This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
What about homeopathy? Every sentence/statement on that article is criticised and no defense is being allowed. In fact, some of the false propoganda/accusations are inflammatory.e.g.calling it pseudoscience, placebo therapy and quackery (scientific studies which prove its' efficacy aren't being allowed a mention on the article and a WHO document stating that licenses and professional qualifications are needed in most countries to practice it, are repeatedly taken out from the Lead, although it remains lower down in the article). A lot of skeptics who've been banned from other alt. med. articles (like Osteopathy, Naturopathy and Chiropractic) are still active on the article on homeopathy. I'm new here (by the number of edits/posts), so I want someone to mediate/arbitrate-in fact I've stopped editing anything on wikipedia in disgust for more than a month now. Please help!-
NootherIDAvailable (
talk) 03:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of
User:Dr.Jhingaadey --
Brangifer (
talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
I'd posted this above, but due to low visibility I'm putting it under a new section, I hope someone can reply:-
To add some context to this discussion, NootherIDAvailable's recent edit to homeopathy was reverted as it introduced bad grammar, and he then went on to make the astounding claim on the talk page here that homeopathy cures cancer. Even homeopathic associations have denounced that quackery, and that is exactly the sort of thing we should keep out of WP. Verbal chat 08:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think in addition to topic-blocking this editor, Wikipedia administration should contact his local authorities. I’m pretty sure that practising medicine without a licence is a serious crime in most of the English-speaking world. — NRen2k5( TALK), 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen this editor promoting that homeopathy works since his very first edit. He behaves in a combative way, twisting policies to fit his purpose. For an example, see the WP:POINT that he made when he was told about "writing for the enemy" and then he perverted it by menacing to add a lot of very negative stuff in purpose [1] [2]. That was not a good faith attempt to bring NPOV to the article. His first edit to the Talk:Homeopathy was also a WP:POINT [3]. This editor should be topic banned now. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sea888 ( talk · contribs) is insisting that the lead in the Strikeforce article should say "Strikeforce is a world class [...] promotion" (emphasis mine) as opposed to the (IMO) NPOV "an U.S.-based [...] promotion" on the basis that "they have many ranked fighters, and fighters from all over the world" and a press release from Strikeforce. Input appreciated.
There's also another issue in the article related to naming two fighters the concensus two best in the world (see my post at WT:MMA if interested), but let's stick to one issue at the time. Cheers, -- aktsu ( t / c) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) I think any statement put into the article that a promotion (in this case Strikeforce) is "world class" it had better be backed up by "reliable, third-party, published sources" (from WP:RS). The only source for that statement currently is a press release put out jointly by Strikeforce and Showtime; that would not be a third-party source. If User:Sea888 can come up with other sources that prove that claim, then great. If no other sources can be found, then it should be removed and Strikeforce simply be referred to as a "US based promotion" of which there is no doubt. This description would also put it in line with other MMA promotion articles, such as UFC. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the neutrality of a section in Cham Albanians article, which recenty became GA. I and User:Factuarius have presented two different paragraphs for Cham_Albanians#Greek-Italian_War_.281940.E2.80.931941.29 section of that page. User:Factuarius refuses to get the point of wiki policies and NPOV issues. SO, I am reporting it here and I am waiting for resposne from admins and editors.
User:Factuarius version (which he has put in the article without consensus) is:
My version is
The major problem of this point, is that User:Factuarius refuses to use inlines of Fischer and Vickers putting an one-sided version of the story. My objections are: "Factuarius says "On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep.", although Fischer, states that he is possibly killed by Greek police. Factuarius says that "He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before.", although Vickers and Fischer, state that he was a leader of Chams. Factuarius says that "Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.", and cite it with Ruches, although Ruches states that there were 3,500 Albanians not Chams." Also he has removed this sentence "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]", which is totally sourced, by saying that he cannot find it online in google books, although I showed to him that it is online and that he may read it.
Factuarius response to this concers is that "Between a "possible" source and a certain source we prefer the certain not the possible", and that because Fischer says that Hoxha was "possibly" killed by Greek police, while Piercon does not say that that is "possible". Also he is misciting Ruches source, as I have explained above.
This dispute has more than a week in here; I have tried to contact with uninvolved editors and admins to intermediate in this dispute; but till now nobody has done that. For me, it is impossible to discuss with User:Factuarius, who again and again answers to those concerns with non-wiki arguments, such as "Although I understand that my oppinion is not the only one, but I prefer that from the others", and other like this. I have reworded that section more than 3 times, reaching this point, which I think is the NPOV-ist, but Factuarius keeps reverting every my edit in that page. (I may say that I have not been as civil as I should, due to the refusal of Factiuarius to get the point, and I have asked him sorry, and that I might have been edit-warrig before three days, when I reverted the page 3 times, but it was not intended to get my POV in it, but to get to the NPOV-ist version as I argued, by rewording the section again and again; on the other hand the same problems are with Factuarius which actually has broked 3RR). I need an opinion from admins and editors, about this dispute, because I am not able to discuss any more with Factuarius. Which is the NPOV-ist version of the above? Thanks in advance, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What I found in that article is the folowing:
Three cases of falsification of sources.
Falsification of source nr.4.
Falsification of source nr.5.
Falsification of source nr.6.
This page has a major problem from extented falsification of its sources and I need assistance to double check it all, Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As it is now you only protecting the version of article with the falsifications (see above). By protect it in such a condition, we only allowed to continue to mislead the readers of the article for a week more and thus rewarding their "work". As an administrator you are in position to alter that. They avoided any discussion about the falsifications of the references never answer a word about although had been asked. Don't rewarding them by protecting them. Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
In reviewing this more fully, and in looking over the page history, as well as taking some time to get better informed with the issue being warred over, Factuarius is hereby given a three month topic ban in line with the remedies at WP:ARBMAC. Page protection will be reduced to semi from full protection. Factuarius will be blocked if he continues to edit this article, or the article's talk page for three months. Other involved editors are advised to refrain from engaging in edit wars on this or any other article, and may feel free to report this issue to my talk page directly if further assistance is required. Hiberniantears ( talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. This issue relates specifically to WP:NPOV#Article naming and related policies/guidelines. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Over on the article, there is a user Sturunner and an IP (who I suspect of being one and the same) that are repeatedly changing words like "handling" to "concealing" and "actions" to "malfeasance". Frankly, I think words like "malfeasance" leap over the line into the realm of vandalism, but I tried to talk about it on the talk page anyways. I am, however, being ignored. Can I get input from anyone? Like I said, I consider it outright vandalism, but at the least it's gotta be blatantly non npov, right?
P.S. - this is the corret place for this, right? I'm not used to reporting stuff like this. Farsight001 ( talk) 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles stated above seemingly lean towards the disparagement of the two drugs. Though the articles are relatively well cited, they read as if we are taking a position against their use. There have been discussions on the talk pages of both articles noting the immense amount of POV issues with the article. For Paroxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Though some of those concerns were brought up by the now blocked Mwalla, I do believe they serve a point here (to say how unstable the article is). For Duloxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The links, by themselves, are mentioned for two purposes; one to show the history and development of the article, and two, how those edits vibrate to the current article. If possible, I'd like to obtain comments from other editors on the articles and how they feel about wording, citations, criticisms, etc. blurred peace ☮ 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For a year now, a certain editor has continued to delete all mention of the classified documents and conspiracy theories about Jonestown. The classified documents and conspiracy theories are widely discussed in the best reliable sources, and even appear in the sources used in the article, but no mention is allowed. Instead, the user has forked out all of the conspiracy content to Jonestown conspiracy theory but there is not a single word in the main article about this content except for a link buried in the {{ Peoples Temple}} template footer. Furthermore, there is no mention of the classified documents that are discussed in most reliable sources on the topic and are ironically blamed for giving rise to the conspiracies. A good overview of this topic can be found in a scholarly article here, and is covered by many news articles, such as this one in the San Francisco Chronicle. The number of reliable sources covering this topic is staggering, yet they are not allowed to even be mentioned in the article. What is incredibly strange and peculiar, is that there are literally dozens of sources about the classified documents and conspiracy theories on the "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" website, sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. [4] This website is cited around 70 times in the current article, yet not a single reference appears to these two topics. Could someone help resolve this problem? I have used the talk page to raise this issue, but my questions, proposals, and answers have been ignored. I have added the {{ NPOV}} tag, but it continues to get removed. Per NPOV, these significant topics need to be discussed in relation to the topic. Here are some facts that are being deliberately left out of the article:
Why are these historical facts prevented from appearing the article? Viriditas ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This NPOV incident was filed here to receive a response from a neutral, uninvolved editor. That is, after all, the point of this noticeboard.
(od)There is not "NPOV incident" and, as many editors have explained to you, of course several "major author and scholars" have discussed the existence of the Jonestown conspiracy theory -- no one HAS EVER disputed the existence of the theory. In fact, it has it's own article Jonestown conspiracy theory, which is already linked and discussed in a sentence in the article now, precisely like the far more notable Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories in the Apollo 11 article. As has been explained SEVERAL TIMES, just because "major author and scholars" discuss the Jonestown conspiracy theory, does not mean that it must be discussed at length in the article Jonestown itself when it has its own article. And the false statements you've made about me and other editors are now so commonplace that no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end. Mosedschurte ( talk) 07:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You have posted minor variations of the same post 3 different times. Each of those posts contains an attack upon the editor and in no way address the content under question. You have grossly lumped all of my postings into a bad faith characterization of "an angry response", blatantly ignored any attempts to respond to you as "crud" and "spamming crud" and engaged in pointy disruption both here and at the article talk page. And now you challenge the opinion of an uninvolved editor who said he didn't see this as an NPOV issue. This has gone on long enough. The bad faith personal attacks have gone on long enough. I'm sorry, you've shot your credibility as far as I'm concerned. You've failed to prove your point. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(od)
And why is that link to another language version on this page???? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Various new accounts and IP editors are pushing the golpista line in regards to the 2009 Honduran political crisis, both on that article and on related ones like Manuel Zelaya, Roberto Micheletti, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, Politics of Honduras and especially Honduran constitutional referendum, 2009. Many of them are even insisting that the events cannot be called a coup d'état, even though that's the universal conclusion of everyone from the Wall Street Journal to Obama to the OAS to Fidel Castro. Things will probably stabilize as the single-purpose accounts drop off, but it would be nice to have reasonably neutral articles available while the crisis is still ongoing (especially since Google News indexes us now.) < eleland/ talk edits> 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 ( talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The title of the above article reflects a slanted point of view. The part that I am contending is the preposition "on." Saying attacks "on" Pakistan implies military action against the country of Pakistan, as opposed to rogue al-Qaeda and Taliban targets. The preposition "in" instead of "on" would be accurate. I attempted to move the article to Drone attacks in Pakistan by the United States, but it was moved back, and currently stands as a redirect page. JEN9841 ( talk) 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 ( talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:
Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.
The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:
In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.
Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."
Thanks! Serpent More Crafty ( talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "This day by day remembrance of the Tiananmen Square revolt starting April 8th 1989 is in memory of all those who lost their lives, stood up for the Chinese people’s human rights and exhibited some of the most moving and extraordinary acts of bravery and courage in our history. It was a seven-week fight for democracy where students, worker’s ordinary men and women stood up in a non-violent protest against the Communist Government of China. It also demonstrated the most evil side of men and how far they would go to save their tyrannical rule and system. That same system that rules China today. In honor of all the Chinese heroes and their families that participated, we present this recap of the course of events that happened on each day of those seven weeks." Need I say more? This topic is way outside my domain of editing, so I'm not going to do anything more after bringing it up here. Looie496 ( talk) 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look and give advice how to continue? I contested a user's additions about child pornography, it seems he does not join the discussion on the
talk page. Thanks -
83.254.210.47 (
talk) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The Nikolai Velimirovic article has been tagged as not neutral and factually disputed since March 2008. I came across it, and tried to contribute, both with new material, and with resolution of the disputed items. I consider that there is a single specific disputable section in that article, namely the Nikolai Velimirovic#Controversies section. As I have contributed, and tend to contribute, to the other sections, I feel rather discouraged since the disputed label stays at the top, so all my new contributions are automatically labelled as not neutral... I would highly appreciate if anyone could spare some time see the article, to read through the discussion page (my fist comment is on June 22, 2009) and provide a neutral opinion and assistance in properly placing the disputed tag.
It can be seen, that prior to my involvement in this article, several other people made harsh remarks about the neutrality and quality of that article, and I consider that to be relevant only to the Controversies section, which contains some very serious accusations.
I also consider that the contributor As286 is violating the WP:ORIG policy, but obviously, he doesn't agree. Today he made at least 3 reverts to my edits, and from his comments, one could notice that the neutrality of his standpoint is questionable. A neutral opinion on this matter would also be very valuable.
Beware, the discussion page is (56,673 bytes) heavy...
Thanks a lot. Kpant ( talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We are having several edit conflicts due to both the weighting of facts presented in the lede, and the wording used to explain these facts.
The issue involves the recent elections held in the UK where the Labour party suffered what has been widely termed in the media a historic defeat. One particular editor objects to the use of this language, and continually reverts others. While his comments that the use of exaggerated language to describe the elections - such as "worst results ever" is inappropriate, he continually reverts all edits to a sentence along the lines of "poor results", which in the view of some other editors (including myself) is not a helpful description of why such information is in the lede.
I would invite suggestions on Gordon Brown's talk page. Thanks. Beganlocal ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is quite a bit in this article, but, this deals with one specific edit that I attempted to make. As far as I'm concerned, and perhaps I'm wrong, but this issue couldn't be any clearer. I attempted to remove the sentence:
"However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view."
Which referred to the views of anti-AGW advocates, that view (which also needs correction) being, "much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas."
Obviously, even disregarding the science, the "popular literature" jab is obviously POV and an attempt denigrate the views of non-AGW advocates. Even if someone can't agree on that assertion, which is subjective, my main point is completely objective and, according to NASA, unless their research papers are now "popular literature," that assertion is completely false.
My source [27], makes this very clear with several statements:
"Hansen and Imhoff are making a special effort to minimize any distortion of the record caused by urban heat-island effects as they research global warming. It is recognized that recorded temperatures at many weather stations are warmer than they should be because of human developments around the station. Hansen and Imhoff used satellite images of nighttime lights to identify stations where urbanization was most likely to contaminate the weather records."
"We find larger warming at urban stations on average," said Hansen, "so we use the rural stations to adjust the urban records, thus obtaining a better measure of the true climate change."
"Evidence of a slight, local human influence is found even in small towns and it is probably impossible to totally eliminate in the global analyses."
Obviously, NASA has identified the problem of UHI contamination of weather stations - and while they have attempted to correct for it they admit that it still plays a part is altering the records. Again, I don't see how this could be any clearer to any objective person.
On a final note, this exact sentence has come over scrutiny a few times before (for different and similar reasons) [ [28]][ [29]] - until the usual suspects, pa trolling these types of articles, tire out the less "dedicated" editors until they quit. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The article Gun violence included a table giving one indication of the level of gun violence in a list of countries. The table listed the homicides with a firearm per 100 000 of population. The data is sourced from a United Nations body. Included in the table until recently were statistics giving an indication of how significant gun homicides were in relation to the overall level of homicides in each country. It did this by giving alngside the overall homicide rate (irrespective of whether a firearm was the cause of death). This data was contained in the same source. The percentage of all homicides was also tabluated, which is derived data.
The editor User:Anastrophe has removed 3 related columns of data which showed the reader how significant the level of gun homicides is relative to total homicides in the countries concerned.
His justification for removing each was as follows
the references to earlier edits are his objections to earlier deletions of POV editing in earlier edits. This earlier discussion began to be discussed here and the disucssion in that section later turned to the deletion of the information in the table.
One other editor has supported the deletion and has reverted attempts to re-insert the deleted data. Three other editors, myself included, have objected. The two editors supporting the deletion are editors who are clearly, from their contributions, in the pro-gun lobby. There is nothing wrong with this of course, provided their edits are such that conform with WP:NPOV or that any POV content is properly contained within the discussion of POVs on the subject.
My position, and it has been expressed also by others, is that it is useful and sensible to see the gun homcide levels contextualized, i.e. seen in the context of the level of all gun homicides.
The removal seems to be POV because the table reveals that gun homicides in the United States account for 67% of all homicides, one of the highest percentages of all the countries listed and the editor removing this data is a pro-gun supporter.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This data is clearly relevant to the topic, from a WP:RS, and should be included. The edit warring and WP:TE needs to stop. Verbal chat 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. This now seems to have been resolved amicably.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am having a dispute with a couple of editors on the Colony collapse disorder page. About a week and a half ago I re-added some information on the subject that used to be part of the article relating to GM crops and their possible connection to the CCD phenomenon. These comments were apparently at some point severely reduced and replaced with misleading comments of a non-NPOV bent stating falsely that "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations" which the link that follows does NOT say and that "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown" which is not the case. Additionally there is a dead link [5] and a link that does not go to the purported page [68]. Essentially, the entire paragraph is wrong. I have pointed out these errors in detail and the fact that I am not trying to say that there is a definite link between Bt toxin and CCD but just trying to add some balance since Bt's possible role in CCD has not been ruled out. However these editors refuse to allow the changes, they been repeatedly removed. Additionally one editor has threatened to remove my comments even from the talk page. There seems to be nothing more that I can do. You can see the discussion on the talk page beginning here, it's longish (sorry) but would probably help to understand if you read the whole thing. I asked for one of the disputants to request mediation but in looking over the protocol it looks like this is the first stop I should have requested. Any assistance would be helpful. Thank You. 4.246.200.21 ( talk) 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I bring this article to the attention of this Board over the following change: [30]. The article in question involves controversial subject matter, but it is my position that the edit I and others have placed forward honors NPOV while the change advocated above does not. I do not want to engage in an edit war, so I have brought this matter here. Any comments and assistance would be very appreciated. Thank you.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 07:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
If anyone here cares to get involved, please read Talk:2009 flu pandemic#Pandemic table move and 2009 flu pandemic#Data reporting and accuracy. Thank you. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What does one do when they feel that a newspaper's page is being edited, almost censored, politically?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
Although, most of the content in accurate that is not the real issue. The real issue that the editor only posts anything if it paints the paper in a positive light.
The paper, in it's history, has done a lot of great, but also, questionable things. When trying to write about a few of it's controversies, the author simply deletes, them and sends threatening messages.
As an example, I posted a sourced point about it's many citings by the Press Complaints Commision, for various articles it has posted - that were found to be completely false. Usually along xenophobic grounds Deleted straight away.
On the other hand, the author has posted quotes alluding to the fact that the paper is not in fact xenophobic.
A classic example of only allowing the favourable side to be shown.
Any changes made are met with the same threat - basically claiming that they are liablleous, false, and that he will report you to wikipedia if you continue to persist with the edit.
An example of how threatening and authoritarin this is the fact that I got this message after changing "conservatism with a small c" - totally POV, to simply "conservatism". Apparently this was "liabbleous".
What's more, the article had a full "controversy" section, fully sourced - deleted. The author including in his warning messages that "any creation of controversy section again will result in a reporting and probable ban"
I feel that an article on the paper should cover it's entire history. And an owner deleting and posting the bits of it that HE feels appropriate amounts to censorship.
What's more, threatening every single editor, with reports, is dictatorship
Please advise
Ceej1979 (
talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Collect, I apologise if my warnings appeared somewhat heavy but I was not threatening anyone. I was simply exercising my right to inform administrators of what I believe is vandalism. I have checked your edits also and what I removed was POV comments claiming the DM is 'anti immigration' and 'argues against immigration' these were unsourced POV comments. I did not remove any edits citing Conservative or criticisms. Christian1985 ( talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have previously made several cases [33], [34] [35] [36] questioning the use of the word "persecution" in the article's heading. I feel that the previous discussions with the involved parties produced little result, and would like to see if any third-party editors would be interested in mediating the dispute.
Basically, I feel that naming the ban of Falun Gong "persecution" signifies that Wikipedia endorses the view that the PRC politicians are criminals and that they have been found guilty of the crime. The term "persecution" is largely used by Falun Gong interest groups to describe their ordeal in the PRC eg CIPFG, while in the PRC, the ban is considered legitimate under the law. No third party eg United Nations HRC, Amnesty etc endoersed the term "persecution" or even have a set term on the FLG situation. The Chinese Wikipedia article [37] simply referred the situation as a "ban". Per WP:Naming conventions, article titles should be neutral and should not give bias towards one party.-- PCPP ( talk) 15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
WT:WTA says to avoid terms that label, which is exactly what using a non-neutral term is trying to accomplish.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Schechter, Ownby, US Congress Resolutions, Amnesty International Reports, HRW Reports, Kilgour Matas all clearly and unequivocally state what is happening in China is a large scale persecution. Just to point out few instances from The Congressional Executive Commission on China, 2008 Annual Report:
The central government intensified its nine-year campaign of persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.
Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners contravenes the standards in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..
Publicly available documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
House Concurrent Resolution 304,
House Resolution 530,
House Concurrent Resolution 188,
House Concurrent Resolution 218 and
House Concurrent Resolution 217 all clearly state the crisis is a nationwide persecution of innocents.
Dilip rajeev (
talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
So i don't know about the term persecution, but according to the just mentioned definition given by the "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", it certainly fits in the term genocide - i don't think even The Communist Party can deny that - as a matter of fact they don't even try to as they openly state that they would have to "wipe out Falun Gong". And YES Genocide IS a crime even by chinese law - as China signed the convention. So i guess that covers the term persecution as well. -- Hoerth ( talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Several references called the ban a crackdown, repression, suppression etc. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] -- PCPP ( talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The same source also states:
There are also countless references calling it a persecution. We don't call ducks flying feathered animals. Wikipedia doesn't bend over itself for political "sensitivies." What's the problem?-- Asdfg 12345 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Boo hoo. And there's several sources calling it law enforcement. Just because you think it's a persecution doesn't make it so. This is about what's the best wording for it on wikipedia, not the real life. As for "sensitivities", wikipedia looks for terms that is neutral to all parties, which is why the Kent State massacre is referred as Kent State shootings on wikipedia.-- PCPP ( talk) 07:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
PCPP, could you please say exactly what your concern is in calling a persecution a persecution? Do the namespaces Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of atheists, Religious persecution, Ethnic persecution all bother you? Also could you tell us what exact issues you find with the term - which is defined as :"Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." (Encarta); "unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs " ( Cambridge); "persecute • verb 1 subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment... — Derivatives: persecution"(Oxford).
And also your claim in your first note is factually wrong - you may want to correct it in view of the links posted and statements pointed out above. Amnesty, HRW, US Congress, David Ownby, Kilgour Matas all refer to the crisis, unequivocally, as a large scale persecution and major violation of human-rights. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 01:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong also fits the dictionary definition of "cult", but we do not label them as such in wikipedia. WP:TITLE "An article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles". WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." By calling it a persecution, you're endorsing the viewpoint that the PRC is committing a crime, however justified.-- PCPP ( talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with others that "persecution" is fine, as the most widely used term in reliable sources. It also has a wider meaning than something like "ban" or "outlawing", allowing us to discuss other alleged incidents of persecution beyond it simply being illegal in China.-- Danaman5 ( talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So are the terms "suppress", "crackdown", "ban" etc which are used interchangeably by the forementioned sources. WP:WTA clearly states to avoid non-neutral terms that label, which "persecution" is trying to express: an anti-Chinese bias. Furthermore the article was originally named "Suppression of FLG" until it was renamed by the pro-FLG editors following the ban of a FLG critic, whereas the Chinese wikipedia refer the FLG situation as "suppression" And the PRC's description of the anti-FLG campaign is "取缔", which translates to ban/outlaw/suppress, NOT persecute. The term "迫害" which is translated to "persecution" is widely used by FLG and its associated groups. The article should be renamed to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to avoid these labelling words.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources listed above didn't even agree on a single term to describe the ordeal, and it's mainly the FLG camp and their supporters trying to push the the view that the PRC is "persecuting" FLG, establishing several groups such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG. By instating the term "persecution" you're trying to introduce systematic anti-PRC bias into the articles.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop trying to push a point. According to the PRC government the ban is perfectly within legal rights [46]. And none of your sources claimed the ordeal of FLG was "genocide"-- PCPP ( talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hitler's actions is widely acknowledged and studied, which cannot be said about FLG. Hell there are arguments for "genocide" for every political power in historical existance. Wikipedia is not a place to spread things you made up yourself -- PCPP ( talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You said I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. which is the original research you described. Second of all FLG's situation is still ongoing, and the extent of the ordeal is still disputed, so it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions for the reader, especially the article is written entirely from Western sources while all Chinese sources (which were once in the article but deleted) are systematically dismissed as "propaganda"-- PCPP ( talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
So? HappyInGeneral said that HE thinks there's a genocide, which is the OR I described, not to mention that few sources support the term, which pushes even more to POV territory than "persecution". Making up your own conclusions based on unsupported arguments also violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The sources you described are simply expressing a view, and the PRC government is also expressing a view. As to your claim of Chinese sources being "persecutors' propaganda of disinformation", I stress again, it's up to the reader to decide what is truth and what is propaganda.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's laughable that you accuse me of pushing agendas, when your userpage is nothing but blalant FLG promotional material. And WP:RS doesn't mean the sources can be used to draw your own conclusions.-- PCPP ( talk) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah? And the Nuremberg Principles state that "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:... (c)Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. "
First of all, I'm within my right to call out WP:OR to an activist user trying to change the phrase to "genocide", a term not used by any of the mentioned sources. Secondly, the Chinese wikipedia is largely blocked within mainland China, and most of its editors and from Taiwan/HK. Within Wikipedia, the term "persecution" indeed carry a negative tone, and has no place in articles already having a large number of disputes. As I said before, the phrase "persecution" is largely used by FLG and its supporters in the West, by their sub-organizations such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG etc. Persecution is no way a neutral word, and the sources I mentioned above all carried "persecution", "suppression", "crackdown" pretty much interchangedly, whereas FLG sources pretty much use "persecution" exclusively. The term "persecution" can be right by dictionary definitions and still violates WP:NPOV, just as FLG could be labelled a "cult" based on dictionary definitions, yet referring to them as such at WP would violate WP:NPOV. To label the articles "persecution" is endorsing FLG's viewpoints, however justified. Per WP:NCON, "A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject."-- PCPP ( talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
More fun from the Falun Gong... this time on the Teachings of Falun Gong page.
A quote of some of Li Hongzhi's more controversial statements keeps getting deleted. The editor doing the deletion claims that the quotes the New York Times provided of Li Hongzhi on April 30, 2000 constitute a fringe position not confirmed by academic sources. As they are direct quotes of man who founded the Falun Gong speaking to Falun Gong members about the Falun Gong they are most certainly not. I have already reverted twice. As I'm reaching the 3R limit and am about be be embroiled in an edit war over a valid reference I thought I'd best draw attention to it. This needs eyes. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
They are not direct quotes, they are belied as inaccurate with a simple search of the actual material. The grounds for inclusion here would be as the journalist's interpretation/opinion, not as statement of teachings. Then it's disputed whether the source (an opinion piece, isn't it?) qualifies or not, and another editor has provided some quotes of relevant policy items about that. I only revert once per day, so there's no danger of 3RR here. What I'd suggest is hashing this out further on the talk page--as in, please respond to the arguments that have been raised rather than simply crying foul--and together coming up with some simple and neutral langauge which narrates this dynamic, then adding it to the page. -- Asdfg 12345 23:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have put up a request for comments on this issue. Please see the talk page for details. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is some debate about whether the recent events in Honduras should be described as 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Could neutral observers please pitch in at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#The title itself is NPOV? Disembrangler ( talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't know much about the Hardy Boys. I think it is not only about whether this is the view of "one writer", but also whether there is evidence that the view gained much attention. If the literary world was overwhlemed with comment and controversy, then that may be noteworthy. Conversely, the claim may have been quickly debunked by other writers. It should be kept in mind that there are probably not that many books about the Hardy Boys series, so something may be perfectly noteworthy even though it comes from a single source, I would suggest. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Some PoV issues. Namely the fact that the entire article is predicated upon the notion that Dim Mak is a real thing. Article needs extensive work. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There's been a long-running neutrality dispute over at DreamHost. One of the editors has proposed tightening the wording of one of the sections. I support the change, but wanted to get some more opinions in case the other side objected. Discussion is here. Thanks! -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it neutral to state an opinion as an "is" statement? For example, in Waterboarding, the practice is described as "torture," despite the fact that this definition is disputed by many reliable sources including Webster's Dictionary. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
— UN Convention Against Torture [1]
On Chiropractic controversy and criticism, I have been reverted for placing this tag which, IMHO, appropriately describes this article. The tag reads as such:
This article uses both words (controversy and criticism) in its title. Thus this article may not present a NPOV of the subject. And, per a recent AfD, some other editors agree that a term which offers a broader perspective may be better for this article's title.
WP:NPOV tells us:
Perhaps a more neutral title should be found for this article.
So my question is this: Is the usage of the {{criticism-article}} tag justified while this article still maintains its current title? Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for a better title that only includes one of the words: Chiropractic's controversial history. Brangifer ( talk) 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This thread is about a template that is only for use for a Criticism or Controversy section. It is not about the title of an article. The template is soley about the article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in a section title. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The template states This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to use a different term which offers a broader perspective.
The template is about the use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in a section of the article. It is not about the article's title. Therefore, the template should be removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Taken at face value the {{criticism-article}} tag seems to fit this article well. The only problem I see is if there is consensus within the Wikipedia community for the validity of this tag given that it was created on the 15 March 2009 and that only 4 articles make use of it. Furthermore the template tag directs the users to "Wikipedia:Criticism sections" which clearly does not deal with article titles. Seems to me the tag was created to attach a policy on criticisms sections to article titles without fully developing a Wikipedia policy specifically for article titles. -- LexCorp ( talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Chiropractic controversy and criticism to be checked for it's neutrality. If you're up for the challenge (and I know you are!), please consider reviewing comments as they are added to this section of the talk page. Would love some neutral outside opinions here. Merci. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:AnarchistAssassin seems to have some personal complaints about some domain name registrar companies and is putting very POV language (like "illegal", "has considered itself above the law in this matter" and etc.) as well as WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on some unreliable sources, etc. I tried a 3O one one article, but I think this person is just not getting how we work at Wikipedia at all. Some of the things he is adding are probably libelous against the companies he's accusing of breaking the law. DreamGuy ( talk) 01:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
User with a likely COI is persistently removing any information from Young America Corporation that is negative, despite being fairly well-sourced. Recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. I've warned the user, warned them for RR previously, tried to reach out with a personal comment, and began templating them again today with a level 4 NPOV- they repeated the edit after that L4. Can someone help out? tedder ( talk) 19:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In a peer review of Christian Conventions, Jesse Lackman (who has stated that he is a member of the group in question) notes that many of the references cited have provocative titles.
I suppose an objective reader looking through the references will see the obvious personal opinion/interpretations with loaded words and phrases like "cult", "Delusions", "Reinventing the Truth", "Churches That Abuse", "A Search for the Truth: The Workers' Words Exposed", "Heresies Exposed" "Christian Truth and Religious Delusions", "Sex, Lies and Sanctity: Religion and Deviance in Contemporary North America", etcetera. A title like "Worker's words exposed" clearly implies the worker's words have hidden meanings which [he] will expose.
See his comments here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Christian_Conventions/archive1. JesseLackman says that the article appears objectively to reflect the sources, and he doesn't really argue that the text of the article is POV -- only that the BOOK TITLES in the reference section do reflect POV.
I had not considered the matter from this viewpoint until he raised the issue, but I must say: it's both true and hard to deal with. Has this sort of matter ever reached the NPOV Noticeboard before? -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
User YellowMonkey has been removing the entire Indian section from the State-sponsored terrorism page on the excuse of UNDUE weight... He is clearly pushing POV since all the text is referenced and brief... How can a report of foreign Policy magazine and the statement of Richard Holbrooke be UNDUE... Here is the edit... [64]... Adil your ( talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This might be more of a WP:COI issue, but it definitely has NPOV implications. The Montana Meth Project has been heavily edited by people involved with the campaign, who have been taking out information unfavorable to the project (IPs registered to the company that created it, for example). However, I'm concerned that the other side might be taking out too much information regarding the effectiveness of the program. If someone could poke their head in and help evaluate the dueling citations, I'd be much obliged. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The article on waterboarding begins by saying point-blank that waterboarding is torture, which of course would make it criminal. The following balancing material has been deleted from the lead:
"It is considered a form of torture in common parlance, although not always considered torture according to all proposed legal definitions in all circumstances."[1][2][3]
Ordinarily, I would not bring this to a noticeboard or pursue dispute resolution. However, living people are in jeopardy of going to jail about this matter, so I think we have a special responsibility to be neutral, and not pretend that Wikipedia is a court of law. It may be more appropriate to bring this to the BLP Noticeboard, but I'll start here. Please keep in mind that I'm not taking any position, but simply trying to describe existing positions out there in the real world. Also, please note that this article went to ArbCom back in January and February. [73] Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem here arises from the fact that there are two definitions being applied, and they should be kept separate:
The first definition is the purview of an encyclopedia, and should be in the lede, as the lede is where the term is defined. The second is more fluid and subject to the vagaries of politics, and should be discussed in the body, but not in the lede. The political definition of the word does not belong there. -- Good Damon 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Good Damon, if you'd like to remove the legal/political definitions from the lead, then fine. Remove from the lead that "it is considered a form of torture by legal experts." And insert into the lead that it is commonly considered torture regardless of legal definitions. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have requested page protection as a preventative measure to ensure no one gets caught up in an edit war. Let's sort this out, then make changes if any are needed. -- Good Damon 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that this edit in the lead solve all POV/inclusion/exclusion problems as well as been more in line with Wikipedia Policy, particularly WP:Lead, WP:SUMMARY, WP:Undue:
- Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying. [2] By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensation of drowning. [3] Waterboarding use is considered a form of torture by legal experts, [4] [5] politicians, war veterans, [6] [7] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims, [8] [9] intelligence officials, [10] military judges, [11] and human rights organizations. [12] [13]
- In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. [14] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death. [4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years. [8]
- In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, [15] [16] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal. Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. [17] [18] Acording to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed allowed the U.S. government to stop a 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles. [19] This recent events have prompted a political dispute within the U.S.A. as to the legal status of waterboarding as a form of torture.
- In January 2009 United States President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the United States Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes. [19] According to officials such as Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Daniel Baumgartner Jr., the waterboard can be used for training without becoming a torture device. [20]
(undent) Wikipedia is universal (even the English version) so your point about the legal status of waterboarding as torture is the United States is muted. More so if you consider that there is a section in the article specifically for it and that my suggested edit explicitly summarizes it. That it reads as a "guilty" sentence is really a synthesis you form in your mind (and a United States mind at that). I already gave examples above as to what an editor from a country where torture is not a criminal act will make of such interpretation. Again I fail to see the relevance of having the procedure simulated for trainees being equated to the real thing. Trainees know it is a controlled train exercise and summit willingly to it. Tortured people have absolutely no control about anything. The US Government is a biased party with huge problems both internally and externally due to its ambiguities and practices regarding waterboaring and the facts are discussed in a section specifically for it. There is no universal court of law and thus no amount of ruling will change the universal definition of waterboarding and even if a US court rules it is not torture then an edit reflecting the fact should have to be included in the future but the general definition as to waterboaring being torture will certainly stand with a section as to countries whose legal systems do not consider waterboarding as torture included in the article.-- LexCorp ( talk) 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Adendum. Furthermore I resent you accusation of me trying to censor anything. My suggested edit is a good compromise. Why a petty internal political dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding in the U.S.A. has to be featured in the lead of an article about waterboarding in general is beyond me. Why the definition of waterboarding hinges in any way upon said dispute is beyond me. Any WP:NPOV issues are addressed by having within the article a specific section regarding the U.S.A. In fact any unbiased editor would (I think) agree that it is your proposed edit that gives undue weight to a minority view in a current politically motivated dispute in the U.S.A. (as per WP:GEVAL) and not only that but it also fundamentally changes the definition of waterboarding by not stating specifically that waterboarding is torture (thus certainly WP:POV). (note: this Adendum is done after the accusation by Ferrylodge of me trying to censor the article sank in and thus its objectivity I fully disclose is suspect)-- LexCorp ( talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Per the scope of this noticeboard, the issue here is whether the content/decription of/in that article follows NPOV. The BLP issue for the definition is a red herring; the topic is not a LP so just follow the sources while respecting NPOV. The BLP issue for any LP mentioned in the article is similar; follow the sources meticulously with no compromise to reliable sourcing. But conflating the definition itself with living persons issues is, with due respect, silly. I am somewhat surprised there was this much discussion about it. While WP is not a court of law, it is no more an advocate for any prosecutorial or defensive legal position. Sources, sources, sources. From a legal perspective, we want articles to be as fair and accurate as possible; if this is meant to be an analog of the Rohde case, it is a terrible one. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.
As one former CIA official, once a senior official for the directorate of operations, told me: 'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.' Another, also a former higher-up in the directorate of operations, told me: 'Yes, it's torture…'
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
What about homeopathy? Every sentence/statement on that article is criticised and no defense is being allowed. In fact, some of the false propoganda/accusations are inflammatory.e.g.calling it pseudoscience, placebo therapy and quackery (scientific studies which prove its' efficacy aren't being allowed a mention on the article and a WHO document stating that licenses and professional qualifications are needed in most countries to practice it, are repeatedly taken out from the Lead, although it remains lower down in the article). A lot of skeptics who've been banned from other alt. med. articles (like Osteopathy, Naturopathy and Chiropractic) are still active on the article on homeopathy. I'm new here (by the number of edits/posts), so I want someone to mediate/arbitrate-in fact I've stopped editing anything on wikipedia in disgust for more than a month now. Please help!-
NootherIDAvailable (
talk) 03:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of
User:Dr.Jhingaadey --
Brangifer (
talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
I'd posted this above, but due to low visibility I'm putting it under a new section, I hope someone can reply:-
To add some context to this discussion, NootherIDAvailable's recent edit to homeopathy was reverted as it introduced bad grammar, and he then went on to make the astounding claim on the talk page here that homeopathy cures cancer. Even homeopathic associations have denounced that quackery, and that is exactly the sort of thing we should keep out of WP. Verbal chat 08:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think in addition to topic-blocking this editor, Wikipedia administration should contact his local authorities. I’m pretty sure that practising medicine without a licence is a serious crime in most of the English-speaking world. — NRen2k5( TALK), 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seen this editor promoting that homeopathy works since his very first edit. He behaves in a combative way, twisting policies to fit his purpose. For an example, see the WP:POINT that he made when he was told about "writing for the enemy" and then he perverted it by menacing to add a lot of very negative stuff in purpose [1] [2]. That was not a good faith attempt to bring NPOV to the article. His first edit to the Talk:Homeopathy was also a WP:POINT [3]. This editor should be topic banned now. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sea888 ( talk · contribs) is insisting that the lead in the Strikeforce article should say "Strikeforce is a world class [...] promotion" (emphasis mine) as opposed to the (IMO) NPOV "an U.S.-based [...] promotion" on the basis that "they have many ranked fighters, and fighters from all over the world" and a press release from Strikeforce. Input appreciated.
There's also another issue in the article related to naming two fighters the concensus two best in the world (see my post at WT:MMA if interested), but let's stick to one issue at the time. Cheers, -- aktsu ( t / c) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(de-indent) I think any statement put into the article that a promotion (in this case Strikeforce) is "world class" it had better be backed up by "reliable, third-party, published sources" (from WP:RS). The only source for that statement currently is a press release put out jointly by Strikeforce and Showtime; that would not be a third-party source. If User:Sea888 can come up with other sources that prove that claim, then great. If no other sources can be found, then it should be removed and Strikeforce simply be referred to as a "US based promotion" of which there is no doubt. This description would also put it in line with other MMA promotion articles, such as UFC. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the neutrality of a section in Cham Albanians article, which recenty became GA. I and User:Factuarius have presented two different paragraphs for Cham_Albanians#Greek-Italian_War_.281940.E2.80.931941.29 section of that page. User:Factuarius refuses to get the point of wiki policies and NPOV issues. SO, I am reporting it here and I am waiting for resposne from admins and editors.
User:Factuarius version (which he has put in the article without consensus) is:
My version is
The major problem of this point, is that User:Factuarius refuses to use inlines of Fischer and Vickers putting an one-sided version of the story. My objections are: "Factuarius says "On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep.", although Fischer, states that he is possibly killed by Greek police. Factuarius says that "He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before.", although Vickers and Fischer, state that he was a leader of Chams. Factuarius says that "Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.", and cite it with Ruches, although Ruches states that there were 3,500 Albanians not Chams." Also he has removed this sentence "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]", which is totally sourced, by saying that he cannot find it online in google books, although I showed to him that it is online and that he may read it.
Factuarius response to this concers is that "Between a "possible" source and a certain source we prefer the certain not the possible", and that because Fischer says that Hoxha was "possibly" killed by Greek police, while Piercon does not say that that is "possible". Also he is misciting Ruches source, as I have explained above.
This dispute has more than a week in here; I have tried to contact with uninvolved editors and admins to intermediate in this dispute; but till now nobody has done that. For me, it is impossible to discuss with User:Factuarius, who again and again answers to those concerns with non-wiki arguments, such as "Although I understand that my oppinion is not the only one, but I prefer that from the others", and other like this. I have reworded that section more than 3 times, reaching this point, which I think is the NPOV-ist, but Factuarius keeps reverting every my edit in that page. (I may say that I have not been as civil as I should, due to the refusal of Factiuarius to get the point, and I have asked him sorry, and that I might have been edit-warrig before three days, when I reverted the page 3 times, but it was not intended to get my POV in it, but to get to the NPOV-ist version as I argued, by rewording the section again and again; on the other hand the same problems are with Factuarius which actually has broked 3RR). I need an opinion from admins and editors, about this dispute, because I am not able to discuss any more with Factuarius. Which is the NPOV-ist version of the above? Thanks in advance, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What I found in that article is the folowing:
Three cases of falsification of sources.
Falsification of source nr.4.
Falsification of source nr.5.
Falsification of source nr.6.
This page has a major problem from extented falsification of its sources and I need assistance to double check it all, Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
As it is now you only protecting the version of article with the falsifications (see above). By protect it in such a condition, we only allowed to continue to mislead the readers of the article for a week more and thus rewarding their "work". As an administrator you are in position to alter that. They avoided any discussion about the falsifications of the references never answer a word about although had been asked. Don't rewarding them by protecting them. Regards, -- Factuarius ( talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
In reviewing this more fully, and in looking over the page history, as well as taking some time to get better informed with the issue being warred over, Factuarius is hereby given a three month topic ban in line with the remedies at WP:ARBMAC. Page protection will be reduced to semi from full protection. Factuarius will be blocked if he continues to edit this article, or the article's talk page for three months. Other involved editors are advised to refrain from engaging in edit wars on this or any other article, and may feel free to report this issue to my talk page directly if further assistance is required. Hiberniantears ( talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. This issue relates specifically to WP:NPOV#Article naming and related policies/guidelines. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Over on the article, there is a user Sturunner and an IP (who I suspect of being one and the same) that are repeatedly changing words like "handling" to "concealing" and "actions" to "malfeasance". Frankly, I think words like "malfeasance" leap over the line into the realm of vandalism, but I tried to talk about it on the talk page anyways. I am, however, being ignored. Can I get input from anyone? Like I said, I consider it outright vandalism, but at the least it's gotta be blatantly non npov, right?
P.S. - this is the corret place for this, right? I'm not used to reporting stuff like this. Farsight001 ( talk) 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The articles stated above seemingly lean towards the disparagement of the two drugs. Though the articles are relatively well cited, they read as if we are taking a position against their use. There have been discussions on the talk pages of both articles noting the immense amount of POV issues with the article. For Paroxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Though some of those concerns were brought up by the now blocked Mwalla, I do believe they serve a point here (to say how unstable the article is). For Duloxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The links, by themselves, are mentioned for two purposes; one to show the history and development of the article, and two, how those edits vibrate to the current article. If possible, I'd like to obtain comments from other editors on the articles and how they feel about wording, citations, criticisms, etc. blurred peace ☮ 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
For a year now, a certain editor has continued to delete all mention of the classified documents and conspiracy theories about Jonestown. The classified documents and conspiracy theories are widely discussed in the best reliable sources, and even appear in the sources used in the article, but no mention is allowed. Instead, the user has forked out all of the conspiracy content to Jonestown conspiracy theory but there is not a single word in the main article about this content except for a link buried in the {{ Peoples Temple}} template footer. Furthermore, there is no mention of the classified documents that are discussed in most reliable sources on the topic and are ironically blamed for giving rise to the conspiracies. A good overview of this topic can be found in a scholarly article here, and is covered by many news articles, such as this one in the San Francisco Chronicle. The number of reliable sources covering this topic is staggering, yet they are not allowed to even be mentioned in the article. What is incredibly strange and peculiar, is that there are literally dozens of sources about the classified documents and conspiracy theories on the "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" website, sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. [4] This website is cited around 70 times in the current article, yet not a single reference appears to these two topics. Could someone help resolve this problem? I have used the talk page to raise this issue, but my questions, proposals, and answers have been ignored. I have added the {{ NPOV}} tag, but it continues to get removed. Per NPOV, these significant topics need to be discussed in relation to the topic. Here are some facts that are being deliberately left out of the article:
Why are these historical facts prevented from appearing the article? Viriditas ( talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This NPOV incident was filed here to receive a response from a neutral, uninvolved editor. That is, after all, the point of this noticeboard.
(od)There is not "NPOV incident" and, as many editors have explained to you, of course several "major author and scholars" have discussed the existence of the Jonestown conspiracy theory -- no one HAS EVER disputed the existence of the theory. In fact, it has it's own article Jonestown conspiracy theory, which is already linked and discussed in a sentence in the article now, precisely like the far more notable Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories in the Apollo 11 article. As has been explained SEVERAL TIMES, just because "major author and scholars" discuss the Jonestown conspiracy theory, does not mean that it must be discussed at length in the article Jonestown itself when it has its own article. And the false statements you've made about me and other editors are now so commonplace that no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end. Mosedschurte ( talk) 07:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You have posted minor variations of the same post 3 different times. Each of those posts contains an attack upon the editor and in no way address the content under question. You have grossly lumped all of my postings into a bad faith characterization of "an angry response", blatantly ignored any attempts to respond to you as "crud" and "spamming crud" and engaged in pointy disruption both here and at the article talk page. And now you challenge the opinion of an uninvolved editor who said he didn't see this as an NPOV issue. This has gone on long enough. The bad faith personal attacks have gone on long enough. I'm sorry, you've shot your credibility as far as I'm concerned. You've failed to prove your point. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(od)
And why is that link to another language version on this page???? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Various new accounts and IP editors are pushing the golpista line in regards to the 2009 Honduran political crisis, both on that article and on related ones like Manuel Zelaya, Roberto Micheletti, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, Politics of Honduras and especially Honduran constitutional referendum, 2009. Many of them are even insisting that the events cannot be called a coup d'état, even though that's the universal conclusion of everyone from the Wall Street Journal to Obama to the OAS to Fidel Castro. Things will probably stabilize as the single-purpose accounts drop off, but it would be nice to have reasonably neutral articles available while the crisis is still ongoing (especially since Google News indexes us now.) < eleland/ talk edits> 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 ( talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The title of the above article reflects a slanted point of view. The part that I am contending is the preposition "on." Saying attacks "on" Pakistan implies military action against the country of Pakistan, as opposed to rogue al-Qaeda and Taliban targets. The preposition "in" instead of "on" would be accurate. I attempted to move the article to Drone attacks in Pakistan by the United States, but it was moved back, and currently stands as a redirect page. JEN9841 ( talk) 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 ( talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:
Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.
The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:
In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.
Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."
Thanks! Serpent More Crafty ( talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "This day by day remembrance of the Tiananmen Square revolt starting April 8th 1989 is in memory of all those who lost their lives, stood up for the Chinese people’s human rights and exhibited some of the most moving and extraordinary acts of bravery and courage in our history. It was a seven-week fight for democracy where students, worker’s ordinary men and women stood up in a non-violent protest against the Communist Government of China. It also demonstrated the most evil side of men and how far they would go to save their tyrannical rule and system. That same system that rules China today. In honor of all the Chinese heroes and their families that participated, we present this recap of the course of events that happened on each day of those seven weeks." Need I say more? This topic is way outside my domain of editing, so I'm not going to do anything more after bringing it up here. Looie496 ( talk) 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look and give advice how to continue? I contested a user's additions about child pornography, it seems he does not join the discussion on the
talk page. Thanks -
83.254.210.47 (
talk) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The Nikolai Velimirovic article has been tagged as not neutral and factually disputed since March 2008. I came across it, and tried to contribute, both with new material, and with resolution of the disputed items. I consider that there is a single specific disputable section in that article, namely the Nikolai Velimirovic#Controversies section. As I have contributed, and tend to contribute, to the other sections, I feel rather discouraged since the disputed label stays at the top, so all my new contributions are automatically labelled as not neutral... I would highly appreciate if anyone could spare some time see the article, to read through the discussion page (my fist comment is on June 22, 2009) and provide a neutral opinion and assistance in properly placing the disputed tag.
It can be seen, that prior to my involvement in this article, several other people made harsh remarks about the neutrality and quality of that article, and I consider that to be relevant only to the Controversies section, which contains some very serious accusations.
I also consider that the contributor As286 is violating the WP:ORIG policy, but obviously, he doesn't agree. Today he made at least 3 reverts to my edits, and from his comments, one could notice that the neutrality of his standpoint is questionable. A neutral opinion on this matter would also be very valuable.
Beware, the discussion page is (56,673 bytes) heavy...
Thanks a lot. Kpant ( talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
We are having several edit conflicts due to both the weighting of facts presented in the lede, and the wording used to explain these facts.
The issue involves the recent elections held in the UK where the Labour party suffered what has been widely termed in the media a historic defeat. One particular editor objects to the use of this language, and continually reverts others. While his comments that the use of exaggerated language to describe the elections - such as "worst results ever" is inappropriate, he continually reverts all edits to a sentence along the lines of "poor results", which in the view of some other editors (including myself) is not a helpful description of why such information is in the lede.
I would invite suggestions on Gordon Brown's talk page. Thanks. Beganlocal ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there is quite a bit in this article, but, this deals with one specific edit that I attempted to make. As far as I'm concerned, and perhaps I'm wrong, but this issue couldn't be any clearer. I attempted to remove the sentence:
"However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view."
Which referred to the views of anti-AGW advocates, that view (which also needs correction) being, "much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas."
Obviously, even disregarding the science, the "popular literature" jab is obviously POV and an attempt denigrate the views of non-AGW advocates. Even if someone can't agree on that assertion, which is subjective, my main point is completely objective and, according to NASA, unless their research papers are now "popular literature," that assertion is completely false.
My source [27], makes this very clear with several statements:
"Hansen and Imhoff are making a special effort to minimize any distortion of the record caused by urban heat-island effects as they research global warming. It is recognized that recorded temperatures at many weather stations are warmer than they should be because of human developments around the station. Hansen and Imhoff used satellite images of nighttime lights to identify stations where urbanization was most likely to contaminate the weather records."
"We find larger warming at urban stations on average," said Hansen, "so we use the rural stations to adjust the urban records, thus obtaining a better measure of the true climate change."
"Evidence of a slight, local human influence is found even in small towns and it is probably impossible to totally eliminate in the global analyses."
Obviously, NASA has identified the problem of UHI contamination of weather stations - and while they have attempted to correct for it they admit that it still plays a part is altering the records. Again, I don't see how this could be any clearer to any objective person.
On a final note, this exact sentence has come over scrutiny a few times before (for different and similar reasons) [ [28]][ [29]] - until the usual suspects, pa trolling these types of articles, tire out the less "dedicated" editors until they quit. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The article Gun violence included a table giving one indication of the level of gun violence in a list of countries. The table listed the homicides with a firearm per 100 000 of population. The data is sourced from a United Nations body. Included in the table until recently were statistics giving an indication of how significant gun homicides were in relation to the overall level of homicides in each country. It did this by giving alngside the overall homicide rate (irrespective of whether a firearm was the cause of death). This data was contained in the same source. The percentage of all homicides was also tabluated, which is derived data.
The editor User:Anastrophe has removed 3 related columns of data which showed the reader how significant the level of gun homicides is relative to total homicides in the countries concerned.
His justification for removing each was as follows
the references to earlier edits are his objections to earlier deletions of POV editing in earlier edits. This earlier discussion began to be discussed here and the disucssion in that section later turned to the deletion of the information in the table.
One other editor has supported the deletion and has reverted attempts to re-insert the deleted data. Three other editors, myself included, have objected. The two editors supporting the deletion are editors who are clearly, from their contributions, in the pro-gun lobby. There is nothing wrong with this of course, provided their edits are such that conform with WP:NPOV or that any POV content is properly contained within the discussion of POVs on the subject.
My position, and it has been expressed also by others, is that it is useful and sensible to see the gun homcide levels contextualized, i.e. seen in the context of the level of all gun homicides.
The removal seems to be POV because the table reveals that gun homicides in the United States account for 67% of all homicides, one of the highest percentages of all the countries listed and the editor removing this data is a pro-gun supporter.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This data is clearly relevant to the topic, from a WP:RS, and should be included. The edit warring and WP:TE needs to stop. Verbal chat 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. This now seems to have been resolved amicably.-- Hauskalainen ( talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am having a dispute with a couple of editors on the Colony collapse disorder page. About a week and a half ago I re-added some information on the subject that used to be part of the article relating to GM crops and their possible connection to the CCD phenomenon. These comments were apparently at some point severely reduced and replaced with misleading comments of a non-NPOV bent stating falsely that "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations" which the link that follows does NOT say and that "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown" which is not the case. Additionally there is a dead link [5] and a link that does not go to the purported page [68]. Essentially, the entire paragraph is wrong. I have pointed out these errors in detail and the fact that I am not trying to say that there is a definite link between Bt toxin and CCD but just trying to add some balance since Bt's possible role in CCD has not been ruled out. However these editors refuse to allow the changes, they been repeatedly removed. Additionally one editor has threatened to remove my comments even from the talk page. There seems to be nothing more that I can do. You can see the discussion on the talk page beginning here, it's longish (sorry) but would probably help to understand if you read the whole thing. I asked for one of the disputants to request mediation but in looking over the protocol it looks like this is the first stop I should have requested. Any assistance would be helpful. Thank You. 4.246.200.21 ( talk) 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I bring this article to the attention of this Board over the following change: [30]. The article in question involves controversial subject matter, but it is my position that the edit I and others have placed forward honors NPOV while the change advocated above does not. I do not want to engage in an edit war, so I have brought this matter here. Any comments and assistance would be very appreciated. Thank you.-- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 07:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
If anyone here cares to get involved, please read Talk:2009 flu pandemic#Pandemic table move and 2009 flu pandemic#Data reporting and accuracy. Thank you. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What does one do when they feel that a newspaper's page is being edited, almost censored, politically?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
Although, most of the content in accurate that is not the real issue. The real issue that the editor only posts anything if it paints the paper in a positive light.
The paper, in it's history, has done a lot of great, but also, questionable things. When trying to write about a few of it's controversies, the author simply deletes, them and sends threatening messages.
As an example, I posted a sourced point about it's many citings by the Press Complaints Commision, for various articles it has posted - that were found to be completely false. Usually along xenophobic grounds Deleted straight away.
On the other hand, the author has posted quotes alluding to the fact that the paper is not in fact xenophobic.
A classic example of only allowing the favourable side to be shown.
Any changes made are met with the same threat - basically claiming that they are liablleous, false, and that he will report you to wikipedia if you continue to persist with the edit.
An example of how threatening and authoritarin this is the fact that I got this message after changing "conservatism with a small c" - totally POV, to simply "conservatism". Apparently this was "liabbleous".
What's more, the article had a full "controversy" section, fully sourced - deleted. The author including in his warning messages that "any creation of controversy section again will result in a reporting and probable ban"
I feel that an article on the paper should cover it's entire history. And an owner deleting and posting the bits of it that HE feels appropriate amounts to censorship.
What's more, threatening every single editor, with reports, is dictatorship
Please advise
Ceej1979 (
talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Collect, I apologise if my warnings appeared somewhat heavy but I was not threatening anyone. I was simply exercising my right to inform administrators of what I believe is vandalism. I have checked your edits also and what I removed was POV comments claiming the DM is 'anti immigration' and 'argues against immigration' these were unsourced POV comments. I did not remove any edits citing Conservative or criticisms. Christian1985 ( talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have previously made several cases [33], [34] [35] [36] questioning the use of the word "persecution" in the article's heading. I feel that the previous discussions with the involved parties produced little result, and would like to see if any third-party editors would be interested in mediating the dispute.
Basically, I feel that naming the ban of Falun Gong "persecution" signifies that Wikipedia endorses the view that the PRC politicians are criminals and that they have been found guilty of the crime. The term "persecution" is largely used by Falun Gong interest groups to describe their ordeal in the PRC eg CIPFG, while in the PRC, the ban is considered legitimate under the law. No third party eg United Nations HRC, Amnesty etc endoersed the term "persecution" or even have a set term on the FLG situation. The Chinese Wikipedia article [37] simply referred the situation as a "ban". Per WP:Naming conventions, article titles should be neutral and should not give bias towards one party.-- PCPP ( talk) 15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
WT:WTA says to avoid terms that label, which is exactly what using a non-neutral term is trying to accomplish.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Schechter, Ownby, US Congress Resolutions, Amnesty International Reports, HRW Reports, Kilgour Matas all clearly and unequivocally state what is happening in China is a large scale persecution. Just to point out few instances from The Congressional Executive Commission on China, 2008 Annual Report:
The central government intensified its nine-year campaign of persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.
Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners contravenes the standards in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..
Publicly available documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.
Dilip rajeev ( talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
House Concurrent Resolution 304,
House Resolution 530,
House Concurrent Resolution 188,
House Concurrent Resolution 218 and
House Concurrent Resolution 217 all clearly state the crisis is a nationwide persecution of innocents.
Dilip rajeev (
talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
So i don't know about the term persecution, but according to the just mentioned definition given by the "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", it certainly fits in the term genocide - i don't think even The Communist Party can deny that - as a matter of fact they don't even try to as they openly state that they would have to "wipe out Falun Gong". And YES Genocide IS a crime even by chinese law - as China signed the convention. So i guess that covers the term persecution as well. -- Hoerth ( talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Several references called the ban a crackdown, repression, suppression etc. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] -- PCPP ( talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The same source also states:
There are also countless references calling it a persecution. We don't call ducks flying feathered animals. Wikipedia doesn't bend over itself for political "sensitivies." What's the problem?-- Asdfg 12345 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Boo hoo. And there's several sources calling it law enforcement. Just because you think it's a persecution doesn't make it so. This is about what's the best wording for it on wikipedia, not the real life. As for "sensitivities", wikipedia looks for terms that is neutral to all parties, which is why the Kent State massacre is referred as Kent State shootings on wikipedia.-- PCPP ( talk) 07:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
PCPP, could you please say exactly what your concern is in calling a persecution a persecution? Do the namespaces Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of atheists, Religious persecution, Ethnic persecution all bother you? Also could you tell us what exact issues you find with the term - which is defined as :"Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." (Encarta); "unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs " ( Cambridge); "persecute • verb 1 subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment... — Derivatives: persecution"(Oxford).
And also your claim in your first note is factually wrong - you may want to correct it in view of the links posted and statements pointed out above. Amnesty, HRW, US Congress, David Ownby, Kilgour Matas all refer to the crisis, unequivocally, as a large scale persecution and major violation of human-rights. Dilip rajeev ( talk) 01:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong also fits the dictionary definition of "cult", but we do not label them as such in wikipedia. WP:TITLE "An article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles". WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." By calling it a persecution, you're endorsing the viewpoint that the PRC is committing a crime, however justified.-- PCPP ( talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with others that "persecution" is fine, as the most widely used term in reliable sources. It also has a wider meaning than something like "ban" or "outlawing", allowing us to discuss other alleged incidents of persecution beyond it simply being illegal in China.-- Danaman5 ( talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So are the terms "suppress", "crackdown", "ban" etc which are used interchangeably by the forementioned sources. WP:WTA clearly states to avoid non-neutral terms that label, which "persecution" is trying to express: an anti-Chinese bias. Furthermore the article was originally named "Suppression of FLG" until it was renamed by the pro-FLG editors following the ban of a FLG critic, whereas the Chinese wikipedia refer the FLG situation as "suppression" And the PRC's description of the anti-FLG campaign is "取缔", which translates to ban/outlaw/suppress, NOT persecute. The term "迫害" which is translated to "persecution" is widely used by FLG and its associated groups. The article should be renamed to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to avoid these labelling words.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources listed above didn't even agree on a single term to describe the ordeal, and it's mainly the FLG camp and their supporters trying to push the the view that the PRC is "persecuting" FLG, establishing several groups such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG. By instating the term "persecution" you're trying to introduce systematic anti-PRC bias into the articles.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop trying to push a point. According to the PRC government the ban is perfectly within legal rights [46]. And none of your sources claimed the ordeal of FLG was "genocide"-- PCPP ( talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hitler's actions is widely acknowledged and studied, which cannot be said about FLG. Hell there are arguments for "genocide" for every political power in historical existance. Wikipedia is not a place to spread things you made up yourself -- PCPP ( talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You said I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. which is the original research you described. Second of all FLG's situation is still ongoing, and the extent of the ordeal is still disputed, so it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions for the reader, especially the article is written entirely from Western sources while all Chinese sources (which were once in the article but deleted) are systematically dismissed as "propaganda"-- PCPP ( talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
So? HappyInGeneral said that HE thinks there's a genocide, which is the OR I described, not to mention that few sources support the term, which pushes even more to POV territory than "persecution". Making up your own conclusions based on unsupported arguments also violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The sources you described are simply expressing a view, and the PRC government is also expressing a view. As to your claim of Chinese sources being "persecutors' propaganda of disinformation", I stress again, it's up to the reader to decide what is truth and what is propaganda.-- PCPP ( talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's laughable that you accuse me of pushing agendas, when your userpage is nothing but blalant FLG promotional material. And WP:RS doesn't mean the sources can be used to draw your own conclusions.-- PCPP ( talk) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah? And the Nuremberg Principles state that "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:... (c)Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. "
First of all, I'm within my right to call out WP:OR to an activist user trying to change the phrase to "genocide", a term not used by any of the mentioned sources. Secondly, the Chinese wikipedia is largely blocked within mainland China, and most of its editors and from Taiwan/HK. Within Wikipedia, the term "persecution" indeed carry a negative tone, and has no place in articles already having a large number of disputes. As I said before, the phrase "persecution" is largely used by FLG and its supporters in the West, by their sub-organizations such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG etc. Persecution is no way a neutral word, and the sources I mentioned above all carried "persecution", "suppression", "crackdown" pretty much interchangedly, whereas FLG sources pretty much use "persecution" exclusively. The term "persecution" can be right by dictionary definitions and still violates WP:NPOV, just as FLG could be labelled a "cult" based on dictionary definitions, yet referring to them as such at WP would violate WP:NPOV. To label the articles "persecution" is endorsing FLG's viewpoints, however justified. Per WP:NCON, "A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject."-- PCPP ( talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
More fun from the Falun Gong... this time on the Teachings of Falun Gong page.
A quote of some of Li Hongzhi's more controversial statements keeps getting deleted. The editor doing the deletion claims that the quotes the New York Times provided of Li Hongzhi on April 30, 2000 constitute a fringe position not confirmed by academic sources. As they are direct quotes of man who founded the Falun Gong speaking to Falun Gong members about the Falun Gong they are most certainly not. I have already reverted twice. As I'm reaching the 3R limit and am about be be embroiled in an edit war over a valid reference I thought I'd best draw attention to it. This needs eyes. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
They are not direct quotes, they are belied as inaccurate with a simple search of the actual material. The grounds for inclusion here would be as the journalist's interpretation/opinion, not as statement of teachings. Then it's disputed whether the source (an opinion piece, isn't it?) qualifies or not, and another editor has provided some quotes of relevant policy items about that. I only revert once per day, so there's no danger of 3RR here. What I'd suggest is hashing this out further on the talk page--as in, please respond to the arguments that have been raised rather than simply crying foul--and together coming up with some simple and neutral langauge which narrates this dynamic, then adding it to the page. -- Asdfg 12345 23:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have put up a request for comments on this issue. Please see the talk page for details. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is some debate about whether the recent events in Honduras should be described as 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Could neutral observers please pitch in at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#The title itself is NPOV? Disembrangler ( talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't know much about the Hardy Boys. I think it is not only about whether this is the view of "one writer", but also whether there is evidence that the view gained much attention. If the literary world was overwhlemed with comment and controversy, then that may be noteworthy. Conversely, the claim may have been quickly debunked by other writers. It should be kept in mind that there are probably not that many books about the Hardy Boys series, so something may be perfectly noteworthy even though it comes from a single source, I would suggest. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Some PoV issues. Namely the fact that the entire article is predicated upon the notion that Dim Mak is a real thing. Article needs extensive work. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There's been a long-running neutrality dispute over at DreamHost. One of the editors has proposed tightening the wording of one of the sections. I support the change, but wanted to get some more opinions in case the other side objected. Discussion is here. Thanks! -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it neutral to state an opinion as an "is" statement? For example, in Waterboarding, the practice is described as "torture," despite the fact that this definition is disputed by many reliable sources including Webster's Dictionary. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
— UN Convention Against Torture [1]
On Chiropractic controversy and criticism, I have been reverted for placing this tag which, IMHO, appropriately describes this article. The tag reads as such:
This article uses both words (controversy and criticism) in its title. Thus this article may not present a NPOV of the subject. And, per a recent AfD, some other editors agree that a term which offers a broader perspective may be better for this article's title.
WP:NPOV tells us:
Perhaps a more neutral title should be found for this article.
So my question is this: Is the usage of the {{criticism-article}} tag justified while this article still maintains its current title? Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for a better title that only includes one of the words: Chiropractic's controversial history. Brangifer ( talk) 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This thread is about a template that is only for use for a Criticism or Controversy section. It is not about the title of an article. The template is soley about the article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in a section title. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The template states This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to use a different term which offers a broader perspective.
The template is about the use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in a section of the article. It is not about the article's title. Therefore, the template should be removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Taken at face value the {{criticism-article}} tag seems to fit this article well. The only problem I see is if there is consensus within the Wikipedia community for the validity of this tag given that it was created on the 15 March 2009 and that only 4 articles make use of it. Furthermore the template tag directs the users to "Wikipedia:Criticism sections" which clearly does not deal with article titles. Seems to me the tag was created to attach a policy on criticisms sections to article titles without fully developing a Wikipedia policy specifically for article titles. -- LexCorp ( talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Chiropractic controversy and criticism to be checked for it's neutrality. If you're up for the challenge (and I know you are!), please consider reviewing comments as they are added to this section of the talk page. Would love some neutral outside opinions here. Merci. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User:AnarchistAssassin seems to have some personal complaints about some domain name registrar companies and is putting very POV language (like "illegal", "has considered itself above the law in this matter" and etc.) as well as WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on some unreliable sources, etc. I tried a 3O one one article, but I think this person is just not getting how we work at Wikipedia at all. Some of the things he is adding are probably libelous against the companies he's accusing of breaking the law. DreamGuy ( talk) 01:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
User with a likely COI is persistently removing any information from Young America Corporation that is negative, despite being fairly well-sourced. Recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. I've warned the user, warned them for RR previously, tried to reach out with a personal comment, and began templating them again today with a level 4 NPOV- they repeated the edit after that L4. Can someone help out? tedder ( talk) 19:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In a peer review of Christian Conventions, Jesse Lackman (who has stated that he is a member of the group in question) notes that many of the references cited have provocative titles.
I suppose an objective reader looking through the references will see the obvious personal opinion/interpretations with loaded words and phrases like "cult", "Delusions", "Reinventing the Truth", "Churches That Abuse", "A Search for the Truth: The Workers' Words Exposed", "Heresies Exposed" "Christian Truth and Religious Delusions", "Sex, Lies and Sanctity: Religion and Deviance in Contemporary North America", etcetera. A title like "Worker's words exposed" clearly implies the worker's words have hidden meanings which [he] will expose.
See his comments here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Christian_Conventions/archive1. JesseLackman says that the article appears objectively to reflect the sources, and he doesn't really argue that the text of the article is POV -- only that the BOOK TITLES in the reference section do reflect POV.
I had not considered the matter from this viewpoint until he raised the issue, but I must say: it's both true and hard to deal with. Has this sort of matter ever reached the NPOV Noticeboard before? -- Nemonoman ( talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
User YellowMonkey has been removing the entire Indian section from the State-sponsored terrorism page on the excuse of UNDUE weight... He is clearly pushing POV since all the text is referenced and brief... How can a report of foreign Policy magazine and the statement of Richard Holbrooke be UNDUE... Here is the edit... [64]... Adil your ( talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This might be more of a WP:COI issue, but it definitely has NPOV implications. The Montana Meth Project has been heavily edited by people involved with the campaign, who have been taking out information unfavorable to the project (IPs registered to the company that created it, for example). However, I'm concerned that the other side might be taking out too much information regarding the effectiveness of the program. If someone could poke their head in and help evaluate the dueling citations, I'd be much obliged. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The article on waterboarding begins by saying point-blank that waterboarding is torture, which of course would make it criminal. The following balancing material has been deleted from the lead:
"It is considered a form of torture in common parlance, although not always considered torture according to all proposed legal definitions in all circumstances."[1][2][3]
Ordinarily, I would not bring this to a noticeboard or pursue dispute resolution. However, living people are in jeopardy of going to jail about this matter, so I think we have a special responsibility to be neutral, and not pretend that Wikipedia is a court of law. It may be more appropriate to bring this to the BLP Noticeboard, but I'll start here. Please keep in mind that I'm not taking any position, but simply trying to describe existing positions out there in the real world. Also, please note that this article went to ArbCom back in January and February. [73] Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem here arises from the fact that there are two definitions being applied, and they should be kept separate:
The first definition is the purview of an encyclopedia, and should be in the lede, as the lede is where the term is defined. The second is more fluid and subject to the vagaries of politics, and should be discussed in the body, but not in the lede. The political definition of the word does not belong there. -- Good Damon 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Good Damon, if you'd like to remove the legal/political definitions from the lead, then fine. Remove from the lead that "it is considered a form of torture by legal experts." And insert into the lead that it is commonly considered torture regardless of legal definitions. Ferrylodge ( talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have requested page protection as a preventative measure to ensure no one gets caught up in an edit war. Let's sort this out, then make changes if any are needed. -- Good Damon 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that this edit in the lead solve all POV/inclusion/exclusion problems as well as been more in line with Wikipedia Policy, particularly WP:Lead, WP:SUMMARY, WP:Undue:
- Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying. [2] By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensation of drowning. [3] Waterboarding use is considered a form of torture by legal experts, [4] [5] politicians, war veterans, [6] [7] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims, [8] [9] intelligence officials, [10] military judges, [11] and human rights organizations. [12] [13]
- In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. [14] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death. [4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years. [8]
- In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, [15] [16] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal. Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. [17] [18] Acording to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed allowed the U.S. government to stop a 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles. [19] This recent events have prompted a political dispute within the U.S.A. as to the legal status of waterboarding as a form of torture.
- In January 2009 United States President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the United States Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes. [19] According to officials such as Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Daniel Baumgartner Jr., the waterboard can be used for training without becoming a torture device. [20]
(undent) Wikipedia is universal (even the English version) so your point about the legal status of waterboarding as torture is the United States is muted. More so if you consider that there is a section in the article specifically for it and that my suggested edit explicitly summarizes it. That it reads as a "guilty" sentence is really a synthesis you form in your mind (and a United States mind at that). I already gave examples above as to what an editor from a country where torture is not a criminal act will make of such interpretation. Again I fail to see the relevance of having the procedure simulated for trainees being equated to the real thing. Trainees know it is a controlled train exercise and summit willingly to it. Tortured people have absolutely no control about anything. The US Government is a biased party with huge problems both internally and externally due to its ambiguities and practices regarding waterboaring and the facts are discussed in a section specifically for it. There is no universal court of law and thus no amount of ruling will change the universal definition of waterboarding and even if a US court rules it is not torture then an edit reflecting the fact should have to be included in the future but the general definition as to waterboaring being torture will certainly stand with a section as to countries whose legal systems do not consider waterboarding as torture included in the article.-- LexCorp ( talk) 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Adendum. Furthermore I resent you accusation of me trying to censor anything. My suggested edit is a good compromise. Why a petty internal political dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding in the U.S.A. has to be featured in the lead of an article about waterboarding in general is beyond me. Why the definition of waterboarding hinges in any way upon said dispute is beyond me. Any WP:NPOV issues are addressed by having within the article a specific section regarding the U.S.A. In fact any unbiased editor would (I think) agree that it is your proposed edit that gives undue weight to a minority view in a current politically motivated dispute in the U.S.A. (as per WP:GEVAL) and not only that but it also fundamentally changes the definition of waterboarding by not stating specifically that waterboarding is torture (thus certainly WP:POV). (note: this Adendum is done after the accusation by Ferrylodge of me trying to censor the article sank in and thus its objectivity I fully disclose is suspect)-- LexCorp ( talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Per the scope of this noticeboard, the issue here is whether the content/decription of/in that article follows NPOV. The BLP issue for the definition is a red herring; the topic is not a LP so just follow the sources while respecting NPOV. The BLP issue for any LP mentioned in the article is similar; follow the sources meticulously with no compromise to reliable sourcing. But conflating the definition itself with living persons issues is, with due respect, silly. I am somewhat surprised there was this much discussion about it. While WP is not a court of law, it is no more an advocate for any prosecutorial or defensive legal position. Sources, sources, sources. From a legal perspective, we want articles to be as fair and accurate as possible; if this is meant to be an analog of the Rohde case, it is a terrible one. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.
As one former CIA official, once a senior official for the directorate of operations, told me: 'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.' Another, also a former higher-up in the directorate of operations, told me: 'Yes, it's torture…'
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)