This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A request for comment has been made on the page for Jill Stein after a number of edits were rolled back without discussion. A careful and concise list of the major elements censored has been made and the question is: should some or all of this censored material be restored? Thank you for your help maintaining Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality.

To give the simplest example: The following text (in green) has been repeatedly blocked from addition to the page because the page owner does not believe it represents her "true" opinion on vaccines, the page owner believes instead that she is using dog-whistle terms... :

In a short article discussing these tweets at Forbes, Emily Willingham described Stein's statements on vaccines as "using dog whistle terms and equivocations bound to appeal to the “antivaccine” constituency". ^[1] In a later interview, at the Green Party convention, Stein stated that she did not believe that vaccines caused autism, and compared the media frenzy around the question to the birther issue which had been used against Barack Obama in 2008. ^[2]

Existing text on the page is in black, what I'm trying to include is in dark green. (I've added the fact that the smear quote is from a short article, because the editor is giving this polemical citation undue weight by citing all of Emily Willingham's credentials for a 100-word squib on a tweetstorm on the web version of a finance magazine...)

If you would like to come and remind the page owner that pages on Wikipedia are not owned, your help will be much appreciated!! (actually there appears to be a team of 3 working together, all of whom voted against the addition of the dark green text above to counterbalance the "dog whistle" takedown... with primary and secondary source material (see video in reference with commentary from Cenk Ugyur, who spoke at the DNC Convention, so is seemingly a credible source.)

Request for Comment (Jill Stein page)

SashiRolls ( talk) 23:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Page has clearly been overrun by partisans with an agenda. More eyes needed, urgently. 174.19.224.236 ( talk) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above users that there is a neutrality problem, but I would like to try to briefly offer a more neutral and comprehensive guide to the ongoing dispute. Though I have also been involved on the talk page (also as a logged in user--which one is not too much of a secret but I'd rather not state it explicitly for obvious reasons), I take issue with the rhetoric and proposals of both sides.

The status quo article--particularly the sections on the 2016 campaign and her political positions--contains numerous Stein quotes chosen by Wikipedia editors from primary sources which portray her in an unflattering light. Likewise, it contains numerous facts, such as her performance in a single poll in which a dead gorilla was farcically included as an option, which likewise seem chosen to mock her candidacy, going beyond simply stating her obviously slim chances and crossing the line into ridicule. Examples:

1. diff1
2. diff2

These edits are defended on the grounds that they rely heavily on verbatim quotes (and therefore free of bias) and they concern issues relevant to the page. Concerns about misuse of primary sources are dismissed, usually without attempting to ground disputes about due weight in the coverage of reliable secondary sources.

• These issues have been discussed exhaustively on the talk page, with little movement toward consensus.
• See also: An RFC, which was unproductive due to (in my view) a flawed presentation of the issues at hand. Valid points by both sides were left unaddressed as ongoing ad hominem argumentation spilled over into the rest of the talk page, which has become quite unwieldy.
• There have also been inconclusive (and now dormant) discussions at:
  • WP:RSN,
  • Talk:NeilN, and
  • WP:RFP, most recently.

There are apparently related disputes at the article for Stein's running mate, involving some of the same users. 71.13.175.226 ( talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please log in. If you have been involved as a registered editor, other editors need to be able to see all your contributions. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

My username is the reverse of miTeguh. I recently had someone else change my password for me so that I couldn't log on, in an attempt to take a wikibreak. Accordingly, I aim to disengage from this dispute now. 71.13.175.226 ( talk) 17:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to describe Wittingham's piece as "short". It's not particularly short. The problem with your proposed edit on the vaccines is that it's your (or Cenk Uygur's) interpretation of the statement and it does not add much to a section which already contains her clarified positions on vaccines. I spoke in favor of using the quotes from the interview instead. That you think Cenk Uygur is a reliable source says all we need about you SashiRolls. Just for some context, this is the same user who spent considerable time going against consensus fighting to get laudatory statements from Venezuelan state propaganda (Telesur) included in an article on Stein's VP candidate. The user has no sense for reliable sources and spends most of his time pushing inaccurate, confusing and misleading edits that all have a pro-Stein bias. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

An attempt to have the above user blocked from the site has failed, even though I offered to agree to accept a block myself in exchange, so others could work peacefully. His latest questionable action was to announce that he had he removed a section that consensus was calling for while, in fact, only removing the section title. People looking at the diff could mistakenly believe that he had removed the on 3rd party chances sections as he says he did in the edit summary, and as consensus has suggested is necessary. See Duverger's, Delete the 3rd party Chances Section, [1], and Doesn't seem neutral. I am taking the step of deleting the section to follow up on 6-8 users belief that it does not belong, even though I fully expect that I will be berated violently for doing so by [User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans] who seems to be hoping the "systemic bias" tag will remain as long as possible... SashiRolls ( talk) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much to all who have worked on the page trying to challenge this user's behavior. I have been singled out for the user's worst abuse, but still no official action has been taken. SashiRolls ( talk) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Christian140 has raised some valid concerns at WT:SOCIOLOGY#Racism in South Korea that are relevant to this noticeboard. Since that project is not super-duper active, I wanted to call attention to it here as well since Christian's recent post indicates that he/she's about ready to give up and I think more input from uninvolved editors is needed. I'm going to try to take a closer look later, but I don't have any background knowledge on the article in question ( Racism in South Korea). —PermStrump (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Weeks ago, Trivialist unfairly destroyed the Family Home Entertainment (or FHE for short) page and redirected it to the Artisan Entertainment page ( here) just because he thinks that FHE was a former name of the company, so I reverted it a few days ago but he and the others kept adding the redirect back ( here, here, here, here, and here). I tried to revert the FHE page back to the way it was several times, and I even threatened them for adding the redirect back. But then they blocked me and I tried so hard to remind anyone on my talk page that FHE was the name of the KIDS AND FAMILY SUBSIDIARY of Artisan, not just one of the parent company's former names. It's just that FHE became a LABEL of the parent company after the latter was incorporated as International Video Entertainment in 1986. (I even said this on the article's talk page.) Can you please remove the page's redirect to the Artisan page and add all of its content back? 68.2.123.163 ( talk) 00:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because they are not precisely the same thing does not mean they need separate pages. See WP:NOPAGE. Rhoark ( talk) 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't care, FHE has its own history from the early 1980s to 2005. Now nobody sees its page anymore because it's butchered. 68.2.123.163 ( talk) 22:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

FHE's history is adequately covered in Artisan_Entertainment#1980s, and can be expanded in that section if necessary. As noted above, there's no compelling reason to create a separate page for it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors are invited to review Talk:Jill Stein#RfC: Should the article discuss a crowd-funded YouTube documentary or include a quotation from Chris Hedges stating that "the Democratic Party is one of the engines for ... proto-fascism," or include similar content?. Neutrality ^talk 19:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This issue was originally posted here but the discussion has been abruptly closed because it was in the "wrong venue". It is primarily an issue of source unreliability, however it could also be viewed as a problem of "point of view", so this could be the right place for such an issue.

Articles such as:

• Growth of religion
• Christianity by country
• Christian population growth

Are in a horrible state as they appear to have become platforms of propaganda for a certain religious ideology who sees inflated statistical data as its strength and weapon. However, the main problem is that those articles (or major parts of them) are constructed on unreliable sources such as tabloids and low-level journalism (which by definition is not academic, and by Wikipedia standards should not be used as a source here), for example articles from The Guardian or The Economist, and ostensively biased agencies such as the "World Christian Encyclopedia". I have also discovered that the user who has recently revised those articles or the Christianity-related sections of those articles has made an unfair use of some sources (and in this case I refer to the few good quality ones, academico books, that apparently (deceptively) are referenced), reporting information that those sources do not contain.

I ask for help from administrators and other editors in dealing with this issue, to purge those articles from the aforementioned bad quality sources.-- 151.68.153.125 ( talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The bad quality sources are mostly proxies for other sources. Instead of simply discarding the improperly sourced content, they should be examined for the actual sources of information, and those should be cited instead if they are reliable. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Umm... Are you saying The Guardian and The Economist represent "tabloids and low-level journalism"? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• This appears to be really an issue for WP:RSN. In any case, the policy in question is WP:NEWSORG. Opinion columns in newspapers (including The Guardian) are akin to primary sources because they are not vetted by the editorial board. But The Economist is a news magazine where all articles are vetted. It is an internationally reputed news magazine, and it can be regarded as a reliable source, below only peer-reviewed scholarly articles. If no peer-reviewed sources are available for the material in question, The Economist can certainly be used. Does this answer the question? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It does. Thank you. I have polished one of the articles ( growth of religion), which nonetheless remains in a horrible state, as I have surely missed some of the unsubstantiated claims and bad sources it contains. Besides this, it is also written in bad language, containing a lot of grammatical and spelling errors (the last editor, that who inserted all these bad sources, tabloids, blogs, etc., claims to be an Arab and that English is not his mother tongue). I already added tags of unreliability in the past days, but they were promptly removed by the user in question.-- 151.36.36.57 ( talk) 20:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My edits have been immediately reverted by someone claiming that I am another user who incidentally criticized the contributions of the user who has constructed those articles, and were banned. I am not that user. Apparently there's more interest in disputes among users than in the content of articles.-- 151.36.36.57 ( talk) 20:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the edit [2]. I would say it was too big of a deletion to go without a contest. Since it has been reverted, you need to follow WP:BRD, i.e., discuss the issues on the article talk page.

Here I will limit myself to the general policy issues. Saying that an opinion column is like a "primary source" doesn't mean that it is unreliable. Rather it means that the reliability depends on the author or the source of the information. And, in our text, it will be have to be attributed with an in-text attribution. (For example, statistics from PEW Research have been attributed, and PEW is globally accepted as a reliable source of statistics. So, that reference is perfectly fine.) Secondly, WP:NEWSORG also tells you that regular news reports are reliable. But they are only reliable for "news", not for opinions.

I have watch listed the page now. So, if you initiate a discussion, I can come and help if anything remains contentious. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I just started the discussion.-- 151.36.36.57 ( talk) 21:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of news media is to tell us what happened today and if what happened today is worth adding to an article then news media are our only source. One of the disputed passages is "Studies show that, in terms of percentage and world wide spread, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world," which is sourced to a VOA news section for people learning English. [3] Certainly it is a reliable source, but I would be more likely to choose a prestigious news source. The VOA gets its info from Pew, which might be a better source, and the article should say "According to a Pew Research study," not "studies show." TFD ( talk) 09:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedians! I hope editors experienced in WP:NPOV issues can look at a conversation on the Walmart Talk page. To summarize: An editor recently added a subsection to the article called Growing crime problem based on a report from Bloomberg. I made an edit request asking editors to include two sentences about Walmart's efforts to curb crimes, citing the aforementioned Bloomberg story and another one. Two editors have weighed in, Sammy1339 and Meters. I would not want to attempt to summarize their opinions, as both editors have clearly stated their viewpoints already. However, as the discussion is at a standstill, it seems more input is needed. Thanks, JLD at Walmart ( talk) 17:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

At War in Donbass, RGloucester and Iryna Harpy are insisting ( [4], [5]) that we keep scare quotes around the term humanitarian convoy, editorially implying, in wikipedia's voice, that usage of the term is absurd or misleading. The term is already attributed to Russia in writing: "what Russia called a humanitarian convoy".

RGloucester maintains at Talk:War in Donbass that "It is a direct quote FROM THE SOURCE" (caps in the original), and that removing the quotes would render us guilty of WP:OR. However, none of the five sources used in this paragraph ( [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) directly quote Russian officials when using this term - the sources are paraphrasing - and it is therefore false to suggest that quotation marks are necessary to denote exact Russian language from any of these sources. It is furthermore unclear why quotation marks are necessary in this specific instance, when the construction of the sentence clearly indicates this phrase originates with Russia.

I am not sure if there may be a language proficiency problem in terms of identifying sarcasm, or a POV problem in terms of thinking that scare quotes are justified, but more eyes would be appreciated. Obviously if scare quotes were permitted around any phrase appearing in a newspaper, POV-pushers would have a field day all across the encyclopedia, and maintain in every case "It is a direct quote FROM THE SOURCE." - Darouet ( talk) 13:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

'Scare quotes' are also used where the label/name is disputed. Which is certainly the case with Russia labelling it a 'humanitarian convoy'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Noting that "Russia describes it as a humanitarian convoy" conveys that this is their position, but not necessarily that of others. I appreciate that you recognize this is scare quoting, but disagree that this is appropriate at wikipedia, especially in the context of a dispute. - Darouet ( talk) 14:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your use of the term "scare quotes" is POV. Using quotation marks around a term that isn't what its linguistic label implies it is isn't "scary". The only people who think that the "humanitarian convoys" are actually humanitarian convoys are Russian media announcers. When the rest of the world doubts it, then use of quotation marks around the words "humanitarian convoy" is appropriate. -- Taivo ( talk) 17:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand what scare quotes are, and by stating that we should use quotation marks to imply editorial doubt of Russia's term, are advocating that we use them. According to you, using scare quotes is necessary, but describing them as such is not neutral. That is typical nationalist nonsense and has no place in Wikipedia. - Darouet ( talk) 16:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• To attempt to address the actual question: we require citations so that information is able to be verified... But we do not require that the information must be easily verifiable, or even verifiable by everyone... there may be situations when you will not be able to verify the information yourself. When this occurs, you need to contact others who can access the source on your behalf. Blueboar ( talk) 18:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If a citation had been newly added and the editor adding it refused to quote sufficient text from the source to determine whether the claims being made for it were justified or not, would the position be the same?     ←   ZScarpia   19:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Again with the false claim that I refused to give you the quote? I'm starting to rethink my position regarding reporting you at WP:AE. Epson Salts ( talk) 22:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a hypothetical question: it's not about you. As far as reporting me to AE goes, it's tedious reading your threats: put up or shut up.     ←   ZScarpia   11:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Should Jill Stein be allowed to have a Political positions page as the rest of the candidates do, and if so, is there currently undue weight given to her "political positions" (many of which originally written by editors opposed to them) on her biography page? This is the question for which a request for comment has been opened here. As stated before by other editors, this page urgently needs "more eyes". SashiRolls ( talk) 18:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @ SashiRolls: my impression, after reading through over half of the "political positions" section of her bio, is that it's not unduly hostile to her. There are a few places where the tone, or sentence construction, could be tweaked (e.g. her stance on housing not including specific policy recommendations could be written more neutrally), but I don't view the sections I read as terrible. Furthermore, I would agree with some editors on the talk page that her political positions are probably best kept in her bio, and not spun into a new article. - Darouet ( talk) 15:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A edit of mine has been reverted multiple times by User:Lysimachi who says that it violates WP:NPOV. There was a previous Dispute resolution case on this Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_141#Talk:Han_Taiwanese.23Lead_sentence_WikiLink but the status is unresolved. According to User:Lysimachi, saying that "Han Taiwanese" are ethnically "Han Chinese" violates WP:UNDUE ( Diff). The term "Han Chinese" is used in multiple sources and I don't see why we should not mention it at all in this article. The term "Chinese" is an ethnic term and differentiates the Taiwanese of Han Chinese descent from those of Aboriginal descent. I'm struggling to understand where is the NPOV violation here. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A RFC posted at Project Automobiles is discussing two similar article edits:

• Should the Chevrolet Caprice article mention in the body or via a see also link the Beltway_sniper_attacks's use of a Chevrolet Caprice? (specific addition in question: [ [16]]).
• Should the Ford Ford F-650 medium duty truck article include a mention in the body of the text or via a see also link the Oklahoma City bombing? (specific addition in question: [ [17]]).

Springee ( talk) 19:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just removed an unsourced section about conspiracy theories, but another section that attempts to collate such conspiracy theories remains. I feel as though this whole discussion is basically a coatrack especially because the most reliable sources basically conclude that no one in government knew anything about the use of this airport as a drug trafficking drop point. Help on this article would be greatly appreciated.

jps ( talk) 11:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The claim that the results of the Referendum of the United Kingdom on the Membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union (2016), are "not legally binding", is tainted, or, is put into doubt by the fact that it was NEVER actually widely made (and was certainly never made on THIS article, here, on Wikipedia, and cited) BEFORE the (provisional) final results were announced and confirmed by the national chief Returning Officer from the Electoral Commission, in Manchester, based in one of the premises of Manchester City Council, sometime on June the 24th..

One of the last "clean" versions of the article, and the last version dated June the 23rd..

When a ""non-binding" claim" source (conveniently dated June the 24th., AFTER the all-UK national provisional final results) started to get specifically reinstated, on the same date.

This question is in fact not first raised by me, but by Peter Lilley MP (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Conservative), who said ( Hansard: House of Commons; 5 September 2016; Volume 614), by his speech in the debate (regarding the e-Petition Number 131215; relating to EU referendum rules ),

David Lammy MP (Tottenham) (Labour) had indeed, on the same debate, cited the Briefing Paper issued by the House of Commons Library. He, however, erred, in that he either omitted by oversight, or he conveniently, for his own purpose, deliberately ignored and omitted the disclaimer, at the end of the document, which clearly states, at the end (Page 33 of 33 pages according to the Printers), that,

Essentially, the cited Brief Paper cannot be used or otherwise cited as an acceptable or reliable legal advice.

The article is otherwise generally written in a (rather strong) pro-Remain bias, especially the disproportionate use of pro-Remain publications (especially The Guardian and The Independent). -- 87.102.116.36 ( talk) 00:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This post is a rehash of these comments on the article talk page, which were removed by BethNaught on the grounds of WP:SOAPBOX. After they were re-added, I also removed them, citing much the same reason. See also these comments, which were made after the user was asked not to make such posts, and which allege me to be in the pay of either the Labour Party or one or more trade unions. I'd like to state for the record that neither of those claims is true.

According to our article about endorsements during the referendum campaign, only a handful of newspapers supported the Leave campaign. Of these, only The Telegraph and The Sunday Times would be regarded as reliable sources. There are far more sources regarded as reliable that supported the Remain campaign, so the odds are there are more likely to be a greater number of Remain-supporting newspapers used in any one article. Whether or not the referendum is legally binding is a topic that has been discussed in the media; the general consensus seems to be that it is not, though it is more than likely morally binding. The government could choose to ignore the result, but such a decision would probably be to its detriment. If the leave supporting newspapers choose not to report this story (i.e., that the referendum is not legally binding), or to advocate a different theory, then all we can do in the article is make note of that view.

I hate to be blunt, but this is just someone else with an axe to grind having a whine because they believe Wikipedia is ignoring the truth. Sadly this is an emotive topic that has exposed a great divide in the UK, with many on the winning side failing to be magnanimous in victory, and many on the losing side refusing to accept defeat. The rest of us wonder if the world's gone just that little bit crazy. This is Paul ( talk) 18:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is all missing the point, no referendum in the UK can be binding as Parliament is sovereign, and no act of one parliament can bind another. This means that no matter what one parliament does, it can be undone by the next, meaning a referendum can be held in one parliament but ignored by the next, or the legislation repealed. the description can be seen here

Precisely. Here's an instance where parliament did that. This is Paul ( talk) 20:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The creator of this post appears to have breached WP:FORUMSHOP since they started an identical discussion thread here. Others have commented there. This is Paul ( talk) 20:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The War of 1812 is (unfortunately) notorious for arguments about who won it. Canadians (who are aware of the war at least) generally say they won it, Americans say they won it or it was a stalemate. While more historians say it was a stalemate, a body of mainly British Historians tend to say it was a British victory, American Historians tend to say it was a stalemate, or a US victory. There are books written to support both views. People have been arguing about who won it for 100 years, and probably will for another 1000.

So on the War of 1812 page, after some discussion it was decided to include both viewpoints in the infobox, rather like the results in Battle_of_Ia_Drang, also a conflict where both sides think they won the conflict. Unfortunately, the Canadian/British centric result was later removed, leaving the US centric result only. I have attempted to put it back in via the talk page, and attempted to start a mediation to return the Canadian/British view so that IMHO the article meets NPOV...but with no luck. Most of the active Wikipedians on the page are from the US and support the US centric view that Canada/Britain didn't win the war, and that it was a stalemate.

In summary, it concerns me that we have a US centric historical viewpoint, argued by US historians and supported by US wikipedians on this page, with the removal of a Canadian/British viewpoint, mainly supported by British Historians. My suggestion would be to have it like the Battle of Ia Drang. This was a battle between Vietnamese forces and US forces, who both argue they won it from their own perspectives, and the infobox indicates the result is disputed. In the war of 1812's case, the result is disputed to indicate the two national opinions on either side of the border, and the difference of opinions between British Historians and US historians.

Lengthy discussion here. [ [18]] Deathlibrarian ( talk) 08:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The war was between the U.S. and the UK. Canada had not yet been formed although there were two colonies with Canada in their name. The view that the U.S. persued the war in order to annex Upper Canada, and that the Canadian militia defeated them, was a myth promoted by colonial officials in the 19th century that has remained in popular consciousness. However, modern historians of the war have rejected the annexation thesis and see other reasons the U.S. went to war including alleged impressment of American sailors and British arming of native Indians. All U.S. demands were met by the UK, some before the war began, although it had nothing to do with the war. Views of history are not divided according to the nationality of historians but according to what is generally accepted by historians and what is not. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It does not mean balancing popular views in different countries. TFD ( talk) 14:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD. I'm sorry but I have to disagree, ... in this case, the views of history *are* divided according to the nationality of historians - I wouldn't be here debating this if it wasn't the case. Generally British Historians that have an opinion on the War of 1812 will say that Canadians/British won, US Historians (except for a few like Donald Hickey) will mostly say that it was a stalemate, or that in fact the US won (sometimes based on Naval victories), and Canadian Historians seem to be a bit more split, but probably with a lean to Canada winning, not so sure. You probably should read this, it discusses the split between nationality of Historians and their opinions of who won the war. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 22:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC) http://www.essaysinhistory.com/content/dubious-victories-refighting-war-1812

Would you please provide a cite for your claim that "Canadians generally say they won it"? The article cites a survey (Boswell 2009) that indicates that 37% of Canadians believed this, less than a majority. -- Noren ( talk) 01:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this study says that 37% of Canadians think they won, 8% think the US won, and 14% think it was a tie. The rest didn't know. So certainly out of the people *that had an opinion*, the majority of Canadians think they won the war. If you translate that into a percentage of people that were aware of the war and offered an opinion, 62% of Canadians think they won the war, 13% think the US won, and 23% think it was a tie. https://acs-aec.ca/pdf/polls/12604640589505%20%282%29.pdf Additionally, they recently erected a statue showing them as the victors, so clearly someone in Canada thinks they won! :-)... http://i.cbc.ca/1.2203869.1382590258!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_300/coupland-monument-250.jpg Also, as per the article, a "February 2012 poll found that in a list of items that could be used to define Canadians' identity, the fact that Canada successfully repelled an American invasion in the War of 1812 places second (25%), only behind the fact that Canada has universal health care (53%)" Deathlibrarian ( talk) 04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Deathlibrarian, TFD: is there a link in the talk page archives where we can review a list of historians and their comments on the war's outcome? That would help to evaluate: right now on the talk page I don't see that presentation of sources. - Darouet ( talk) 14:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to know more I'd recommend the 2009 mediation. See for example [19] this proposal by Deathlibrarian, which includes a paragraph that begins: "In recent decades the view of the majority of American, British and Canadian historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. "-- Noren ( talk) 01:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Darouet, actually what Noren indicates there is incorrect and in fact, that should be changed on the page. American, British and Canadian historians do not all agree on the results of the war. This article below is probably a nice summary of historian's opinions, while it is a review of two opposing works, it also covers a range of views by historians, and generally shows the national patterns. It is also recent, so it takes into account some articles written after the bicentenary. "While British historians have shown a tendency to ignore the conflict, it is unfair to say they have forgotten the war altogether. Several British scholars have indeed studied their country’s second clash with the United States, and concluded that it was a triumphant one for John Bull. American historians, however, take umbrage at the suggestion that they “think” they won; the war, these scholars contend, can indeed be regarded as an American victory, at least in a limited sense. The explosion of literature for the war’s bicentennial has only exacerbated these trends, and two of the most recent works offer excellent examples of the ongoing fight over who can claim victory in the War of 1812." http://www.essaysinhistory.com/content/dubious-victories-refighting-war-1812 Deathlibrarian ( talk) 04:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

DarouetJust a question, is it normal to put a NPOV tag on an article, while it is undergoing a bias investigation??? Deathlibrarian ( talk) 09:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Violence against men.

• James J. Lambden ( talk · contribs)

• Arkon ( talk · contribs)

Someone else deal with them, please.

jps ( talk) 20:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Changed the heading to something less...strange. Arkon ( talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - let's stick to something neutral -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted) jps ( talk) 20:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd really rather not take this to AN/I, but if you can't constrain yourself from casting aspersions about myself and others, I'm not seeing much choice at this point. Arkon ( talk) 20:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Aspersions removed. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't take him to ANI yet, but it looks like this is heading in that direction, with the incivility and casting aspersions. I think that we can all agree that Arkon's version makes more sense. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Something should be done. jps reverted me with the edit-summary "Revert alt right POV-pusher" This follows an earlier threat (or personal attack if we're being generous) against me which multiple editors cautioned him not to repeat, prior to his last block. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough to take him to ANI, though. The last personal attack was fairly mild. It's a bit uncivil, but not quite worthy of ANI. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Incivility aside it's not a valid revert rationale. It's disruptive editing in an article under discretionary sanctions. I don't particularly care whether he's blocked or warned or not but I would like the disruptive editing to stop. James J. Lambden ( talk) 21:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if there are 10 rather unfriendly comments before there is some agreement about the section heading, this might be hard to handle at WP:NPOVN. Can you (all, or at least most) try to turn down the screw one or two turns, and try actively to write text not only in good faith, but also with an eye on how they might be perceived by a person already not in the most benevolent state of mind? Thanks! -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 10:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that was quick. This follows this conversation where the user tried to remove the cat from the Domestic Violence article. My final response was to take it up with the cat if you don't think it should explicitly include domestic violence. Of course I didn't mean unilaterally change the language; I meant to gain consensus there, but I suppose I could have been more clear in that given their block log. TimothyJosephWood 22:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Please comment here: Category talk:Violence against men#Which version is better?. jps ( talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing dispute in the talkpage of the John A. McDougall article about a particular claim therein, specifically about whether the McDougall Plan is a "fad diet" (among other claims) and—more importantly—whether the source cited to support that claims are adequate. The claims, from the lead, are as follows:

McDougall's diet—The McDougall Plan—has been categorized as a fad diet that carries some disadvantages, such as a boring food choice and the risk of feeling hungry.

The claims are again stated in John A. McDougall § McDougall Plan criticism as follows:

McDougall's namesake diet, The McDougall Plan, has been categorized as a fad diet with possible disadvantages including a boring food choice, flatulence, and the risk of feeling hungry.

This issue is relevant to WP:NPOV because the claims and their accompanying source (assuming it's upheld) are, in my opinion, being given undue weight to achieve a false balance by being included in the lead. Moreover, I would question whether the claim is itself consistent with WP:NPOV, particularly WP:ASSERT and WP:WikiVoice, given how it is being stated as an unqualified fact despite it clearly being the opinions of the authors of the source. At the very least, these claims and accompanying source should be removed from the article lead and qualified as being the opinions of the authors, assuming the claims and source are even upheld. This is my opinion, at least, and I invite further input on this matter.

For the record, I have also submitted reports on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, which can be found here and here, respectively. Alexbrn has also submitted a report to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which can be found here. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to discuss the same issue at four different noticeboards? Surely that's just going to spread the discussion all over the place and make it more difficult to achieve a consensus. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah...no idea what possessed op to make multiple simultaneous posts. Happy to have the conversation, if we can figure out where exactly we're having it. TimothyJosephWood 21:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I assumed the conversation would be had on the talkpage, where it belongs. I see no reason to split up the discussion across these four three noticeboards, either, but I assumed editors would simply check the original talkpage discussion and join in there while limiting replies at the noticeboard posts to specific inquiries and disputes about those specific claims. Like I said immediately below, this seemed like the best course of action. If it wasn't, then I'll be sure to not do this again. If necessary, either I or an administrator can close some or all of the noticeboard posts. Their function was really to alert editors and not to initiate separate discussions, anyway, so I'd be fine with that. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, right now there already appears to be no consensus, though some of the other editors would like to believe so. Since this issue is complicated and related to multiple Wikipedia policies, I decided that I might as well request input from a broad range of editors to establish consensus. I couldn't find any policy or guideline prohibiting or discouraging requests on multiple noticeboards about the same issue, so I saw no reason not to do so. I'd rather this issue be resolved, and consensus be reached, quickly and without much controversy, so I have zero intention in trying to delay or impede either by submitting multiple noticeboard reports. If it's a bad idea to do so, then I'll be sure to not do so in the future. Sorry about that. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV says represent all the views expressed in reliable sources in proportion to their preponderance. The source given, the sixth edition of an apparently broad and neutral source, is perfectly qualified to give an assessment that can be stated as fact. If there are other views given in equally reliable sources then they have to be balanced. But you can't talk about balance with just one source because (perhaps) you disagree with it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This source may qualify as a reliable source in general, but what about being a reliable source for this particular claim? Like it states at the WP:RSN: Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". Moreover, this claim appears to be a minority view because I cannot find any other reliable sources, at least not of that type, which classifies the McDougall Plan as a "fad diet". Given that it's such a minority view, wouldn't that alone mean that it's inclusion in the lead is undue, if not simply not notable enough to even be included at all? I am concerned that the inclusion of this source is unbalanced because it treats the claim as an accepted fact despite being a relatively minor and obscure view of the authors, though perhaps I was mistaken on the applicability of that specific policy. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Minority among whom? Are the other sources equally qualified? Do they state anything that can be interpreted as contradicting this assessment? NPOV has to be interpreted as consensus among sources of equal quality. If a medical/health professional says one thing and a popular magazine says another, the professional source takes much higher priority. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• The source is good, so we follow it. Posting this on four noticeboards when it was already at WP:FT/N is a disruptive stunt. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I consider it fair and not a disruptive stunt. I am glad the editor posted to this forum, which is where i saw it. FT/N is a noticeboard of it's own sort, very different from this one. Please, let's not call the editor's motivations to be a "disruptive stunt" unless you know that's their intention by some means (i don't know how you would know that). SageRad ( talk) 20:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• we get these advocates for Diet X, who show up at our article about Diet X, and argue relentlessly that their favorite diet cannot - just cannot - be a fad diet even though it is well sourced. What they cannot see is that they are wasting everyone's time with their WP:ADVOCACY. The POV problem is with the OP, who is tendentiously (please read that link Nøkkenbuer) pounding on this dead horse. All the hallmarks. Look at this wall of text: Talk:John_A._McDougall#.22Fad_diet.22_claim_revisited and the forum shopping they have acknowledged. No support for their position, only opposition everywhere. There is a reason for that Nøkkenbuer -- look in the mirror, and open your ears. The POV problem here, is the one you are creating. Jytdog ( talk) 04:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Is someone claiming that a diet named "The McDougall Plan" is not a fad diet? It's a diet, it's a fad. Neutral point of view does not mean that an article should adopt the stance of those promoting their diets. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not know if it is a fad diet. I suppose I could read about fad diets, read the plan and make a judgment. I could do similar analyses with the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and the moon landing. But the policy is clear. we need reliable secondary sources that make the assessment and need to establish the weight of assessments in secondary sources to include them. The source saying it is a fad diet fails both. Why are we even writing about the diet if it has received only passing coverage if that in reliable sources? TFD ( talk) 21:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In this article, Kautilya3 has added a irrelevant citation ^[1] which is not related to "2016 Uri Attack" ^[2]. Hence a request has been sent to author Kautilya3 for removal of text on article talk page ^[3] However, user has not taken WP:NOPV and WP:BALASP into consideration and has also made more insertion in discussed text ^[4].

It is requested to remove the article based on irrelevancy ^[5] and lack of balance WP:BALASP

Rugby9090 ( talk) 15:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016. Among the concerns noted in the move discussion is whether or not WP:Undue weight is being given to a recent documentary. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiny Dancer has been indefinitely blocked - immediately after a 48 hour block for personal attacks, he responded with ":::Bye for now US kike slave. Tiny Dancer 48 ( talk) 18:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)" and when reverted, "oh no I used an "ethnic slur" while kikes demonize and genocide whites." He was a sockpuppet of the banned editor User:MIkemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Doug Weller. I guess my prediction was right on the money. - Darouet ( talk) 15:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

The way that this article is edited is extremely biased in its favor of one race over the other, and considering the fact that these are incredibly divisive subjects in the country as well as the fact that subjects when worded this way can sway the minds of people in one direction versus the other, politically, morally, among other ways, this is dangerous. I'm asking that something be done about this because even people in the Talk section of this page are incredibly racist, someone suggested that black people supposedly rape white people exactly 100 times more than the other way around, and were being extremely heated in their wording, and this is not only incorrect but reinforcing stereotypes that are at an all time high in scrutiny in the united states. Under the "see also" section was a link to a book by a conservative author titled "White Girl Bleed A Lot," which is an incredibly racist title and also the book is clearly stated under reception to have been largely biased and warped, and should not be something that is a springboard from a supposedly unbiased article. There is no doubt in my mind that the people editing these pages have ulterior motives. I beg that something be done about this, and articles like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.33.129 ( talk) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, what? White Girl Bleed a Lot is not linked anywhere on that page. Rather, it is listed in Category:Race and crime in the United States, which it belongs in. And whatever racism might exist on the talk page is irrelevant to whether the article is NPOV - the rape statistic was a drive by comment from one anonymous editor, and it did not make it into the article in any form. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So did you completely ignore everything else that I said? Yeah, it's not on the page because I removed it. I referenced the talk page so you could see what the motives are behind the people editing the main page, which I guess you chose not to acknowledge. Way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.33.129 ( talk) 15:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't mention that you removed it, you said it was there, and it was not, so I assumed you were mistaken, but apparently that was me. Fine. And I did not acknowledge the motives you think you found, because you didn't actually find anything. You found one racist comment, from one person, who didn't edit the article as far as I can tell. Let's go back to the reason you came here, "The way that this article is edited is extremely biased in its favor of one race over the other": Prove it. Point something out, something that's still in the article, that is biased. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have an issue with the lead of the article. Since I'm tired of arguing with the editors here and I'm not really an editor myself (don't really know how to handle disputes), I'm passing the ball to someone else who may want or may not want to alert some higher-ups. So, to sum it up, the intro says that "[Bret] Hart changed the perception of mainstream wrestling in the early 1990s by bringing technical in-ring performance to the fore". [no source]

It appeared really puffery to me, so I asked for clarification. An editor said that it was reported in an IGN article and that they had just reworded everything a little. Per WP:PEACOCK I said that the quote should have been reported as a quote and not as a fact (and proposed an edit that reflected the policy), yet the editors kept categorically rolled back everything. This was my revision: "according to IGN, Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 "changed the entire industry, re-setting the WWF back to the days of technical wizardry and reshaping all our notions of what a great wrestling match should actually look and feel like". [source: article, quoted ad litteram from what the editor claimed it was the source]

In the talk page, the argument eventually evolved into the claim that the bit in the lead was ultimately "a widespread opinion", according to editor that kept rolling everything back. Needless to say that I disagree with it, but there's this wall of two/three editors who simply believe that there's some kind of bias on my part. Is there something wrong and is it really preferable to keep the article like that or not?

151.35.36.60 ( talk) 02:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem peacock-like to me and i think you're correct in my general estimation to bring it up here. SageRad ( talk) 13:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft. Rhoark ( talk) 03:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, this could really use some outside input. The RfC seems to be dominated by Gamergate hecklers. Sławomir
Biały 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, wasn't avoiding the 30/500 restriction the stated reason for putting the RfC in that location in the first place? Just delete the entire malformed RfC page and restart the discussion in article talk space. VQuakr ( talk) 18:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The current stable version of the lead of James Watson describes certain controversial comments that led to Watson's resignation in 2007 thusly:

He was then appointed chancellor, serving until 2007 ^[1] when he resigned his position after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry. ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

Over the past months several editors (most recently myself) have attempted to change this wording to one which they argue more accurately represents third party coverage of Watson's comments (diffs: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]). Suggestions have included:

• ...after making controversial comments claiming a link between race and intelligence.
• ...after making controversial comments about the intelligence of Africans and people of African descent.
• Watson resigned this position and was widely shunned after making comments implying black people are less intelligent than others.

These changes have been reverted by others who argue that they imply Watson is racist, and that this violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and/or WP:ARBR&I. Numerous discussions on the talk page have failed to resolve the dispute, most recently Talk:James Watson#"Geographic ancestry" - is that like being descended from an atlas?, and I think a wider discussion amongst uninvolved editors is sorely needed.

The references below are a good summary of the sources on the issue, but a google search will turn up many more. Pinging @ Zaostao, Carwil, Collect, Klortho, Landerman56, and Ianmacm:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe ( talk • contribs)

The claims which some seek do not have a WP:CONSENSUS and make claims which are not found in the reliable sources. It is not an NPOV issue as such. Collect ( talk) 19:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Collect, you yourself have repeatedly invoked NPOV to revert changes and on the talk page: [40] [41] [42]. Of course there isn't yet a consensus, that is why I have brought this to the noticeboard.

I can understand your argument that overemphasizing Watson's comments on race may run afoul of NPOV and WP:BLP, but I really don't see how you can in good faith assert that the claim that he was talking about race is not supported by RSs. To quote just a few that are currently cited in support of the phrase in question (my emphasis):

• "...until he resigned over the controversy surrounding his racist comments." [43]
• "...uproar over racial comments he made recently." [44]
• "...painful decision to retire in the aftermath of a racist statement he made" [45]
• "Watson was promoting 'personal prejudices that are racist, vicious and unsupported by science.'" [46]
• "Nobel prize-winning biologist resigns from his job after making racist remarks" [47]
• "He also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically" [48]

Please, let's try an actually form a consensus here, rather than simply use the word to shut down discussion. Joe Roe ( talk) 00:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The point here is that this is the "Neutral Point of View" noticeboard, and your problem is that not only are issues raised other than that of NPOV, that you do not state the other issues clearly here, and that a genuine issue is that 'no reliable source makes the claim you wish to make. I suggest you set up an RfC rather than forumshop on only one of the issues involved. This is not "trying to shut down discussion" - it is that there is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page, that this board is not the venue for the discussion, that there is procedure of RfC which is preferable, that any discussion here would not settle the issues at hand, and that you appear not to have read WP:CONSENSUS. By the way, sine the most salient issue is whether the claim you wish to insert is backed up by a specific source, and is not of undue weight, that is likely the basis for the RfC which you should start. And please do not open discussions at each noticeboard on each issue - others will deem it confusing.

With regard to CNN - the quotes you most like are not part of body text of the article, but essentially "story highlights" written by a headline editor. The LA Times article does not ascribe words directly to Watson - but as what his "former protégé" says Watson said. (his former protege Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe wrote) So sorry - the fact is when the person has made other comments specifically disavowing the "quotes", it appears that using those words to define him is UNDUE from the beginning. Calling anyone a "racist" and wikilinking to Race and Intelligence is intrinsically a contentious claim as it is sought to be averred. Collect ( talk) 11:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here on the NPOV noticeboard. It seems an important and disputed question of content in that article. It's important to be accurate and to not whitewash anything. From one CNN article:

Watson was quoted as saying he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really." He also asserted there was no reason to believe different races separated by geography should have evolved identically, and that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

and from this CNN article "Nobel winner in 'racist' claim row":

The American professor's words have been roundly condemned as "racist," with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as "genetic nonsense." "He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted," said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University.

There it does seem the use of the term "racist comments" is justified from these sources. SageRad ( talk) 12:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@ Collect: Posting a dispute to a central noticeboard is not forum shopping. It is precisely why these noticeboards exist. Yes, there are other issues involved than NPOV, but based on your own comments I judged that to be the main one. What else should I have done? There isn't a "complex issues involving several policy areas" noticeboard. I considered an RfC, but thought I would try a more targeted venue first.

How can you possibly argue that the claim is not supported by RSes when I have provided six direct quotations that use exactly the same wording? You are splitting hairs by arguing they're in the 'wrong' part of the source: they are what the source says. I completely agree that it would be undue weight to define Watson as a racist. I have never suggested that. All I am saying is that we should describe Watson's comments straightforwardly, using the wording ("race") that nearly every RS on this topic uses, rather than an awkward euphemism ("geographic ancestry") that literally nobody else―not Watson, not any of our sources―employs.

P.S. I would appreciate a ping if you reply here, as I don't watch this noticeboard. Thanks. Joe Roe ( talk) 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a "central noticeboard". It is directly only to discussions concerning WP:NPOV - which is a non-negotiable policy. The issues are discussed on the article talk page where I make the point that opinions must be cited and ascribed as such, and that making claims about living persons in Wikipedia's voice which are opinions per se is improper. Joe Roe Collect ( talk) 19:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Right at the top of this page (in the navbox), the noticeboards are described as "Wikipedia's centralized discussion". But anyway, I agree, let's stick to the article talk page and not split the discussion. Joe Roe ( talk) 20:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In any case, it's very good that you posted this issue here, to get new eyes on the topic. That is how i knew about the issue and i am glad to be a part of the discussion. SageRad ( talk) 20:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New eyes are very much appreciated, but unfortunately posting to this noticeboard hasn't brought any besides your own! To that end, I've taken Collect's suggestion and started an RfC at Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation. Joe Roe ( talk) 21:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The community reassessment could use input on the neutrality of the article. The discussion is happening here: GAR: Joachim Helbig. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Another editor had placed a notice on this page: Unbalanced scales.svg This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2016)

Yesterday, I added information to the article per that editor's good suggestion, and noted so on the article's talk page. This morning, I deleted that notice. Being new to Wikipedia, I just want to be sure I have acted properly in this instance.

Thank you. KIRTIS ( talk) 10:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The subject is a British student politician who identifies as black based on her Algerian (North African) heritage. Whatever we might make of her racial identification in the United States, there is precedent in Britain for classifying North Africans as black.

See /info/en/?search=Black_people#Northern_Africa and black British; the latter page notes "[t]he term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain. This is a controversial definition.[6] "Black British" is one of various self-designation entries used in official UK ethnicity classifications."

Moreover, Bouattia is classified as black in almost every reliable source in British media. See her wiki page and check out the sources in the lede. A minority have criticized her identity on the grounds that she is not sub-Saharan African, and these sources are covered in the article. In light of this, the best approach seems to be to describe her as Black British while covering the controversy about her racial identity.

Instead, some editors are insisting that all references to her being black (apart from the criticisms of her identity) be purged from the article. This is bias and, exasperated at the need to do periodic reversions on the page, I'm flagging it. Steeletrap ( talk) 21:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is not about NPOV, and is progressing on the article talk page where it belongs. I find a great many sources stating the people of Algerian ancestry are not generally called "black", just as Japanese and Chinese people are rarely called "black" and so on. This is a matter of sources, and not a matter of neutral wording, and is not a topic related to the purpose of this particular noticeboard. The "periodic reversions" admitted by the OP are edit war as admitted. Collect ( talk) 21:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Algerians are mixed and consequently vary in appearance. Most look brown; but some would look black to Americans (others would look white). I have no doubt that many sources say they are not black. But this is all OR! What matters to us what reliable sources say about Bouattia: the vast majority say she's black.

Her racial identity is a matter of controversy; we shouldn't take sides in the controversy. Instead, we should reflect the majority-view in RS (that she is black) while also covering the significant minority view (that she isn't black since she's not of sub-Saharan ancestry). Why is this controversial? Steeletrap ( talk) 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's not an NPOV issue then what is it? I think it's relevant here. If not here. Where else do you go when you have such meta-issues on an article's content? SageRad ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The lede of the Ebrié article says "Originally called the "Tchaman" or "Achan" (both of which mean "the chosen ones" in the Ebrié language), the name Ébrié was given to them by the neighboring Abouré people. In the Abouré language, Ébrié means "dirty" or "soiled," and was given to them after a military defeat."

Wouldn't it be better to move the page to the name which is not derogatory? I am seeing them referred to as "Achan" in at least one article about Abidjan that seems to be written by somebody local, so it's not an obsolete name.

However, I am not at all a subject expert or all that familiar with WP policies on page moves so I thought I would ask here. I propose moving the page to Achan annd giving the Tchaman alternate name, then further down (not in lede, maybe in history) saying oh and the neighboring Abouré gave them a rude name when they defeated them (be nice to know when) in year whatever. They called them Ébrié, which means "soiled"... Elinruby ( talk) 07:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC) PS the name is spelled wrong in addition to being derogatory; there should be an accent aigu on the capital E. This does matter. Elinruby ( talk) 07:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Participation in the RfC at Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis is requested. The RfC asks whether presented sources require that the article should include the viewpoint that the theory is a form of pseudoscience or whether this viewpoint can be excluded entirely from the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I came across this article via the edits of an IP editor ( Special:Contributions/94.60.196.117) inserting neo-Nazi publications into articles. The article is in need of a cleaning up and could use some RS. I cleaned up the lead, but it was a drop in the bucket due to the amount of neo-Nazi fancruft.

In addition, Jonathan Bowden is part of the same far-right cluster, where Southgate was used as as source: diff. More eyes on this article would be appreciated. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate another set of eyes on the article where an editor restored removed material stating that the web site is suitable to use as a source. Please see: Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit. The material reinstated is not NPOV from my reading of things. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is presenting her as a saint. Its one thing to present the evidence, it is another to promote on a page with hash tags. Also, unrelated information is posted about the farmer- I disagree with the fine being posted. I don't understand how that adds to her case (or improves it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.7.14.241 ( talk) 23:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is about the case, not about Krajnc. The farmer is the person who brought the case. The case is about his livestock and his business practices (and how Krajnc interacted with them). His past convictions regarding his business practices with his livestock are relevant, and have been mentioned by an independent reliable source as such. MPS1992 ( talk) 00:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" - if it is about the case only, as you have stated, then you must remove from Anita Krajnc Case's talk the box that says it is part of a biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.130.36 ( talk) 04:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC) What a crock of Sh**. If it was strictly about her case it would be a boring article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.127.159 ( talk) 01:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anita Krajnc has an article that redirects to the case article, so perhaps the said template. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 04:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The article is a representation of reliable sources. It is requested that specific changes be suggested or the tag may be allowed to be removed. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 03:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anita is in the news again! http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/woman-already-on-trial-for-giving-water-to-pigs-arrested-after-pig-truck-rollover-1.3791972 Make sure to include she has been arrested again for obstruction of a police officer. Thanks, since I can't add it myself. Get rid of farmer fine too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.131.44 ( talk) 06:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The sourced mention of the arrest has now been added to the article as requested. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to this page, as it appears to have attracted some deletionist/revertionist editors, one who has stated he wanted to delete the page and put it under the heading of delusional parasitosis, when there has only been one study by the CDC with a small sample size and they only used that term once in their report. Now I am being told that the only large scale scientific study is not even MEDRS, according to Jytdog

And the present wikipedia article, as it stands is not a good understanding of what morgellons is, and does not even reflect in tone or attitude articles such as this published in Newsweek. (of which there are many I have linked in the Talk:Morgellons page)

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/morgellons-skin-disease-485638.html

This article has been labelled as a fringe topic, even while it has received a lot of relatively unbiased mainstream media coverage.

The raging antonyms of advocacy seem to have run amok here, and this page does not seem to me to effectively communicate much in the way of a NPOV which provides much useful information to the users of wikipedia.

Probrooks ( talk) 08:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The CDC had a small sample size because it is a non-existant disease claimed by a small number of either deluded, under the influence or plain cranks. Personally I dont think it should be merged completely because while it is completely made up rubbish, it is notable rubbish which has been covered by reliable secondary sources, the CDC was forced to investigate just in case there was something in it (the result being, no there wasnt). Being labelled fringe does not mean it has not had significant coverage, it just means it does not reflect the mainstream thought on the subject. Which in this case is: The people who think they have something called Morgellon's dont. They either have nothing, or something else. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The article as it is doesn't even reflect mainstream thought on the subject (which I find more openminded and more neutral in tone than the present article). I am certainly open to being a non-existant disease, and being a delusionary disease, but I can't see how people can so blithely make their mind up, when how can they really know? One small scientific study? But also, anyone can see photos of these people's sores, the strange pictures of these fibres and also take note many people are simply reporting they FEEL sick.

Probrooks ( talk) 09:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The article follows good sources and says this is a delusional disease. Wikipedia isn't going to be hinting "oooh, but just maybe there's something to this" - which would be an extraordinary claim - without extraordinarily strong sourcing in support. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but wikipedia can say that after the CDC study, they could not find a conclusive cause, didn't find out what the fibres actually were and still call it an unexplained dermopathy. That's just called reporting the facts. There does not need to be any statement "but just maybe there's something to this" as the CDC report does not use that kind of language, but makes it very clear much is still unknown.

Probrooks ( talk) 09:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Three things.

1) here is what I actually wrote. As I noted there, I don't intend to actually try to do the merge, and even if I did, it would be done through a merger proposal, not unilaterally.

2) for the zillionth time, the article does not cite the CDC report to support any WP:Biomedical information. Instead, there are five literature review articles - strong sources - that are cited: PMID  24005827, PMID  22250620, PMID  19878403, PMID  19822895, and PMID  19681520.

3) Newsweek is not a MEDRS source; i cannot fathom why Pobrooks is mentioning it here after they have been told many times that we use MEDRS sources to support biomedical content. Ignoring the strong sources that others bring and demanding content be added based on weak sources, is itself a violation of NPOV and a hallmark of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Jytdog ( talk) 16:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The first paper is an evaluation of delusional infestation. No mention of Morgellons.There is no text on this page. Why should it be quoted here?

The second paper is about dermatological infestations., no mention of Morgellons.

The third source says “As an example, we discuss a 55-year-old woman who complained of Morgellons disease and was treated as if she had DP.” This is the only paper with the hypothesis that Morgellons is delusional parasitosis.

The fourth source is a paper about delusional infestation, with no mention of Morgellons.

The fifth paper is for nurses and is about how nurses can care for people with morgellons.

And these five papers are being used to support the heading Medical description? and the diagnosis that morgellons is Delusional Paratosis?

I cannot see how anybody could consider these sources “strong” or reliable.

The CDC study is the only half decent scientific study on Morgellons and even that study was did not firmly state that Morgellons is delusional paratosis.

WP:MEDRS is a guideline for content, I am mentioning the newsweek article to point out mainstream consensus on this matter, which is not trying to tell people Morgellons is delusional paratosis as you are so insistent that it is must be.

Surely the CDC study is a position statement from national or international expert body, which WP:MEDRS says is an IDEAL source?

Please explain why on earth you can possibly believe the CDC study is not WP:MEDRS?

Probrooks ( talk) 01:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do we start...Let's go through those papers: 1) This paper is explicitly about Morgellons - you clearly didn't read it; 2) This paper is explicitly about Morgellons - you clearly didn't read it; 3) Yes, you actually read this one it seems! (or at least you read the abstract); 4) This paper is explicitly about Morgellons, a word that is used in the text about 100 times - you clearly didn't read it; 5) This one does equivocate on the cause of Morgellons, but that part of the article is terrible. Specifically, it presents a false equivalence between high-quality published research claiming Morgellons to be delusional parasitosis, and several opinion pieces by chronic lyme disease quacks. It should probably be removed from the article. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I read the abstracts, and am not able to find decent links to the meat of these primary sources. Yes, I made a mistake about 4 not mentioning morgellons, it was mentioned once in the abstract. As I am not able to read these papers or your average wikipedia user is not able to, how useful are they anyway?

It seems to me the CDC web site is more user friendly and actually based on real science.

http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/index.html

I do also want to point out that other scientific studies have been carried out on Morgellons, which contrast to the CDC position, most mainstream articles about Morgellons mention this research.

http://www.thecehf.org/morgellons-disease-research.html

WP:MEDRS states "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers."

Probrooks ( talk) 03:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's reliable source guideline, there is no requirement that a source be freely available online. Now, it's certainly difficult to have a conversation about a source that one person can't read, though how I accessed them is nothing special - I got them through my library. Regarding the CDC, let's see what it says:

This comprehensive study of an unexplained apparent dermopathy demonstrated no infectious cause and no evidence of an environmental link. There was no indication that it would be helpful to perform additional testing for infectious diseases as a potential cause. Future efforts should focus on helping patients reduce their symptoms through careful attention to treatment of co-existing medical, including psychiatric conditions, that might be contributing to their symptoms.

It sounds like they've pretty much in line with the other sources, just less assertive. The PLOS one paper is more of the same, but in much greater detail. I would summarize it as (not for the article, just this discussion), "CDC researchers have not jumped on the delusional infestation diagnosis, but they have also rejected apparently everything else". Now, regarding the "other scientific studies" is there any particular one you'd like to discuss, that comes to a different conclusion? Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Someguy, thanks for your input. If you review the Morgellons talk page, you will see that for this fringe-y condition, people show up and advocate making changes to content based on weak sources (primary sources in the scientific literature or the popular press); one of the reasons why MEDRS insists on literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies like the CDC itself (not the PLoS paper which is a primary source) -- is exactly so we don't get into "duelling primary sources" content disputes with advocates; it goes no where fast. MEDRS sources are where we find "accepted knowledge" about biomedical information; there is a hierarchy in the literature about health. you are free to do as you want of course, but asking Pobrooks, who is refusing to deal with the five MEDRS sources - or any MEDRS sources - to bring some primary source is going down an unproductive path..... Jytdog ( talk) 05:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at some of the papers at the link Pobrooks provided. All primary sources, all written by the same group, and half in predatory journals with no editorial standards. Looking into the PI for this group, the NIH actually put out a report accusing him of scientific misconduct (that also cost him a job), and Morgellons isn't the only fringe disease he publishes on. Yeah, nothing to see there. Someguy1221 ( talk) 07:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

oh wow didn't know that. I reckon you mean Stricker and this and this - NYT level of bad. wow. and he went from there to lead ILADS per this. From the fire into the fringe, and deeper into it yet with this morgellons stuff now. oy. Jytdog ( talk) 09:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Some group of authors keep changing caption to the satellite image in the article presented by Russian MoD making it nonneutral and biased [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] ignoring reliable sources. Before I posted a message here I conscientiously called those authors on the article talk page to follow WP:NPOV [54] [55] [56] [57]. Other conserned WP authors should pay attention to this in order to work out the overall consensus. Discussion is here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Should this image be added to the article?-- Александр Мотин ( talk) 15:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"Neutral" means, if anything, that the text represents reliable sources. Which in this case it does. What Aleksandr is complaining about is that the sources don't say what he wants them to say. Inserting a caption which does not represent the sources is what is non-neutral, not the other way around. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

While you and Александр Мотин have contested the image caption, declaring the images are either real or faked, the situation is not so simple, as pointed out in this interview appearing in Der Spiegel, and in a statement published by the chief editor of Spiegel Online. I would at least attribute the term "faked" to the report, as newspapers do, or more properly refer to the images as contested. Jeffrey Lewis, once of the researchers involved in developing the software, states that there are multiple reasons the photographs may appear doctored, with intentional fabrication one of the reasons. Jens Kriese, in his interview with Der Spiegel, points out the obvious fact that any image making its way from a satellite to the public will undergo multiple rounds of processing. - Darouet ( talk) 14:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved because the image was removed. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the image still exists. - Darouet ( talk) 02:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Randomly came across this article and I believe it's a POV fork of Malia Obama which currently redirects to Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_and_Sasha_Obama. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Definitely should be deleted: a bunch of semi-literate BS including "In addition to a student, Obama is occupationally a babysitter... She was reported dancing and causing a storm because of exposing her buttocks. She was also reported to smoking marijuana, raising the question of favoritism according to editorials." She is a child and entitled to protections afforded others in the periphery of various famous people. - Darouet ( talk) 17:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The article has been redirected. I requested a speedy deletion to remove the article history. I also wonder if it would be appropriate to request sanctions against the article's creator Special:Contributions/BBBH. Any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking over their contributions it's almost impossible to tell if they are grossly incompetent or prank trolling Wikipedia. I am not usually involved in discussions regarding enforcement on those issues so I'll leave it to the judgement of others. - Darouet ( talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I took an extensive look at their history as well as the history of some other editors of the same topics. My vote is 'trolling undisclosed alt account'. BBBH has been aware of the issues surrounding this since 2008, its unlikely in 8 years they have neither matured or failed to grasp how wikipedia works. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Indeffed as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC).

In the articles Serbs and Slavs, any total population figures lower than 12 million are removed. I warned and asked that the editors explain their edit according to WP:REVEXP, but the persistent edit war without edit summaries continue. I take that as silent crypto-nationalist WP:IDONTLIKEIT motivation and vandalism of sourced content, so to report it here. Judist ( talk) 13:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Both our Tipu Sultan and Christianity in India articles (and probably others) include the following:

His skin had darkened to the swarthy complexion of negroes

I'm almost certain his is a quotation from a contemporary (eighteenth century) source, but it is not marked as such. The entire section in which the text is embedded (in both articles) is poorly written and very questionable. More eyes (better eyes than mine) would be good. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Our James Scurry article marks "complexion of negroes" as a quotation from the guy's memoirs, meaning that the other two articles that don't are probably engaged in OR based on very old, biased, dubious primary sources. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead for the Hamas article currently includes this material: "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Jordan, and Japan as a terrorist organization. Others regard this classification as problematic, simplistic or reductive.[49][50][51][52][53]" However the "others" being referred to are cherry-picked academics found in Google Books. Given that the entirety of the paragraph (minus this exception) is focused on international positions, the inclusion of this remark misleadingly makes it seem as if these "others" were other countries, and this random "counterpoint" is non-neutral. There can be a separate section for academic views of Hamas. Drsmoo ( talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the way it is phrased implies the critical points are other nations but if they are just random academics (even if authorities in the area), this is the wrong way to introduce them. Either that should be removed, or a statement that summarizes the general academic take on how the classification is taken (including those that support it) should be used, but even here, this then might be undue weight in the lede. -- MASEM ( t) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Everything one objects to here is said to be sourced by 'cherrypicking', which, as often, here means, a careful survey of the relevant sources written by academic analysts of the Middle East who survey the available data. The whole section by the way is an abuse of WP:LEDE, since it is repetitively stuffed with a statement that could be synthesized in 2 sentences.

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Japan. Hamas has been outlawed in Jordan ^[1] Others regard this designation as problematic or simplistic. ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]} Israel outlawed Hamas in 1989, followed by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2002. The European Union defined Hamas's military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades as a terrorist organization in 2001, and put Hamas in its list of terrorist organizations in 2003, but such designation was successfully challenged by Hamas in the courts in 2014 on technical grounds. The judgment was appealed. In 2016 an EU legal advisor recommended that Hamas be removed from the list due to procedural errors. The final decision is not thought likely to effect individual government lists. ^{[7] [8]} An Egyptian court ruled Hamas was a terrorist organization in 2015. Japan froze Hamas assets according to its legislation on terrorist entities in 2006. Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The organization is also banned in Jordan. It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil.

(Discussion continues below after the list of references.)

The sensible way per WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV to state this briefly is:

Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, the EU, Japan, Egypt and Canada. It is banned in Jordan.It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Many analysts view the designation as problematic, and Hamas successfully challenged in a court of law the EU classification in 2014.

All of the details should be in the main body of the text. The bias given to the big actors in Western societies, their judgements count is obvious. Nishidani ( talk) 17:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You're not responding to the points that were made. The addition of cherry-picked analysts who support your opinion as a "counterweight" to international positions about Hamas (which is what the paragraph is about) is Undue. The paragraph is detailing international positions. If we want to talk about academic positions, it should be in it's own section which details the academic consensus. Drsmoo ( talk) 18:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Goodness grief. That is trivial. Nowhere is it stated in policy that a lead or the text it summarizes should privilege the political decisions made by governments (it's just politics) over what sober analysts of international affairs say. We even have in the sources above, a study that the EU decision was based on no formal government documentation, but on a presentation snipped from the internet. Governments act out of interest, or to pressure, or whatever. This section is a farce because in violation of NPOV, editors are persistently trying to pin the blame, and we don't do that. Nishidani ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Again you're not responding to the points that were brought up. I'll quote Masem, who I fully agree with "Either that should be removed, or a statement that summarizes the general academic take on how the classification is taken (including those that support it) should be used, but even here, this then might be undue weight in the lede." In other words, what you did was the definition of cherry-picking. Instead of reflecting the academic consensus, you added a bunch of cherry-picked opinions as a counterweight to the international decisions, in a paragraph that was solely about opinions of countries. You also phrased it in a way that made it seems as if these objections were from countries (the term you used was "others"). Not that it would be appropriate to explicitly cherry-pick academics as a counterpoint to international decisions in the lead either Drsmoo ( talk) 21:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

To add to what Drsmoo has pointed out, the reason that countries' stances on Hamas is importance is that that creates official policy around how those countries deal with those groups, whereas the opinions of respected academics is simply opinions. I will agree that Nishidani's point that countries that have proactively stated they do not consider Hamas as a terrorist organization should be include to balance against those that do (particularly as this includes big players like Russia and China, per above sources); that's also a NPOV. But to that end, then for the lede, I would expect that academic analysis will be similarly split on whether it is a fair assessment or not. So the lede should include the country list that do classify them group this way and those that have stated they do not, and should omit the academic opinions on this decision (which is a point for expansion in the body). -- MASEM ( t) 22:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, point taken, but since we are dealing with an article on an organization, one should take care to see that political positions by great powers do not exhaust the lead description of its nature. Drsmoo's argument is that one should state the political angle and remove the analytic angle. Definitions in this kind of area tend to highlight the political, except when that is embarrassing. Al Nusra was deemed a terrorist organization, as was al Qaeda, by the US, but it still furnished arms to the former while its regional ally, Israel, has put neither on its designated terrorist lists, and actively helps the Islamic army groups, for a simple reason: they oppose Syria's Assad, and the fall of that dictatorship is in Israel's interests. Since the concept of 'terror organization' is supposed to use some form of objective criteria (as both the EU court and the Advocate General to the EU said the Hamas classification lacked, being based on a dossier of internet citations without institutional review), and nations are inconsistent, one has to be very careful in articles that aspire to NPOV not to give political spin the weight it has here while cancelling out a simple note that even Department of Defense Analysis /Rand Corporation experts like Glenn E. Robinson question its empirical value. Nearly all government policy comes from forward papers done by a coalition of bureaucratic/academic area specialists, and the distinction academic (wanker) and government experts breaks down. Finally, leads summarize the body of the article. The second suggestion you make is that the area specialist view point should be down in the body of the article, but no allusion should be made to it in the lead. That is obviously, from a technical point of view, anomalous. I can hardly shift an extensive series of citations down, in a section on 'Terrorist designation', point out the controversy, and not allude to this in the lead?

I should add that I have no interest in defending Hamas here. It engaged intensively in terrorist operations for a decade. I just think political judgements by interested powers, whoever they are, are not necessarily useful to understanding the nature of their designated enemies,(with notable exceptions, WW2 etc.) Nishidani ( talk) 13:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

My read is that it was not neutral to compare the countries that have positively labeled Hamas as terrorists to academics that have expressed concern on that choice; it's apples to oranges. The lede needs to split the comparison up, something like "Hamas has been classified as a terrorist organization by the United States, (list...) , while other countries like Russia, China, (list...) have opted to not to categorize the group as such. The act of labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization is a point of debate in political and academic circles." It keeps the intent there, but it avoids what could be seen as a non-neutral comparison. -- MASEM ( t) 13:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

In short, the objection is to the placement of that passage in the lead. I think you are correct in your call. I think your mediation and the suggested compromise illuminating. I'm fine with your suggestion. Thanks. Nishidani ( talk) 13:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Profiting from this advice, would this meet your criteria?

Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization by Israel (1989), the United States (1996), Canada (2002), the European Union (2001/2003), Japan (2006) Egypt (2015), and was outlawed in Jordan (1999). It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Hamas appealed the EU blacklisting in 2008, and the European court found the earlier determination flawed. (2014). The European Council appealed the decision, and in 2016 its Advocate General advised that due to procedural errors, it should be dropped from the terror blacklist, unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion were forthcoming. Analysts have disputed the designation.

Note that I have removed the links to the countries that designated Hamas as terrorist. Two reasons. The countries that did not designate it thus had their links removed apparently, creating dissonance. I have regularized this also because it is overlinking to direct readers to countries which are recognized by all. Alternatively all countries could be linked.

I have also added 'unless proper and sufficient legal evidence to warrant its inclusion is provided' which only the EU press release contains, most other newspapers merely saying she advised it be dropped from the list, which is partial and ignores a key point. I.e. that her advice was conditional. Nishidani ( talk) 16:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above demonstrates that some editors are engaged in advocating for Hamas despite their denial. It would be helpful to cite sources explaining why Hamas is considered "terrorist" like for instance in this BBC source "due to its long record of attacks and its refusal to renounce violence. Under the group's charter, Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel." or that point in NPR debate: "Hamas' central charter calls for the violent overthrow of Israel. Hamas continues to kill innocent civilians". Hamas supporters position also should be mentioned, something along lines "But to its supporters Hamas is seen as a legitimate resistance movement." I personally believe that Hamas is anti semitic organization, there are plenty sources about it, so supporting it seems strange. 2.53.39.50 ( talk) 19:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No, because the claim that "analysts have disputed the designation" is both incorrect and undue. I also agree with Masem that, as was said before, using analysts as a counterpoint to designations by countries would be apples to oranges and Undue. Drsmoo ( talk) 19:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, Masem's suggestion in this comment here states that there is, in fact, a way of presenting academic debate on Hamas' designation without confusing academic and governmental designations. Nishidani's proposal above is consistent with Masem's suggestion, though I believe the text could be shortened.

Drsmoo, with no offense intended, your statement about apples and oranges appears confused and confusing. There is no universe in which published academic viewpoints are irrelevant to a wikipedia article: they are the bread and butter of reliable and neutral content. - Darouet ( talk) 20:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the statement about Apples and Oranges is Masem's term (which you linked to), not mine. If you're going to start veering into personal statements calling someone "confused" you should take the time to read the actual statements. There also isn't an academic debate about Hamas being terrorists. Multiple sources state they are widely viewed as a terrorist group. What Nishidani did was cherry pick academics as an Undue counterweight for the policies of nations. No one has said academic viewpoints are irrelevant. In fact, both of us have said they should be in their own section. They're Undue when presented as a counterpoint to international policies. Drsmoo ( talk) 21:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll let Masem elaborate if they like, but their proposal keeps some reference to academic opinion: "...The act of labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization is a point of debate in political and academic circles." Do you or do you not reject that proposal? - Darouet ( talk) 21:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

He/she can elaborate, but the original statement was very straightforward. "My read is that it was not neutral to compare the countries that have positively labeled Hamas as terrorists to academics that have expressed concern on that choice; it's apples to oranges." You then, for some reason, personally attacked me over it, which was weird. Multiple sources state that Hamas are widely viewed as a terrorist organization. The political debate is already expressed in the paragraph. Contrarian academic views should be expressed, but not in relation to foreign policies. Drsmoo ( talk) 22:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about writing that your statement was confused and confusing. I was happy to see Nishidani and Masem appear to arrive at an agreement on how to improve the text, and surprised that you still rejected the idea of placing academic views in the lead. Part of that rejection involved / involves rejecting the text both Nishidani and Masem proposed (depending on your current view). I support the text Nishidani and Masem proposed. - Darouet ( talk) 01:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It's ok. Nishidani said that he agreed, but then ignored the call to split the comparison up, which was the whole point. I rejected Nishidani's proposal. It compares foreign policies to academic views and does so in a misleading way. The claim that "analysts have disputed", when Hamas is widely viewed as a terrorist organization would also be incorrect and undue. Drsmoo ( talk) 07:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding this hold.out. We disagreed. I took it to a neutral arbiter, a compromise along the lines he suggested was drafted. It contains all points, I believe, indicated, with the countries detached from the 'academic' viewpoint. WP:LEDE says you summarize the article, and in the body of the article, the 5 references I brought in will be cited to throw light on the question of the terrorist classification, and therefore it must be alluded to in the lead in a few words, along the lines I drafted, to respect policy. So, have we a compromise? Nishidani ( talk) 12:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

UTC)

I'm not sure why you're using the term holdout? I don't see the arbiter agreeing with you. You ignored what Masem proposed, which was the entire crux of the issue. You didn't detach the "academic view" from the policy views of countries. What you added was "Analysts have disputed the designation", so what is "the designation"? It's what was in the preceding sentence, ie, they aren't detached. In addition, what you included directly misrepresents the "academic viewpoint". Hamas is "widely viewed" (and that's a quote) as a terrorist organization. One can cherry pick fringe theories to support any view, but to write it as "analysts have disputed" is incorrect and misleading. It's also incorrect to use the view of any analysts, let alone cherry-picked ones, as a counterweight to the foreign policies of countries. Regarding your new statement, the Lede summarizes the Body. The idea of throwing cherry picked and misleading sources into the Lede and then later claiming that as justification for using those same cherry picked sources in the Body is ridiculous. Drsmoo ( talk) 13:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@ Drsmoo: your statements on this topic remain "confused and confusing," as I noted previously. I repeatedly linked Masem's proposal, which Nishidani basically paraphrased, but you ignore Masem's proposal and instead site their initial and more ambiguous statement because you can interpret it as supporting your POV. This looks like classic WP:IDHT and it's a waste of everyone's time.

Nishidani, whatever Drsmoo's issue, I think your proposal is fine, but I think you should shorten it. Perhaps Masem can help you with that. My own suggestion would be to consider removing the dates. While they are informative, they may be too much for the lead. Furthermore, "Hamas appealed... were forthcoming" might also be shortened. - Darouet ( talk) 18:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be confused, but that has no bearing on policy. Nor on the fact that Nishidani's proposal is both factually incorrect (analysts do not dispute the Hamas characterization, Hamas is widely viewed as a terrorist organization) as well as ignoring Masem's proposal by directly using analyst theories as a rebuttal to the policies of nations Drsmoo ( talk) 19:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Instead of a careful survey of relevant sources, you need one good source that whose author has conducted a careful survey of relevant authors and expressed and opinion on the degree of acceptance of that designation in reliable sources. Generally reliable sources would not refer to them as a terrorist organization, and use the term for groups whose sole or major activity is terrorism, like the Abu Nidal group or the Weather Underground. TFD ( talk) 19:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We have that. Multiple sources state that Hamas is "widely viewed as a terrorist organization." "Two years before Sheikh Madhi's sermon, the PA—for purposes of conducting Intifada 2—made a de facto alliance with Hamas, widely viewed even in the Palestinian community as a terrorist organization." ^[1] "Gaza itself remains under the control of a group that has been widely viewed as a terrorist organization." ^[2] "Overwhelmingly, however, Hamas is best known as a terrorist organization." ^[3] There are literally thousands of reliable sources that refer to Hamas as a terrorist organization. Which is why the cherry-picking is all the more ridiculous. Drsmoo ( talk) 19:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of books about terrorism referring to the opinions of terrorism experts. Your first source for example is talking about public perception. Your second source cites a book by Matthew Levitt and CFR. In his book, Levitt "debunks" the theory that because Hamas also carries out non-terrorist activity, it should not be called a terrorist group. [58] Levit is a fellow and director of the Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The institute's board of advisers are Washington hawks: Henry Kissinger, Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle, Condoleezza Rice, James Woolsey and others. The CFR merely says, "The United States and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization." [59] I cannot read the full paragraph in your third source to understand the context, but note the author is not an expert on terrorism but on politics. TFD ( talk) 13:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are referencing something that is already in the text and acknowledged by everyone, ignoring any helpful input on what I offered as a compromise. Darouet - I've pared the paragraph in the article as we have it from 206 down to 118 words, which is almost 50%. I could clip it even more, but taking out the dates elides important information, with minimal gain: Hamas or its military wing was defined by distinct countries at different times, by Israel during the First Intifada, by Canada and the EU with the outbreak of the Second Intifada just after 9/11 (as sources say) and Japan, under US pressure, didn't ban it: it froze Hamas accounts in that country just after the 2006 elections were democratically won by Hamas, (as the US and Israel worked to overthrow it in a coup d'état, if we can believe the Vanity Fair article). Since 2006, incidents of terrorism have been rare, given its past record, and in the following decade, the designation has been increasingly questioned by analysts. In any case, if you or anyone else thinks the diminished text still needs shortening, I'll try that again on request. Nishidani ( talk) 20:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way Drsmoo. Your Watkin source states earlier:

It has been noted that “(o)ne problem Israel has in common with other democracies is that it focuses narrowly on its foes’ use of terrorism and ignores the wider strategies. While most groups Israel faces, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, have carried out terrorist acts against civilians, they are also broader social and governing organizations. As a result, it is suggested Israel needs to take lessons from counterinsurgency “which addresses not only the military (or “kinetic” in American soldier parlance) dimensions but also the political, economic, and social ones as well.’ P.112

Treating Hamas only as a party that has engaged in terrorism has been counterproductive for Israel, since that designation occludes any other options, such as easing the economic stranglehold on Gaza, and adopting measures that would have a social and political impact on Palestinian consensus, to undermine Hamas. Nishidani ( talk) 20:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The current wording is fine when when presented in this context. "Hamas is widely viewed as a terrorist organization, ^{[1] [2] [3]} though some analysts regard this designation as problematic or simplistic. ^{[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}" The issue is that in addition to not fully separating the ideas, the previous edit ignored the majority view. Hamas being widely viewed as a terrorist group is "acknowledged by everyone", in your words, and I agree. Drsmoo ( talk) 22:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's true you can get refs for 'widely viewed' meaning a number of Western countries, . It's also 'widely not viewed as a terrorist organization' by the majority of countries, including impeccable democracies. That is why I phrased it as I have. Your formulation is not NPOV, because you are making heavy water out of 'widely viewed' (in the real world) an implicit contrast to 'but this is disputed by a handful of eggheads'. You haven't budged, I have. Nishidani ( talk) 22:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(Discussion continues below after the list of references.)

Absolutely not. The sources say "Hamas is widely viewed" and "overwhelmingly viewed" and they're not referring to countries or "western countries". Your inferences are incorrect and not supported by the text. You completely ignored Masem's suggestion that we must include those who support the description of Hamas as terrorists. I've included refs for that, two from universities and one from a think tank. For every one academic who writes that Hamas aren't terrorists there are ten who write that they are. Drsmoo ( talk) 22:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• I want to reassert that for the purposes of the lede the complexity of how many people (not countries) view Hamas as a terrorist organization is far too difficult to cover, because exactly the splitting of hairs of which sources you pull from to support one majority or another. I think it is necessary to enumerate the major countries that have or have specifically not classified the group as a terrorist organization, but after that point, the debate in all other political and academic circles is so complex that its best say that it is a point of debate, and not try to quantify which is the prevailing view in the lede. The body has room to give more about things like how most western people in these circles would likely support this classification as such and most others would not. Keep in mind that this is the type of topic that can suffer from the Western /English-speaking language bias; it's very easy to pull in English sources which generally are Western and will lean towards supporting the classification. That's why at least in the lede, leave it as an open-ended point of debate, taking a middle-of-the-road stance. -- MASEM ( t) 23:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that. Something simple like: "It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group." ^[1] Drsmoo ( talk) 03:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Still not clear. Following Masem's clear indications, I reduced the contended point to 'Analysts have disputed the designation.'(There are a dozen sources on this by now, and per WP:LEDE the fact that there is a significant debate on it requires a note in the lead., summary style. I'll be in Germany for a few days, anyway. But will look in on Sunday if this can be wound up, or wound down. Nishidani ( talk) 21:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I regard the summary sentences proposed by Masem, Drsmoo and Nishidani as all more or less equivalent. - Darouet ( talk) 21:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing unclear about "It is a point of debate in political and academic circles over whether or not to classify Hamas as a terrorist group." As opposed to "Analysts have disputed the designation", which makes it seem as if all analysts are disagreeing with the designation of Hamas as a terrorist group.

Just to clarify, there are two meanings of the word disputed. One is a synonym of argued, the other is "to oppose". When used as a transitive verb, which is how your phrasing is using it, the grammatically correct and common interpretation of the phrase "Analysts have disputed the designation" would be that analysts in general think the designation is incorrect, which would be false. I used the exact same terminology as Masem, so I don't see any controversy here. Drsmoo ( talk) 21:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of who originally wrote what, when, the above proposedNishidani's solution that includes It is not regarded as a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, China, and Brazil. Many analysts view the designation as problematic, and Hamas successfully challenged in a court of law the EU classification in 2014. is obviously superior to the current wording. Countries that officially disagree with the "terrorist" designation deserve to be mentioned as much as those that classify Hamas as terrorists. I do basically agree with the statement that "others", referring to individual analysts rather than states, is problematic, but I also think that referring to these analysts is not a violation of NPOV -- deliberately leaving any mention of them out would be a more significant violation of NPOV. It is of course entirely irrelevant to NPOV that the lead should not include information not found in the body, which is why I don't like unique citations to external sources being invoked in the lead in general. Discussion of the wording of the lead based on what external sources say and which "others" are states and which are "cherry-picked analysts" is not a discussion we need to have. It should be noted that at least one of the states cited as classifying Hamas as a terrorist group in the lead is actually included thus in the body, but the attached footnote makes this attribution seem dubious, and the body actually uses the wording "designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization", which directly contradicts the current wording of the lead "Hamas, its military wing, together with several charities it runs, has been designated as a terrorist organization". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Edited 08:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)