. See talkpage for more info. Ivo ( talk) 11:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I've posted the following in the Village Pump, and was made aware that perhaps this should be here too
The article on SodaStream keeps pressing that they employ 500 Palestinians, and they mention more than once how the company had to let go of them because they had to move the factory from Ma'ale Adumim in the West Bank after boycotts.
The whole tone of the article is biased, it quotes the people, and states the facts that help its case in regards to the Palestinian land situation & the controversy that surrounded it and led to the move in the end.
I find it biased to keep mentioning that they employed 500 Palestinians (and not mentioning other employees, which include Jewish Israelis, and Palestinian-Israelis) without mentioning what the same process might have done to other workers. They also mention that they are expected to employ Bedouins (who are in fact Israeli citizens) in an upcoming plant.
I'm requesting a neutral-party reading of the article. And I need more details on this particular situation (reporting only the facts that give a good image, but not all the facts or the ones related to it), vis-a-vis Wikipedia's editing policy ( WP:SOAP, WP:NPV). I'm also asking if the way it's written warrants a {{advert}}, or if it reads like it was written by a PR firm to present a better public image as means of damage control after the controversies and boycotts. ¬ Hexafluoride ( talk) 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. @ LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Kiluminati is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. He refused sources that mentionned Hadi advance. The account appeared in December and he speaks of vandalism. He removes sources such as Masdar speaking advances loyalists and source map with Al Masira , official media Houthi . This is unacceptable. And he accused the others to vandalism. He had been warned here and here. 2016 (UTC) First, I ask Kilumnati cease to qualify those who do not think like him vandals or saboteurs . This is a personal attack and I demand punishment. For its wars of editions of removing information about advanced Yemeni government , just see his latest contributions . Enough 's enough of this pov pusher . And personal attacks , simply view comments for change , there's always a personal attack. Moreover, it is somewhat strong coffee that has come out of nowhere in December 2015 , already knows the community pages of Wikipedia and has the nerve to accuse of vandalism. So he who does not know the definition. Moreover, it is certain that behind the Kiluminati account hides an experienced account , perhaps even banned.@ Jytdog: Hello. I demand an immediate sanction against the puppet socket for general behavior on the encyclopedia. For Warring he did with @ LightandDark2000:, where it distorts the meaning of Article to deny that to update the map with the advancing troops Hadi . Furthermore, I demand punishment for his personal attacks, defamation that are calling me a vandal, saboteur and fanatical pro Hadi . Regards. Panam2014 ( talk) 09:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please lock the map module for 1 week? I'm sick and fed up with all the POV-pushing and edit warring that I'm still witnessing there. Despite the discussion here and the repeated attempt to discuss with User:Kiluminati, he is still using unreliable or seriously biased sources to reshape the map to his own views. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The final section header in the biographical entry for actor John Dye#After Life contains 11 inline cites, but those are not about the actor, but about the Supreme Court case regarding Obamacare. Because of such overabundance of irrelevant cites, the deletion of this controversial, as well as misplaced, section should have some form of consensus/support/agreement. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor (it could be one person or multiple people using IP addresses) is currently pushing the idea that Timothy Leary is a philosopher (see here, for instance). I think this is pretty obviously outrageous, and a violation of WP:NPOV. Leary has absolutely no recognition as a philosopher: his name is not mentioned in works of reference dealing with philosophy, and not one professional philosopher would recognize him as one. An IP has added a citation for the philosopher claim here, but in my view the source used is in no way reliable enough for this kind of extraordinary claim. I think the IP's edits need to be reverted, and if need be the article should be protected. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, there are a few legit sources out there that do describe Leary as a philosopher (among other things). The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, for example, describes him as "a psychologist, scientist, and philosopher who made substantive contributions to interpersonal theory and methodology and also gained notoriety for his endorsement of and research on hallucinogens." So the IP isn't completely off-base, although I'm skeptical that there are enough sources like this out there to justify using the "philosopher" label. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A similar point came up a while back in respect of more contemporary activist. As I noted in that debate, and as the RFC concluded, we need surely to be quite strict and consistent about what we mean when we describe someone as a "philosopher". The term is often used quite loosely in the real world for anyone who has opinions or theories about life and the wider world, as well as in a more formal academic or historical sense, and it should be latter that we focus on. Sources that may well be "reliable" in the broadest sense can often be found that say X or Y is a "philosopher", but we shouldn't blindly follow one or two randomly selected ones, especially when there's no guarantee they mean the same thing as others. This isn't a matter of sourcing per se but, as noted, a matter of what sources and what is meant by the term. N-HH talk/ edits 12:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is squatted on by someone who prevents any attempt to remove non-neutral language, and who may be associated in some way with the subject of the article. The article should obviously start by saying neutrally and verifiably what PokerStars is - an online poker web site. However, the user concerned disruptively replaces this with a non-neutral and uncited claim that it is "the largest online poker cardroom in the world". Over the last two years, they have reverted attempts to change this without ever seriously attempting to justify this in an edit summary. See [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Further biased edits by this user include [12], [13]. 217.144.146.41 ( talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC:_section_lede_of_Safety_section. RfC update: To date, this request for comment has brought one (1) new editorial voice to the discussion. The discussion involves issues of due weight and neutrality of point of view in a section lede. Respectfully request editors with experience in issues of neutrality please join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Evening Standard, a free newspaper, wrote of a restaurant, mentioning that "according to chef Fergus Henderson, drinking a Black Velvet at Sweetings "puts you in the mood for romance"". There is a debate here whether this sentence can be used as a humorous hook for a DYK or it should rather be regarded as advertisement. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka ( talk) 02:30, 8 April 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.
Links to discussion: [14], [15], [16] and [17]
Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Perceived problem: The title of this section (as of 21:28 April 8) is "Reports of war crimes and attacks on civilians". The heading looks POV and needs to be-written. Several editors are removing any and all attempts to rephrase the section title — diff, diff, diff.
Proposed changes: Reports of war crimes, Human rights concerns, Allegations of war crimes [18], Civilian casualties and criticism [19], Allegations, accusations and reports of war crimes [20], Alleged violations of international humanitarian law [21].
Related Articles:
Thanks for the help. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest Allegations of war crimes as the surest way. Dorpater ( talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh please. This is doubly ridiculous. First, it's ridiculous because the argument is that WP:TITLE prevents a section title from actually describing what the section is about. Which is of course nonsense. Second, it's ridiculous because, after getting completely worn out, frustrated and at the end of my patience with Tobby72's edit warring (which he does across multiple articles, against numerous editors - but always very carefully not to break 3RR or 1RR in this case) I actually started an RfC here. Even though it was really Tobby72's responsibility to start one since he's the one who wanted to make the change. Well, guess what? Unsurprisingly the RfC is not going according to Tobby72's wishes. Probably because it's absurd to insist that a section title cannot describe the contents of the section. So this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Which is bad faithed and disruptive.
(and no, the sources don't say "allegations of", that's a Wikipedia invention, an attempt to POV and WP:WEASEL what sources say). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
(unindent) There is nothing wrong with pursuing more than one form of dispute resolution and trying to get opinions from other users. One Rfc and one noticeboard post are hardly "forum shopping". You keep repeating it and repeating and repeating it, as if that would somehow make it true. It doesn't. Nor is this the first time you "accuse" others of pursuing dispute resolution. You have been warned and blocked recently for making bad faith accusations. Stop. Athenean ( talk) 10:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Possible violation of WP:NPOVTITLE is just one part of the problem. Could somebody please have a look at above mentioned article? This article, which has obvious POV issues, has been guarded to preserve its current content. Attempts to include contrary well-sourced information have been reverted (for example, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Jaysh al-Islam militants were accused of using civilians and prisoners as human shields – this information has been repeatedly removed see diff, diff, diff) – link to discussion: [22]. I think this is violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
This is regarding the article for the Iran nuclear agreement ( Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) ( link to prior discussion). It has been claimed that legal expert commentary arguing that the Iran nuclear deal violates international law—by failing to prohibit Iran's genocidal threats against Israel—reflects a fringe view and cannot appear at all in the article.
The "major legal experts" in question are extremely renowned Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz ( extended bio here), extremely renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin ( extended bio here), former U.S. Justice Department lawyer Lee A. Casey, and Louis René Beres ( extended bio here), an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.) The disputed views by these highly notable figures appeared in independent reliable sources such as The Wall Street Journal ( example) and The Hill ( example).
Material reflecting these views has been repeatedly removed because, according to the roughly 2 or 3 members of a supposed consensus against inclusion, the views are "random fringe", "pathetically tenuous", "simply ridiculous", and "tenuous leaps of judgment strung together, not a serious legal claim", and that they "completely lack[] credibility" and "cannot be taken seriously". No pretense is made that these are anything other than the completely uninformed, non-expert opinions of the WP editors themselves. (Separate query: do these really sound like straightforward, unemotional analyses by neutral and detached editors?)
To my mind, the FRINGE policy is quite clear: it deals with pseudoscience, preposterous theories such as Moon landing conspiracy theories, allegations that Paul McCartney has really been dead since 1966, etc.
Major expert commentary with which a Wikipedia editor might disagree is simply not included. This remains true even if the commentary amounts to criticism, and even if the object of the criticism is a diplomatic effort led by a popular U.S. President. I do not think there is any way the above figures and their commentary can be put within one earth orbit of WP:FRINGE, nor does WP:WEIGHT demand that these views be given a minimal presentation.
On a related note, it was even argued that because two of these authors were already cited on a separate point elsewhere in the article, it would somehow be "undue" to cite them again for some other point—a claim that I don't think has any basis anywhere in WP policy. They're major legal experts, and that is why RS's are soliciting and publishing their opinions in the first place. If RS's publish their significant expert opinions on two different issues, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including the published views on both issues, especially in an article that is already complex and deals with a vast array of conflicting viewpoints.
Proposed text is below.
Proposed text 1: In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey wrote that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an "obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide," Iran remained publicly committed to Israel's elimination. [1]
Proposed text 2: In September 2015, emeritus professor of international law Louis René Beres argued that Obama's refusal to demand Iran abandon its genocidal incitement and threats, before being permitted to nuclearize under the deal, constituted a serious violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and, thereby, also of U.S. law due to the priority given to international treaties under the Supremacy Clause and related case law. Beres also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT. [2]
Proposed text 3: Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said in an interview that the convention against genocide prohibits aiding genocide, and that by giving money to Iran under the deal, the U.S. was "aiding genocide. We're accessories to terrorism." [3]
Thanks in advance for feedback on the policy ramifications of these figures and commentary. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain ( talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Yes I think it is fringe, though interesting fringe. I do not think it belongs in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article and to have it there as well as giving a fringe opinion unwarranted attention it violates undue weight guidance. However what is fringe in one article can be notable in another - maybe a mention of it should be made on another article. It is taking a legal precept, the obligation to prevent genocide, and extrapolating it out into fields beyond that intended under that original legal precept. I do find the concept behind it to be important, but in this case it is just playing rather distasteful politics games at the expense of an important legal concept. However, personally I am encouraged to see it has been used, even if used wrongly and insincerely. I have in the past suggested that Armenia use this concept to demand international recognition of Nagorno Karabakh because Azerbaijan has, without doubt, a genocidal intent against Armenia and its actions if it were to ever regain NK would constitute genocide. From this, under the obligation to prevent Genocide, to support Azerbaijan's territorial position is to advocate genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
The Wikipedia Android app. shows candidate preference.
When viewing the "New York Democratic primary, 2016" page using the small screen of and Android device, you only see the picture of Hillary Clinton. The same does not occur from a PC browser where both Clinton and Sanders appear.
I believe this is due to the faulty display of the InfoBox Candidate. It only shows candidate1 which happens to be Clinton.
I find this bug disturbing at best. It should be fixed immediately. Alternately the infobox for candiates should be disabled. Believe it or not, this kind of structural prejudice influences voter choices thus subsequent elections. TimSpangler —Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
How about not having a picture of either? Kitfoxxe ( talk) 21:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You can reproduce the issue using the official Wikipedia Android app, not a browser. Indeed it is a giant banner of Clinton, and no Bernie. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Wendell Potter ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP added some caveats to this article, suggesting neutrality concerns in the edit summary. I just reverted as they didn't seem particularly WP:BLP compliant, but the article could use some extra eyes as it has needed depuffing/neutralizing in the past. VQuakr ( talk) 03:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sir. Gone through the description of Kushwaha/Kushwah/Maurya/shakya on your site.it was totally factually incorrect. You have taken the view of some unknown writer pinch,without understand the India conflict of brahiminsm & kastriya. On going under current of classifying other caste as low by Brahmins to maintain their ego & do greater harm to kastriya. I request you to kindly go through authentic docs at royal places & established history. Your article on Kushwah has hurted the sentiment of some 120 millions people.how 120 million can be wrong for centuries. If pif people living in England are not called English. Then whom so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.178.2 ( talk) 14:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide#RfC: Addition of content about Biharis and different figures regarding people killed and women raped. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy John's ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article just got protected after an edit war over an entire subsection dedicated to a supposed boycott that happened (or was proposed) last summer during the Cecil the Lion outrage. Basically, the founder has been criticized in the past for his big game hunting trips in Africa. I initially reverted the addition per WP:BRD because I think the recent event about the founder was given undue weight in the article about the company. The editor who added it and an anonymous editor then proceeded to edit war over it, rather than discuss it at Talk:Jimmy John's. So the article's protected.
Any additional input or advice would be highly welcome. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
At Authorship of the Bible an IP serially commits WP:ERA violations. Please help. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The IP is a corporate proxy. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This page needs the following edits:
I raised an RfC at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland#RfC: Should the Flag of Northern Ireland article say at the start there is currently no national flag for Northern Ireland. I believe the lead breaks NPOV by trying to make out that it is still the generally accepted flag of Northern Ireland as shown by its use in games and by being flown in some areas but playing down that it is banned from official use and lacking in overall community support. I'm not sure it'll make much difference to the outcome but it would be nice to know what some uninvolved people think one way or the other. Dmcq ( talk) 10:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a general dispute about WP:NPOV (and WP:SYNTH) as it applies to lists, and specifically an article consisting of a table. The point of disagreement is whether the table should be based on a single RS which all editors agree to use, or on all relevant RSs, which differ in their selection of rows (events) in the table. Below are the two latest comments in the exchange, which seem to summarize the two positions well enough (sariya refers to a type of event listed in the table):
The article is List of expeditions of Muhammad. Here's a link to the (long) discussion. Thanks in advance. Eperoton ( talk) 02:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here that could use some input, about whether to mention an article that compares the subject book to Mein Kampf. Toohool ( talk) 23:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is nominated at DYK and there are apparently concerns over it's neutrality. However, no specific point is mentioned there. Can any one please say how the issue can be fixed? Thanks. -- Mhhossein ( talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I wish I had time to look into this. I saw something go by on Recent changes, and was led to the section "Public Perception". It seems to me that statements and opinions are being presented as facts, and that the section, maybe even the whole article, needs some oversight. Thanks to whoever can help out. Drmies ( talk) 16:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
A discussion concerning neutrality is taking place at Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)#RfC: Does the title, hatnote, and lead of this article adhere to the neutral point of view policy?. Input from editors with experience in neutrality would be helpful. Thank you.— Godsy( TALK CONT) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the time at the moment, but someone should take a comb through John Thune. I already changed that he was "born in a small town, Pierre, South Dakota" to he was "born in the South Dakota state capital Pierre" but the entire bio is a marble-etched monument to Thune's blinding success in the face of his humbling modesty. There's also a lot of questionable sources, like genealogy websites. LavaBaron ( talk) 08:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality of this article is highly questionable. Someone keeps deleting my concerns off the Talk page.
There is obvious bias in that article; its dismissal section uses Jewish absence in parties other than Soviet communism (Bolshevism) as an argument for why they are not overrepresented in Soviet Bolshevism, which is ridiculous.
It also states in the beginning that this is an anti-semitic canard, but does not make an honest attempt at supporting that statement.
Third opinion needed.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism#Anti-semitic_canard.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.109.21 ( talk) 16:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps because her name has shown up on some longlists for Trump VP possibilities, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin has seen an uptick in editing, and some of the edits might be seen to be inconsistent with our NPOV policies. The article in its previous state was not perfect, and one persistent IP editor has made a series of changes that have consistently removed the negative content and added positive content, in some cases written in campaign-style promotional prose. [23] [24] [25] Attention from additional editors sensitive to NPOV issues would be very helpful. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Could we possibly get some more eyes on this article? I am an involved editor and do not have specific issues at the moment but the article is still missing significant implications for entire countries (Senegal and Uganda come to mind) and has been plagued by possibly-political edits by people who have not otherwise contributed. For example, the mention of international sanctions against Russia after it invaded the Ukraine was deleted, and nobody answered an invitation to discuss on the talk page. Mentions of Hillary Clinton have been moved into a subsidiary article which is AfD'ed, and supposedly erroneous material was deleted from the Bangladesh section. I have not had time to look into that one, and that editor may be correct, but that is the heart of the problem -- contentious material, and very few editors at the moment. Thanks to anyone who chips in. Elinruby ( talk) 22:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Currently, are we categorizing Crimea under Ukraine, Russia or both? While it seems that Crimea is currently mostly categorized under Ukraine, the head article ( Crimea) and some of the categories ( Category:Transport in Crimea, Category:Crimea geography stubs) are categorized under both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE violation at [26]. Please help. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussed with sources at Talk:New Testament#Reverting original research. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.
— From a source removed as stated above
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the problem has been solved by compromise. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Due weight issue in the History section of our project's article Automobile safety. Contended content:
On November 30, 1965, the book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile, by 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader, was published, and was a best seller in nonfiction by spring 1966. In February 1966, U.S. Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff asked Nader to testify before a Senate subcommittee on automotive safety. According to The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time John William McCormack, the United States Department of Transportation, and others, Nader and Unsafe at Any Speed helped the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles. [1] [4] [9] [10]
References
Nader, another poor boy, rose to national hero status on the critic's side of America's car wars. His 1965 best-seller Unsafe at Any Speed focused on the appalling accident record of Chevrolet's Corvair and was largely responsible for the congressional passage, in 1966, of the nation's first reasonably stringent auto safety law.
Few drivers could imagine owning a car these days that did not come with airbags, antilock brakes and seatbelts. But 50 years ago motorists went without such basic safety features. That was before a young lawyer named Ralph Nader came along with a book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," that would change the auto industry. It accused automakers of failing to make cars as safe as possible. Less than a year after the book was published, a balky Congress created the federal safety agency that became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — an agency whose stated mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce crashes...By the spring of 1966, "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a best seller for nonfiction...In September 1966 — about 10 months after the book was published — President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, requiring the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards, and creating an agency to enforce them and supervise safety recalls.
On this day in 1965, 32-year-old lawyer Ralph Nader publishes the muckraking book Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile. The book became a best-seller right away. It also prompted the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, seat-belt laws in 49 states (all but New Hampshire) and a number of other road-safety initiatives.
Unsafe at Any Speed, investigative report on U.S. automobile safety published in 1965 by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who was then a 31-year-old attorney. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-in Dangers of the American Automobile excoriated the American automotive industry, based in Detroit, for its prioritization of style and design over consumer safety. Nader's book eventually became a best seller and helped spur the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, the country's first significant automobile safety legislation.
Breaking into the traffic safety inertia was the publication in November 1965 of "Unsafe At Any Speed," a book written by Ralph Nader a 32-year-old Connecticut lawyer who had served as a consultant for the Department of Labor and a Senate subcommittee in 1964–65. House Speaker John W. McCormack (D Mass.) Oct. 21, 1966, credited the final outcome of the traffic safety bill to the "crusading spirit of one individual who believed he could do something…Ralph Nader."
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)
Nader's advocacy of auto-safety issues, helped lead to the passage of the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This legislation sought to reduce the rising number of injuries and deaths from road accidents by establishing federal safety standards for American-made vehicles, including safety belts.
Auto safety legislation was also partly the result of the publication of Ralph Nader's book, Unsafe at Any Speed, which acted as a catalyst for turning the auto safety movement into a legislative force.
The legislative branch had focused on driver behavior and road design until Ralph Nader (1965) and others convinced Congress that many of the 50,000 annual auto deaths resulted from unsafe car designs. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, one year before Ford began designing the Pinto, produced America's first significant federal auto regulation.
Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on 9 September 1966, this act created the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Coverage in Wikipedia is of course proportional to coverage in reliable sources WP:DUE; beyond the proportionality demanded by policy, we have vast noteworthy reliable sources explicitly stating the pivotal role of Ralph Nader in the history of automobile safety, including The New York Times, the Encyclopædia Britannica, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives at the time, and the United States Department of Transportation. The US is an industry leader, and the 1960s a watershed decade, and Ralph Nader a significant actor, in the history of automobile safety, and so they will always have due weight in History section of our article Automobile safety. Very obviously, the due weight of Ralph Nader, the book Unsafe at Any Speed, and Nader's congressional testimony in the History of Automobile safety is not none.
Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew? The contended content has been deleted multiple times. Arguments for exclusion advanced at article talk include tagging the contended content as off-topic, and a related claim of a bizarre undocumented editorial policy, local to our article Automobile safety, under which the History section is strictly limited to a simple listing of the dates of introduction of new safety features and new regulation, totally devoid of relevant context and background, see for example 11 April 2016, the intent of which seems to be to leave our readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety improvements delivered by benevolent manufacturers WP:READERSFIRST. At article talk the two (2) sentences mentioning Ralph Nader in the contended content were described as War and Peace and dismissed as "burning incense at the Shrine of St Ralph the Nadered." Further, in service of diminishing the significance of Nader, the significance of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself is non-neutrally deleted.
Our article Automobile safety is currently of size 22 kB (3538 words), "readable prose size", less than half of the size at which article length begins to be a concern WP:SIZE. Our article Automobile safety is unevenly sourced; the contended content is among the better sourced paragraphs.
Assistance from uninvolved colleagues with experience in the application of our project's neutrality pillar is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Attacking the motives editors in the NPOVN description is probably not the best way to start a neutral discussion. "Ralph Nader is loathed by some automotive enthusiasts, some of whom are Wikipedia editors. Who knew?" This is an attack on the motives of the other editors and an implication of bad faith. Springee ( talk) 17:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: HughD, please do not significantly modify or add to your comments after others have replied as you did here [ [27]]. It can create a false impression of the statements other editors were replying to. You have been warned about this several times including earlier today [ [28]]. Springee ( talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments on the contended content from uninvolved colleagues please? Thank you! Hugh ( talk) 15:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: editing material after the fact without clear notification can create false impressions of the talk page discussion. You have been told to please not do that by at least three editors in the last week or so. Here you are doing it again. [29] Springee ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This is not really an NPOV issue, but rather one of understanding the scope of the article. The lead makes it clear that it is a technical article, outlining the various safety technologies and features invented and implemented by the engineers. Social aspects would be rarely dealt with in such an article, if at all. For dealing with your topics, you probably want a separate article on Automobile safety legislation or something of that sort. Moreover, the legislation has more to do with the delivery of safety technologies, not the technologies themselves. So, it is understandable that the editors of that page do not welcome your content. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The article has a section History. A "History" section is entirely appropriate in any article that is not itself a "History of..." article. The exclusion of context and background on the basis of a claim that the article is "technical" has no basis in policy or guideline. We are asked to not simply recount dates and events, but to write prose with sufficient context and background that our readers may understand our articles. There is simply no basis in policy or guideline for a local editorial policy excluding certain aspects of the history considered unfavorably by a local consensus, and simply no basis in policy or guideline for a local editorial policy which specifies a simple listing of the dates of introduction of safety features or the dates of passage of key legislation, to the complete exclusion of context or background. This local editorial policy can only be understood as a pointed attempt to leave readers with the impression of a spontaneous stream of safety features delivered by a benevolent automotive industry. Editors opposing a balanced treatment of the history of automobile safety were asked at article talk to propose language for possible inclusion in the lede explicit stating their unusual ideas of scope, and declined, please see 27 April 2016. The discussion at Talk:Automobile safety is not of policy or guideline, it is of outright disdain for Ralph Nader, please see. Of course the resistance by the industry to safety features, and the roles of key actors, is widely represented in relevant reliable sources and is relevant to the history of automobile safety, but are conspicuously and non-neutrally excluded from our article. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 23:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Automobile safety is the study and practice of design cars, construction, equipment and regulation to minimize the occurrence and consequences of traffic collisions.
Led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, a campaign was launched to force vehicle producers to pay more attention to safety. The state responded with a series of regulations in the 1960s, intended to force reluctant manufacturers to improve safety standards.
This is a request for neutral editor(s) for the article Oyu Tolgoi mine. The subject of the article is, within the context of Mongolia and global copper mining, important and notable, but currently the article is subject to occasional anonymous edits which are demonstratively inaccurate or untrue, use citations out of context to create a misleading narrative effect, and have editorial/political bent. I have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia guidelines, as I work for the subject of the article, so I am requesting that editor(s) with a neutral point of view take on curating this article for accuracy and neutrality.
The main body of the article could use substantial work in being more factually accurate and having better citation. An example is in the milling and mining section:
This line is not cited, so it is unclear where these numbers come from. They are also inaccurate. The nameplate capacity of the mine concentrator is 100,000 tonnes per day, and it is the capacity currently expected even when the underground mine comes on line.
The “controversial issues” section suffers from both factual errors and an editorial bent that appears to violate the neutral point of view guidelines. An example is the line:
The line is verbatim and unquoted from the cited source, and it is being used out of context to imply that Oyu Tolgoi is jeopardizing the livelihoods of the herders. The entire section is constructed this way with many of the citations either being used out of context or arguably unrelated to the point being made.
Instead of a point-by-point refutation, I have prepared an alternative construction of the article as a potential starting point. This builds on the current article, removing the factual inaccuracies and attempts to be neutral throughout. Are there editors who will take this up and ensure this article meets Wikipedia’s standards? --
Chimeramind-timetraveler
Proposed rewrite
|
---|
--
Oyu Tolgoi mineThe Oyu Tolgoi mine (Mongolian: Оюу Толгой, also Oyu Tolgoi, Turquoise Hill) is a combined open pit and underground mining project in Khanbogd sum within the south Gobi Desert, approximately 235 kilometres (146 mi) east of the Ömnögovi Province capital Dalanzadgad.
HistoryEarly exploration and prospective work was carried out by Soviet and Mongolian geologists in the area now known as Oyu Tolgoi in the 1950s, which was followed by detailed state mapping surveys in the late 1980s. Broken Hill Proprietary Company (BHP) acquired exploration licenses for the area in 1996. [3] After drilling 23 holes over three years, BHP suspended its exploration activities and entered a joint venture with Canadian miner Ivanhoe Mines to continue exploration in the license area. [4]
Ore BodyOyu Tolgoi’s ore body is a series of copper-gold porphyry deposits running north-by-east to south-by-west across the eight by 10 kilometer mine license area. [15] The primary reserve case deposits are the Central Oyu Deposit (open-cut) and Hugo Dummett Deposit (underground). [16] The deposits extend beyond the current mine license area, and there are suggestions of a 26 kilometer mineralization trend inclusive of the current mining area. [17]
Mining and MillingOyu Tolgoi currently is an open-cut only operation generating US$1.63 billion in revenue on production of 202,200 tonnes of copper in concentrates in 2015. Ultimately it will be an open-cut and underground mining operation. Ore is mined from the open-pit using shovels and haul trucks, and is crushed and conveyed overland to a concentrator. [20]
FinancingOyu Tolgoi is funded by a combination of equity and shareholder loans. [24] In December 2015, Oyu Tolgoi’s shareholders signed a US$4.4 billion project finance facility with a consortium of international financial institutions and 15 commercials banks. [25] Corporate StructureOyu Tolgoi is owned by Turquoise Hill Resources (a majority owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto) and the Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi (a Government of Mongolia owned holding company) with 66% and 34% stakes, respectively. The company is overseen by a board of directors with representatives appointed by the shareholders in proportion to their ownership stake. There are nine members of the board, including the Chairman, with three members appointed by the Government of Mongolia. [26]
ReferencesReferences
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeramind-timetraveler ( talk • contribs)
Restraining Order — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.120.116 ( talk) 09:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The annexation of Crimea is a sensitive topic in general and it is often hard to find NPOV on it. This article, however, just openly promotes the Russian POV. It avoids anything that might make a reader question legality of the topic, fails to properly address a position of the international community and misleads a reader about the current legal status of the subject. It is also poorly categorized, being directly connected to both Ukrainian and Russian politics in the region as well as to the whole Russia-Ukrainian conflict, it have been put only into "Crimean politics" category, like it is some boring regional law of low global importance.
Unfortunately, my attempts to address these issues were altogether removed by User:Ymblanter. My attempts to discuss this with him directly did not work, he seem to be inclined to keep the article biased. To avoid the changes war, I made an account of the issues at the talk page and I ask the community to give it some attention.
AMartyn ( talk) 11:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Regrettably, this page is once more the subject of a dispute over whether or not the lede should acknowledge the organization's financial ties to the Koch family. I think some outside input would help, please see this removal and this section of the talk page. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple POV issues currently being discussed on the talkpage, but I'll start with one:
Talk:Suicide bag#Chabot is a euthanasia expert. The statement in question is in the
History section of the article. It says, Dutch psychiatrist Boudewijn Chabot, in his 2015 book Dignified Dying, calls the suicide bag with inert gas method "rapid, painless and safe",
which is sourced to a self-published book by Chabot. According to
Alexbrn, this is an NPOV issue as opposed to RS since the self-published source is reliable source for Chabot's own statements, and the question is if including controversial material from Chabot's self-published work is giving due/undue weight to his POV. Have I given enough context?
—PermStrump
(talk) 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Multiple users in different places have requested review of information about LGBT issues at a Catholic school. I am asking for comment from the following places -
The article is Marian High School (Bloomfield Township, Michigan). Not all users have found their way to the talk page, but there are requests for comment from multiple people. Diverse perspectives would be welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Some editors have raised concerns that Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982) has a POV slant. At the very least, it takes some stances on the legitimacy of certain claims, and there are several instances where it uses words to avoid. Could an experienced editor who isn't afraid to wade into the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict take a look? See this DYK nomination for an idea of what specific concerns were raised. Thanks. ~ Rob Talk 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The following page: /info/en/?search=Caro%E2%80%93Kann_Defence contains a pointless, derogatory, offensive cultural slur that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to belittle the group in question. It in no way serves any instructional, historic, or factual function.
Specifically, the authors/maintainers of the Caro-Kann Defense Wiki page (a chess opening) refer to a certain line that is sometimes played as the "Hillbilly Attack," stating that the line is used by weak players. "Hillbilly Attack" is not an "official" name for the line and the word "hillbilly" is nowhere to be found in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). "Hillbilly" is a derogatory term. It is not "cute," it is not "harmless," it is an insult directed toward Americans of Southern heritage (whether it is specific to those in Appalachian regions is irrelevant).
The line in question would more accurately - and appropriately - be called the "2.Bc4 Attack" because that is the nomenclature of the move in question. I have edited the page but others insist on keeping the offensive and purposeless pejorative as is. It is nothing more than a derogatory gouge at Southerners, period.
I submit that there is no place in the lexicon of chess - or Wikipedia - for spiteful, pointless, derogatory nonsense like this. Other cultures/sub-cultures reserve the right to stand up against bigotry of this type, and my culture is no less worthy of respect than any other.
There is NOTHING UNREASONABLE in asking that the the line in question be referred to by a more accurate and civilized term. No one is going to object to the far more accurate and appropriate "2.Bc4 Attack." E1e10p ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I acted exactly in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, WP:RS and WP:RSOPINION in Religious views of Adolf Hitler, the User:Ian.thomson reverted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&action=history John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk) 09:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
What was in the article violated policies of Wikipedia. John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk) 09:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You should read the policies I cited. John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk) 10:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.", WP:RS/AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.", does it DIRECTLY say that in the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith Doe, The Person ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Source 2 is used because of:
[31]
@ Ian.thomson: Why did you pick this? Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Reading the link to Source 2, it does start out by saying that "one aspect of our understanding of Nazism remains largely uncontested: the belief that ... Nazism itself could not be described as a Christian movement." So that quote doesn't address Hitler's specific religious beliefs at all. But then, author Steigmann-Gall goes on to say that he, for one, isn't buying this 'academic consensus', but that he is going to challenge it by showing that many Nazi Party elite members were, in fact, Christian.
Google books preview of Source 1 is here: [32] I sure can't find any statement about near-unanimous scholarly views on Hitler's religion, neither at the cited p. xiv, nor on any other page by searching for the word 'Christian'.
The Wiki article states: "Steigmann-Gall concluded that Hitler was religious at least in the 1920s and early 1930s, citing him as expressing a belief in God, divine providence, and Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[78]"
So Steigmann-Gall does argue here that Hitler held Christian views, albeit far from orthodox.
Here is an RS confirming that there is a lively and ongoing scholarly debate on whether Hitler was an unorthodox Christian who believed in an Aryan Christ who was an opponent to the Jews: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/18/3480312.htm JerryRussell ( talk) 20:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here to get more eyes on this page, and for a discussion on whether a "controversies" page is appropriate. It seems like a well-wirtten and well-sourced article, but I'm not sure if the existence of a "contoversies about company X page" is allowed or desired. PLease use ping in your replies if possible. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 17:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The question posted by the RfC is as follows:
How should the current news story regarding the question over Kyle's awards be presented in the article?
In addition to the allegations of off-site canvassing, the text of this RfC is pathetic. Can an admin please step in here? 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
When I tried to tag the article for improvements, I was reverted without any fixes. The article on June 7th 2016 reads like an admissions brochure. The article is well-referenced but all of the references point to positive achievements and don't even try to give any kind of a balanced view. There's no mention of how Stanford failed to release the mugshot of its student rapist or any criticism whatsoever.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"...The university is also one of the top fundraising institutions in the country, becoming the first school to raise more than a billion dollars in a year ... Stanford's academic strength is broad with 40 departments in the three academic schools that have undergraduate students and another four professional schools.... and companies founded by Stanford alumni generate more than $2.7 trillion in annual revenue, equivalent to the 10th-largest economy in the world .... It is also one of the leading producers of members of the United States Congress...." (okay, that is a criticism) ...The Stanford University Libraries (SUL) hold a collection of more than 9.3 million volumes, nearly 300,000 rare or special books, 1.5 million e-books, 2.5 million audiovisual materials, 77,000 serials, nearly 6 million microform holdings, and thousands of other digital resources, making it one of the largest and most diverse academic library systems in the world ...Notably, the Center possesses the largest collection of Rodin works outside of Paris, France ... Stanford has a thriving artistic and musical community ... Stanford is one of the most successful universities in creating companies and licensing its inventions to existing companies; it is often held up as a model for technology transfer..."
I am not sure why this discussion is happening here rather than on the article's talk page. Now that it is here, my feeback is not particularly sympathetic. I think Tomwsulcer would benenfit from a careful reading of WP:NPOV. There is nothing there that says that positives and negatives have to be balanced or that any negatives have to be present at all. It just says that all viewpoints found in reliable sources must be represented, paying attention to the WP:DUE weightage. If there are reliable sources that comment on "white privilege" issue, by all means include them. The only problem I see with the article is a bit of WP:PEACOCK wording, which can be cured by a good copy editing pass. To add a worthwhile negative issue, try looking up "stanford research grant overheads." -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, a World War II biography. The reassessment page can be found here. Part of the reassessment deals with the article's neutrality and thus falls within the scope of this noticeboard:
Interested editors are encouraged to take part and comment on whether they believe the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. Regards, K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that what looks like several editors are introducing non-neutral language into this article. Page protection might be needed. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue is with the paragraph describing his death. The current wording, insisted upon by User:Pmaster12 and inserted by him, says that Dejean-Jones "entered" the apartment where he was killed and then was attempting to "enter" the bedroom when he was shot. All of the sources describe the act of entering as either "kicking in the front door" or something close to that (rather than, say, opening the door with a key), and say that the resident shot through the bedroom door as Dejean-Jones was kicking at it/trying to break through it. See [33], [34], [35]. It seems to me that the manner of entering is an important aspect of this story and must be mentioned in this article, and that omitting such an important aspect creates a clear WP:WEIGHT problem. The article is currently posted on the main page via ITN, so this matter does need to be addressed quickly. Nsk92 ( talk) 02:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
See I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. I don't care I'm not looking for that. I'm doing my best to put the appropriate information and improving the articles. Not on how it looks or whether he's innocent or not like I said on numerous times that's irrelevant. That's it. So let's get that out. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of his team that's why I said that your argument is kind of getting a little delusional. You bringing famdom just shows me how low you get to try to convince others but yourself that you are obviously looking for something here to gain. Like I said numerous times keep your personal feelings about this situation to yourself because if that's not bias editing. You Jim Michael are the only one here in the discussion that cares about innocence or guilt and trying to measure intent which I've said multiple times now. It's means the same thing just worded differently. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The police would know what entering means. You Jim Michael know what enter means but you Jim Michael probably have a personal gain. Like I said before you Jim Michael are the only one that cares about the other irrelevant things. You are still trying to brainwash yourself and other editors that you don't understand the word enter means. I know you Jim Michael are smarter than that. I know you have your personal feelings about this situation while editors are the opposite the ones in this discussion. I could care less about the subject being innocent or guilt which that should not be in your mind when you are editing these articles especially something controversial like this if you were not bias. Otherwise you would not still be going on about this subject which to me this is a non issue. Pmaster12 ( talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Let me tell you something you are the one is ranting and raving about crime and the wording of this article. YOU Jim Michael ARE the one starting editing warring over something that's really a non-issue. That's what I'm saying. I'm going to tell you this again, hear me clearly cause you really are stretching this. I don't care if editors agree with me or not. You Jim Michael care about being right. I don't care because it's this is neutral point of view so if you are looking for editors or users to agree with you so you can feel like your good about yourself. That's your thing. If that makes you Jim Michael feel good go ahead. This is all about discussion. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
YOU NEED TO STOP ranting about innocence or guilt which that is irrelevant in these sources. YOU go somewhere else with that but don't start editing warring over something that's non issue. It's ok to disagree because that's what this noticeboard is about but turn this a edit war which you started. I'm the wrong editor for that. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You are the only one whining and complaining looking for agreement for your personal gain which that's not what this noticeboard is about it's about getting issues resolved. Pmaster12 ( talk) 21:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about me being neutral that's your problem you are trying to measure every editors intend that works your personal gain or feelings about this article because if that wasn't the case you would not be edit warring. My editing it means same just worded differently. You keep on going and going on how this article should make the subject look bad which that should not matter to you at all. Where Previous discussions are you care is how the subject looks in the article and all I said is that argument is irrelevant. That's it and this is resolved. Pmaster12 ( talk) 17:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I notice three issues after reading the sources: (1) There is no mention of DeJean-Jones taking a walk before the break-in, though it is obvious he left the g/f or acquaintance's apartment. Though to say he only took a walk is unknown, until there is more information (like the pending toxicology report mentioned in the sources). (2) There is no mention of the fact the resident called out to DeJean-Jones, but received no response. (3) There is no mention that after being shot, DeJean-Jones left the apartment and collapsed in the breezeway. At this point, only the known facts should be in the article, not any guesses onto what happened. As more facts are released, they should be added and linked as is, imo. Nobody1231234 ( talk) 08:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a relevant RfC about the content in the lead section of Singapore. See Talk:Singapore#RfC about lead section. Would appreciate more inputs there. Thank you. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Cleveland , see "Nickname yet Again" section
Basically, there is a contingent that feels "Mistake by/on the Lake" should not be included in the introduction, due to the nickname being old or pejorative. However, other nicknames in the same section, including "Sixth City" and "Metropolis of the Western Reserve", are even more old/outdated, and in the case of Sixth City, currently flat out false (Sixth City refers to the size of the city, of which Cleveland has not been the Sixth City for decades). In my opinion, there are three possible fixes: removing all of these nicknames from the introduction, keeping all of the names, or keeping it as is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?&diff=725338342&oldid=725288477 :Keeping all names versus as is https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=722056284&diffonly=1 :Line 102 edit would be an example of removing all nicknames from the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody1231234 ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm posting here in hopes of getting some feedback from uninvolved editors about the issue I started a discussion about at Talk:Universal_Windows_Platform_apps#NPOV. The article is Universal Windows Platform apps. The dispute seems to lie in that I perceive the tone of the article text in the "Distribution and Licensing" and "Lifecycle" sections as non-neutral, but not everyone does. I'd be very grateful for some more opinions from the community about what the best solution is here. Thanks! :) —{{u| Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹| T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Article: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
Perceived problems:
Proposed changes (see diff):
"Civil rights activist told ARA News that "ISIS militants prevent the people of Manbij and Jarablus from leaving their hometowns despite the fierce airstrikes by Russian warplanes". The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Turkish-supported Jaysh al-Islam rebels were accused of using civilian residents of towns, Alawite civilians and captured Syrian soldiers as human shields."
References used in the proposed text:
Related Articles:
Thank you for any help you are able to provide. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 13:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"Simply noticing that "during strikes by Russian aviation people were prevented from leaving their homes by ISIS" in the end of a paragraph somewhere might be OK, but you need a consensus for this on article talk page."Instead of discussing this rationally on the talk page, you've thrown various issues into the pot. Please don't use this noticeboard as a general complaints department board about all of things you don't like across articles. The ISIS business has been dealt with: it was not a tactic used specifically as insurance against attacks by the Russian military. Your other content complaints are being discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles, so prolonging this here is inappropriate. You are explicitly using this board to point your finger at specific editors as being 'culprits'. If that is your belief, it's an issue for the ANI, not for the NPOVN, the RSN, or any boards dealing with content issues. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Volunteer Marek, what the sources say is that ISIL and Jaysh al-Islam were using human shields to try to prevent Russian attacks. If the problem is that the use of this information implies an unwarranted conclusion, why do you say that more careful rewording can't prevent the reader from making this conclusion? For example, the article could add: "According to Amnesty International, war crimes by one party to a conflict do not justify war crimes by the other." Ref: https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2015/03/palestinian-armed-groups-killed-civilians-on-both-sides-in-attacks-amounting-to-war-crimes-during-2014-gaza-conflict/
On what basis are you asking for more sources, and what would you like those sources to say? If it doesn't belong in this section, perhaps it belongs in a new section? The article includes many items describing responses to the Russian military intervention, so this information certainly is relevant to the topic.
It would be more helpful if you would contribute to the process of finding a way to include this information that's compliant with all Wiki policies, rather than trying to exclude it. I agree completely with Tobby72, that simply excluding the information is a violation of NPOV, and does not make Wiki a better encyclopedia. JerryRussell ( talk) 21:51, 18 June 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.
This is regarding a content dispute at the chess article. User:Ihardlythinkso wants to include the term "orthochess" as a synonym for chess in the article's infobox. By way of explanation, "orthochess" is used by some to distinguish "orthodox chess" (i.e. chess played by standard rules) from the many chess variants. It is rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess; google book search and google ngram confirm this. The word appears to be the invention of one David Pritchard, an expert on chess variants, and appears in David Parlett's Oxford History of Board Games. IHTS is arguing that this single source justifies inclusion in the infobox. My argument is that the term "orthochess" is not widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public, and to include the term in the article's infobox is giving it too much prominence, amounting to undue weight. The term is mentioned in the section on chess variants and that is more than enough. MaxBrowne ( talk) 08:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sincere thanks to MaxBrowne for opening this item. The full discussion is here. As far as MaxBrowne's arguments, of course the term is "rarely if ever used in standard works on the game of chess" -- why would a work on chess have any need to use any term other than 'chess'? The term is used in contexts of other varieties of chess to distinctly identify the standard game defined by international chess body (FIDE) rules. When Partlett says in The Oxford History of Board Games "Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on", it seems plain those alternate names would only be used where there might be ambiguity with the standard game. The term "Western chess", which also appears in the article infobox as synonym for 'chess', is the same (would only need to be used in a context where there could be ambiguity), and, MaxBrowne clearly has no problem with that. In fact all of the game name synonyms listed are really only needed or used in that same context. The idea of an encyclopedic article is to provide readers pertinent info. How the game might be referred to in the context of other varieties of chess is part of that info. And sourcing it from The Oxford can't be a better reliable source. ¶ There is no WP requirement on the {{Infobox game}} template 'AKA' (Synonyms) parameter to be "widely used or accepted either by chess players or by the general public" as MaxBrowne states. (How do I know this? Because I am the editor who added the AKA parm to that template! I did so as a parallel to the same parameter which exists in {{Infobox chess opening}} template, and as can be seen by many article examples using both templates and the AKA/Synonyms parm, there's never been the requirement that MaxBrowne states. Rather, the synonyms listed just have to meet verifiability w/ a reliable source. (MaxBrowne specifically got involved to clean up synonyms at article Danvers Opening, and none of those synonyms meet the requirement MaxBrowne has stated above; again, they were acceptable to be included as synonyms by MaxBrowne if they met verifiability/RS requirement.) ¶ As far as the term having "too much prominence" in the infobox, my gosh, it is at the bottom, and the last synonym listed. (To be fair, an editor at one point changed the location of the AKA parameter which I had added, and moved it to the position of first parameter in the template. I moved it back to last place, like in the {{Infobox chess opening}} template, contending that the synonyms list was "nice to know" info, but shouldn't be displayed first, which could distract/obscure the more substantive subject content in the infobox. In other words in that case I would agree w/ MaxBrowne, that info would be in "too much prominence" in the infobox if listed first. At the same time I can also see the logic of the editor who moved the parm to first position, since in articles, MOS policy wants any article name synonyms listed in the lede opening in bold. In the case of game Nine Men's Morris, synonyms are listed in the lede opening according to MOS, but I still think listing them first in the infobox would be ill-advised for reason already stated. In the case of Chess, *none* of the game name synonyms in the infobox are listed in the lede, and I agree with that choice, since again, all those synonyms are in the context of other varieties of chess, whereas when synonyms are not in another context, e.g. Nine Men's Morris or Danvers Opening, they are best listed in the lede per MOS. So this is a bit more complex than first look. For example I'm wondering how MaxBrowne would feel if the infobox synonyms he does accept in the article Chess infobox, are listed per MOS in bold in the Chess article lede? If the answer is that he does not like that, then I would argue, that the entire Chess synonyms list in the infobox, should therefore go away. Bottom line is I think there are two different functions that infobox game name synonyms lists are serving, and current MOS doesn't reflect that, and we shouldn't force a policy onto something new which wasn't envisioned by the policy, unless were're consistent about doing so. And even then it'd be a bad idea, since it squashes useful info to the reader.) Ok, IHTS ( talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I really would appreciate some uninvolved admin intervention at this point because this guy (sorry to say) is utterly exasperating to deal with. Rather than discuss, he WP:BLUDGEONs with walls of text that are impossible to address point by point, mixed in with plenty of irrelevant ad hominem stuff. He has no consensus to introduce the obscure term "orthochess" into the infobox, giving it undue prominence, and is attempting to get his way by bullying. MaxBrowne ( talk) 09:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
See what I mean? The guy is a bully. Intervention is required. MaxBrowne ( talk) 13:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This U.K. educator has apparently a bit of a cultus among home-schoolers and school reformers. The existing article is a rather hagiographical account of her life and methods, breathlessly recounting every detail of her doctrines and practices, almost all sourced solely to Mason's works and those of her advocates. NPOV is not preserved; and the total effect seems to me to push the walls of WP:UNDUE as well. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I changed the name of a section heading in Ahmed Mohamed clock incident preceding speculation on ulterior motives from Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories to simply Controversy. Some editors insist "conspiracy theories" must be maintained in the section heading. I find no clear support in RS for classifying all speculation as "conspiracy theories" or even that the suggested motives involved conspiracy. I'd be open to other neutral wording but I strongly object to including "conspiracy." D.Creish ( talk) 00:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The Dallas Morning News ... referred to some comments and claims that emerged in the aftermath of the incident as conspiracy theories.Labelling something a conspiracy theory is contentious and should be avoided unless there is clear consensus, which is not the case here. D.Creish ( talk) 01:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Multiple sources [...] specifically use the phrase "conspiracy theories"You're correct. Here are a number that don't: Dallas News which cites "police skepticism" about Ahmed's claims, a Guardian piece on doubts raised by Richard Dawkins, The Hill, National Review, Fox News. The claim is clearly contentious. I argue contentious claims make for non-neutral section headings. D.Creish ( talk) 02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
But officers still didn’t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story.under the heading
Police skepticism. Is this the one you suggest "doesn't mention it at all" or does it qualify as opinion, where Selk's later article in the same paper which is critical of the skepticism and currently cited qualifies as fact? D.Creish ( talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
See discussion here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Expulsion_of_Cham_Albanians#Balkan_Wars_-_OR_.2F_POV DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 00:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)