This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says, "We monitor hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and expose their activities to the public, the media and law enforcement." [1]
Not surprisingly, groups and individuals reported by the SPLC object to the coverage they receive. There are continuous requests to add these replies to the SPLC article as "controversy." The problem is avoiding undue weight. I would appreciate any comments in how to handle this.
For example, Frank Gaffney was included in the recent SPLC "A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists". And editorial in The Jewish Week says, "Sharp criticism of Gaffney comes from a variety of respected sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” The ADL says he “has promulgated a number of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories over the years.” Those include charges that President Obama is a Muslim, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and Gen. David Petraeus follows Sharia law./Republican U.S. Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown have spoken out against Gaffney, as has former House Speaker John Boehner, calling such allegations “dangerous.”"
The mainstream assessent agrees with the SPLC and only a tiny minority of people disagree. Mostly if not entirely these people hold views that mainstream sources would describe as extremist. Quoting these views in the article gives false equivalency.
TFD ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
does not need to originate from reliable sources-- this seems better framed as something like "what's considered reliable varies according to context..." (i.e. if we're citing them, they always need to be reliable, but sometimes biasd, primary, etc. sources can be considered reliable). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem ... is that the sources that are the most reliable (on that scale) that will be critical of SPLC...I don't think I follow the point you're making with this, as the way I read it is something I don't think you would actually be arguing. i.e. That we should go out looking for criticism to bring in and create a separate measure of reliability in order to admit some. Sources like Breitbart can be reliable sources for their own opinion, but the fact that they have an opinion doesn't mean it should be included (as with any opinion piece). If weight for an argument is established by other sources, there's a stronger case to bring it in, I suppose, but then the reliable source is the other one reporting on it, not Breitbart. I don't doubt at all that there's mainstream rs coverage of criticism of the splc (the particular example of that Fox News piece is probably better for a smaller-scale discussion -- it's not ideal, but it's many steps in the right direction, away from the primary sources and e.g. Breitbart). In any event, on the topic of weight, to elaborate on something I tacked on to my last comment, I think that coverage of SPLC is substantial enough that a criticism section here (as opposed to more detail in the separate list), should be for non-news -- rather than responses to this or that announcement/classification/publication, it should be about the organization broadly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Masem:Masem makes the point above that if we include an SPLC claim about a group then some sort of rebuttal by the group may be in order, even if it's just a sentence. However, this should work in the other direction also. At present there is a criticism section in the article (see Southern Poverty Law Center#Controversy over hate group and extremist listings). The last paragraph in that section concerns Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Nawaz is quoted as calling his listing as a Muslim extremist a "smear" but nowhere in the section, or anywhere else in the article, does it say why the SPLC listed him.
At present the article is locked from editing for the rest of the year over the attempt to add the following:
"In December 2016, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer condemned the SPLC for listing Maajid Nawaz, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as anti-Muslim extremists. Dermer describing the SPLC's actions as an 'Orwellian inversion of reality" and accused them of trying to "stifle debate.'"
Again, the same problem -- there is no explanation anywhere in the article of why these people were listed by the SPLC. Editors trying to add it argue that NPOV does not apply since only the criticism, not the SPLC position, belong in a criticism section. Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I could use some help determining if the long series of edits by 2001:558:600A:99:B1F9:36D3:FC39:4FC7 ( talk · contribs) fit WP:NPOV. This seems like a touchy subject, and the mass unilateral categorization of these acts seems controversial to me.
(In chronological order)
Because this affects many pages, it hasn't been discussed on any particular talk page. I'm looking for a sanity check on whether this seems WP:NPOV and not any specific action. Thanks for the extra pair(s) of eyes. AlexEng( TALK) 08:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Schneerson page is fervently protected by a group of editors. I have discussed this on the talk page, and placed an item on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. However given the past behavior of the editors Bus Stop, Debresser, and Kamel Tebaast, and their present intransigence to even provide an alternative entry, or placement, and recurrent raising of strawmen arguments, I have no optimism, zero optimism that this can be a consensus decision. The riots in 1991 occurred between two communities who rarely interacted. Most reviews of the events note how they almost do not see themselves. The events were convulsive for the history of New York City.
My goal is simple. The main reviews of the history of the time, or biographies of Schneerson, by third person authors, cite this event as important in his life, as linked to the leader of one of the two main communities involved in the riots. Again, we can focus on a single but important source: the obituary of Schneerson in the New York Times. Nearly 5-6 paragraphs of some thirty comment on this event or the repercussions. That alone should be a citable notion in the biography of the man.
My aim is that the biography link the fact that it was an accident in the motorcade of Schneerson that served as a trigger of the riots. After much discussion, I think we should also use the sources to say that Schneerson had nothing to say about the incident. Both these points have myriad sources. Given the controversial nature of the information according to editors, given the controversy that has ranged since, the most apt location is in the controversy section of Schneerson, which includes a discussion of whether the Rabbi dissuaded his followers from considering him the Messiah. I add this, because it does give some indication of why the article is so difficult to edit. I think other arguments about why the riots occurred, why this pedestrian accident led to a riot, the detailed responses of various communities, and community leaders and politicians, and Schneerson himself, can be discussed in the Crown Heights article. But the link exists, not because I want it, but because it is present in the neutral authoritative historical sources. To avoid it, is to belittle the role of an encyclopedia. Here was my suggested entry for the article (a subsection in controversies section):
The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. [1] Schneerson had no public comment on the death of the child or the riots. [2]
I am looking for guidance on how to resolve this. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The reason I am here is because it is exasperating to argue with people like Debresser, who change the argument all the time. In the talk page, he stated: This was discussed before, at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F. I stand by my opinion from then, that there is no connection to the rabbi. He tried to end the debate by saying it had been decided that there was no connection. Now he says he agrees with a paragraph. The discussion did not come to a consensus.
My point is simple: Reliable published sources make the point that this event is major event in his life. The present article does not mention it at all. The term hagiography has been used by numerous other editors in describing this article. It is tough not to use the term, when one of the controversies regarding Schneerson is whether he is the Messiah or not. Again, I successfully argued before after the dedicated efforts of many editors to remove a false statement from the article. This time, I do not have the patience with individuals who do not follow the guidelines of an encyclopedia. I am not interested in litigating legalities of the Crown Height riot in this article. The only point is that a major neutral and authoritative biography of Schneerson dedicates almost ten percent of the entry to this event. All the historical retrospectives of the event, discuss Schneerson's link to the events. This article includes zero. This is not going to be solved by mediation. It will require arbitration to keep the article encyclopedic. Rococo1700 ( talk) 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not asking for mediation. I initially had hope, but all suggestions are deleted and blocked, even if well-sourced. There has been intransigence in past, and after short discussion on talk page, there continues to be now. There is no movement. I recommend arbitration. I recommend a third party come up with a paragraph about the facts to be placed in the article, and allow outside editors including myself offer opinions. If both sides (the deletion and insertion sides) agree, we add more. If not, only the arbitration paragraph is allowed in. Following that, this article will benefit from a mechanism that prevents this task from being just deleted later. I am interested in changing the article than blocking the editors from all of Wikipedia. My fear is that they will however attempt to delete the entry. But let us begin by getting some facts in the article. I would like to write a paragraph under the heading Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. I have provided my suggestion. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Rococo1700: First, after looking at the article it does seem to suffer from a significant degree of WP:PEACOCK ("renowned" etc.). I had assumed there was more of a background to the dispute regarding the riot but the talk page conversation was pretty brief. At any rate, I did not notice any compelling reasons against inclusion or clear arguments as to why this is not a "controversy" related to Schneerson. Especially since this is not a BLP, any major incidents related to the person ought to be included somewhere in the article, and if the accident and riot were significant elements of the obituary it seems like inclusion is an obvious choice. @ Debresser: There also seems to be a lack of civility and respect on both sides of this. I'd like to remind everyone involved of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and of course WP:NPOV. Editing articles where one's personal opinions on or attachments to the topic are significant is a bad choice and there are many other articles on wikipedia that need attention. —DIY Editor ( talk) 18:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The article in question is Peruvian nitrate monopoly.
I am concerned that the creator of the article is pushing a fringe perspective that basically amounts to a conspiracy theory of the Peruvian state monopoly as the primary driver for the War of the Pacific, which was a conflict fought between Peru, Chile, and Bolivia over the control of nitrates in South America. This is the version of the article supported by the creator, Keysanger: [20]. I have edited the article to reduce the fringe perspective and with evidence that supports the mainstream view on the topic, which is that Chilean expansionism is what caused the War of the Pacific. This is my proposed version: [21].
I have attempted to discuss matters with Keysanger at Talk:Peruvian nitrate monopoly#Chilean bias - Article Needs a Rewrite, but the user obfuscates the matter by missing the point (whether purposefully or inadvertently, I don't know) and ignoring it (preferring instead to engage in edit wars).
I should clarify that my position is not against the idea that Peruvian Nitrate Company was attempting to gain an upper hand in its cartel of nitrates by purchasing a Bolivian mine. However, to manipulate the information to paint it as if Peru sought the start of war is simply ludicrous. Clearly, this exempts Chile's role in the conflict, despite the mainstream historical perspective is that Chile, which had been damaged by the Peruvian monopoly, was the country that resorted to the use of force in order to resolve the matter in its favor (much in the same way it had done during the War of the Confederation).
To sum things up, here is a straightforward quote from the historian Robert N. Burr:
Chile justified war against Peru on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance. It was claimed that since established Chilean interests and rights in the Bolivia littoral stood in the way of that scheme, Peru became secretly allied with Bolivia which it then encouraged to resist Chile's just demands. The extent of Peruvian treachery became evident when it sent to Santiago a mediator even as it prepared for war. [...] A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. Several conclusions do present themselves, however, in connection with the circumstances and forces that affected Chile's decision to wage war and its formulation of war objectives. The most immediately obvious casus belli was the conflict of interests arising from one country's economic predominance on the soil of another. [...] Bolivians came to entertain fears concerning ultimate Chilean political domination of the littoral. But fearful, impotent, poorly governed Bolivia could neither strengthen its economic and political position in the littoral nor develop an effective policy toward Chile. For their part Chileans came to regard the coastal desert as their own in all but name. Not only were Chilean economic interests predominant, but development of the littoral was due almost exclusively to Chilean capital, labor, and technology. The spasmodic efforts of frequently corrupt local Bolivian officials to carry out the often arbitrary orders of the Altiplano were met by Chileans with angry resentment.
— Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), pp. 138-139.
Sorry for the long quote, but I think it adequately sums up the point. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. Neutrality is one of the core issues of contention. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 ( talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please vote on it if the topic is of interest to you. Soham321 ( talk) 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have many concerns about the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff article, which definitely does not meet due weight standards and has a number of other problems, some of the latter just possibly caused by language issues. For example, she does not offer a defense but an "excuse". The talk page shows that then-active editors felt that her contention that removing her amounted to a coup did not warrant inclusion because she was impeached in accordance with the constitution. According to those editors. Help is especially needed from anyone who speaks Portugese, but even if you don't -- I can just barely read it sometimes -- there is still plenty you could do. I am annotating the talk page; so far nobody is answering.
BLP in *enormous* need of help. It's an important event so deletion a very last resort Elinruby ( talk) 20:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
meanwhile, re the "coup" remark:
The sources may not support the coup remark -- at the moment I agree that most express skepticism, although not all, so a real weighing for due weight would require more research than I am willing to do right now. But there are solid sources that she *said* this. Elinruby ( talk) 23:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree Clearly bias against Dilma. Dr. Loo Talk to me
Perhaps we should have an article on the "soft coup" conspiracy theory. Several populist leaders (Dilma, Kirchner, Maduro, etc.) seem to love it, there should be some material for an unified article about the concept. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Good catch @ Elinruby:, as evidenced by the reactions of @ Fbergo: and @ Cambalachero: the article seems to be a magnet for tendentious editing with a lack of regard for wikipedia policies and guidelines. They also seem to have no problem violating WP:FORUM in the promotion of their clear points of view and should in my opinion entirely recuse themselves from editing this article. This type of editing damages wikipedia. —DIY Editor ( talk) 05:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention the controversy at all. I have listed some reliable sources on the talkpage (BBC, the Guardian). I don't really write articles, I prefer typofixing and related gnomework, can someone (preferably an experienced editor) please fix this problem? ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 07:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar concerning the use of the term pseudomedicine. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Below is a Request for Comment I am posting here because it deals with multiple articles and templates. The issue is WP:Weight. This is an attempt to centralize discussion and drive at an overall consensus that can guide content.
In particular, this is to get feedback and gain overall consensus on what should be the WP:Weight of information in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election throughout various articles that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. If Wikipedia could come to a general consensus, it will guide content inputs into several articles.
To state my position clearly, I am of the belief that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. That being said, I am of the belief that it should be mentioned in the opening of articles that also reference the election. For example, in the current article United States presidential election, 2016 it currently reads:
It is my belief that Wikipedia should add a sentence similar to:
I believe something similar should be added to the opening of several articles, including Donald Trump. In my opinion, a foreign government's influence in another nation's election an essential fact to know in any article that relates strongly to that election. As a general rule, if another article mentions the 2016 election of Trump in its lede, it should also mention the CIA conclusions that Russia attempted influence the election in favor of Trump. I also believe it should be in several templates, such as Template:US 2016 presidential elections series and Template:Trump presidency, discussion currently here and here respectively.
Note: There are multiple ongoing discussions that somewhat relate to the question below. Many of the same editors are involved in each. I think it is important to come to an overall guiding consensus on this so it can guide inputs into multiple articles and templates. That said, I will link to this discussion on Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, Donald Trump, and United States presidential election, 2016. I believe most editors that are currently involved will see it and post here. However, I think it is also important to get uninvolved editors to give their opinion. Casprings ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. Should Wikipedia generally accept that in articles that are strongly related to the 2016 US presidential election and mention the election in the lede, it should also contain information regarding Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election?
2. Should the article Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election be included in templates related to the US's 2016 election? Casprings ( talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a vague pair of questions. Just how strongly related to the election are you talking about? Maybe you could provide a list or some good examples of what sort of articles and templates you think this information should be in. This somewhat comes off as POV-pushing, I'd like to see input from editors with no dog in the race before I offer an opinion. —DIY Editor ( talk) 02:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. Some editors agree with you more or less strongly. Other editors, me included, think this story is merely hyperventilation by the Democrats and some elements of US intelligence community and military-industrial apparatus, amplified by journalists who need to feed their publications. Both points of view are interesting, and none should influence what Wikipedia reports. In this context, I disapprove of pushing this information to numerous articles, as you suggest, because this is advocacy of your POV on the story. I recommend noting the allegations and hypotheses, both sourced, and letting readers make up their mind. — JFG talk 06:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
If some folks with a bit more expertise than me in the topic of international legal battles over alleged war crimes can please take a look, I would appreciate it. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The article in question is Chuck Blazer.
The following three sequential diffs are the subject of contention 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421661&oldid=742371419 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421764&oldid=756421661 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756443152&oldid=756421764
Chuck Blazer has two sources of notability: soccer administration, and large scale financial crime. I believe the version of the lead I modified was too 'sanitized.' By the wording, Blazer might be an innocent Whistleblower. I changed the wording to make his criminality clear to readers early on in the article, and explain how he was coerced to be a cooperating witness. No POV commentary—his criminality is well publicized. Giant Snowman responded with a blanket reversion (no summary), while leaving a Level 2 Vandalism warning on my Talk page. I responded by opening a discussion @ Talk:Chuck Blazer. I believe my arguments there use Wikipedia policy to thoroughly justify my changes to the article. I especially put the torch to Snowman's attempt to justify his edit with WP:UNDUE, and I want to restore my edits. Tapered ( talk) 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Good news! I don't expect to be struck by lightning. I didn't keep precise numbers, but the number of New York Times articles which mention Chuck Blazer before and after the crucial year of 2011 (the kickoff of the ongoing Association Football scandal), are nearly equal. The only dedicated article of note before 2011 was in 2010—a Q&A about the World Cup. 2011 saw the largest number of articles, virtually all of which concern Blazer as an administrator, but an administrator dealing with the aftermath of the CFU scandal, the primary exception being a dedicated article about his resignation from his CONCACAF offices. All articles after 2011 concern Blazer's criminal activities, and there are several dedicated articles in 2015, by far the largest concentration. The preponderance of dedicated coverage @ NYT and hence Blazer's primary notability in 2016, is for criminal activity. Please note that the NYT may have the best soccer/association football coverage in the US, that Blazer is a native of New York City, and that he lived and conducted his business in NYC. This makes it likely that he probably received more press coverage before 2011 @ the NYT than any other media outlet, and that his notability is likely even more skewed toward his criminal activities in most other media outlets in the US and elsewhere (though he probably received significant coverage outside the US around the 2022 World Cup bidding process). Tapered ( talk) 07:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Any article included on Wikipedia, also promotes it by virtue of its existence. Is this ever a reason to exclude an article, because its promotion amounts to WP:UNDUE weight, assuming the contents conforms to WP:V and WP:RS?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman ( talk • contribs)
I guess that related to this is, can we have a neutral article without any critical analysis? Can ideas be described neutrally (perhaps using attribution) without comment, and not violate WP:WEIGHT. What if we have minority source in support, but no mainstream sources? Is it simply a matter a framing the subject appropriately? -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Apropos of certain points that are made in this conversation, maybe an essay I wrote many years ago might help: Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence. I think it is helpful to look at ideas on a spectrum. The strong cut for subjects which are "not notable" is to not have articles about them. Opinions which are really obscure may be marginalized within other articles due to our WEIGHT clause. jps ( talk) 13:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Revisiting this topic... (Prior discussion: permalink).
The matter of the WW2 German High Command press communiques ( Wehrmachtbericht) has been controversial over the years. Most recently, it was discussed at this noticeboard (link above), as well as at Military History Talk page ( Quoting from London Gazette versus Wehrmachtbericht), and various article Talk pages such as on Manstein ( link) and Bach-Zalewski ( link).
The material was deemed undue and was subsequently removed from articles. An editor has recently began reinserting this material on Talk pages of related articles, stating that this was being done for the purposes of archiving the transcripts: sample diff 1 and diff 2.
I don’t believe that this is needed or desirable, given that Talk pages are not storage areas for material that by consensus has been determined to be unsuitable for the main space. Given that the material represents unadulterated Nazi propaganda, it may be undue for the Talk pages either.
I would appreciate more input on this matter. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No matter how amusing they may be to some readers, the fact is inescapable: this was Nazi Party war propaganda. No amount of minimization or ridicule can change that. While I recognize the Mel Brooks approach [31] has merit, that's not what's available to the project on mainspace pages. The bigger issue, however, is that it is simply not necessary to include large quoted sections, either on article pages or on talkpages. These chunks are immaterial and do not expand understanding of the article subjects. There is no reason to have them on the article pages, and placing them on the talk pages after consensus has removed them from the article pages has the appearance of trying to perform an end-around. Delete and carry on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, editor Dapi89 sees the matter of transcripts differently (in addition to the original editor), as they have reverted my removal of the transcript from a Talk page:
I don't believe these transcripts belong on Talk pages, but perhaps more input is needed to convince the two editors? K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
"if needed countering the wrong information with reliable secondary sources, or if correct, confirm the information with other sources as well", as comparing and contrasting a primary source should be left to historian and researchers, not done by Wikipedia editors.
An good point was made over at MilHist: "cutting and pasting the transcripts into the talk page isn't good practice unless the consensus is currently being challenged"
(
link).
Question for @ MisterBee1966: is there an intention to challenge the current consensus? K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on NPOV as applied to fringe earthquake prediction theories at this article.
Talk:Earthquake_prediction#RfC_on_Earthquake_prediction_2 JerryRussell ( talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This is about the article Third Way, which I consider POV. On the talk page there were many attempts at generating discussion, all ignored. This is the latest. For example a years-old proposal of a secondary source has lead to no talk at all. My opinion is that there are other views: rightist or green, that are also to be included in the article. The best source could be Steve Bastow & James Martin: Third Way Discourse. Honestly, "Third way" seems to be at least partially a political marketing brand, however, there could be a useful collection of the different ideologies that can be described with it, or the adherents of which described themselves with it. Currently the article seems to serve as an advertisement of only one of these ideologies. 193.224.72.252 ( talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an NPOV dispute regarding the British Empire article. This same dispute has surfaced several times in the past, such as the article FA review back in 2010 and this talk page discussion back in 2014. The dispute is over whether the article covers the legacy of the British Empire properly, and whether it should cover some other aspects of the British Empire besides a narrative of its history.
Three users (including myself) from one side of this dispute have been adding an NPOV tag to the top of the British Empire article. Three users from the other side have been removing it, claiming there is no NPOV dispute and we need to make a case before we can place an NPOV tag. Take a look at Talk:British Empire. We have done that. We have had a 9000 word discussion about neutrality on the talk page. 6 of the 11 sections currently on the talk page were created by the three of us to discuss the NPOV issues.
Yet the other side simply says there is no NPOV dispute and we are not entitled to tag the page. Here are the dispute participants:
Can I get some affirmation that there is an ongoing NPOV dispute and we are allowed to tag articles we think have NPOV problems with NPOV tags?-- Quality posts here ( talk) 23:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't remove the NPOV tag but support removing it 100%. For an article to be a Featured Article, it goes through extensive peer review, were there any NPOV problems it would never have achieved that. The tagging is not being used to draw attention to an issue, its been used because editors are not prepared to use WP:DR and are gaming the system to force the changes they want into the article - including threats to force a FA review to remove the FA status. All of the changes I've seen so far are detrimental to article quality. The material they're seeking to impose on the article is not neutral e.g. [32] The violent expansionism and racial beliefs of the British Empire had a severely negative impact on the indigenous population. There are multiple examples of WP:OR and WP:SYN in what is proposed new section, WP:OPINION is presented as WP:FACT throughout the new section, e.g. one authors opinion that the British are racist. And the editors are fond of expressing opinions such as "There is no academic debate about whether the British Empire was racist. " This posting here is yet another example of forum shopping in a campaign that I fear is destined to end up at WP:ARBCOM but not until a great deal of editing time is wasted unproductively. As Only in death observed quite adroitly from reading that userpage one quite quickly concludes they shouldn't be editing British Empire and in fact I'm not sure they should be editing full stop. W C M email 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
An un-involved observation. Its seems to me, that if there's a dispute of the usage of a dispute tag on an article, then that in itself is a sign of a dispute over an article's content. GoodDay ( talk) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we get some unbiased contributors? It seems is not neutral like Acupuncture. The page is controlled by anti-Rolfing contributors. Example "In general serious people do not bother discussing nonsenses like Rolfing because they have better things to do." Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC) -- Mikehenke ( talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Historical Vedic religion is too euro-centric in its bias. It only references Western scholars. Unfortunately much of western scholarship on Indian history is built on layers of colonial bias. To make an article on India neutral and unbiased, it must cite modern Indian scholars in equal measure if not more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of the discussion includes matters pertaining to WP:NPOV. Additional input from participants of this noticeboard would be welcome:
For specific concerns, pls see:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
To keep track of all nominations and wins -- (because although the total sums can be included in the infobox, only organizations and associations with Wikipedia pages can be included in the table of accolades) -- a record of same was kept in the Talk page. This record supported the total sums. User:Tenebrae deleted this content, called it "violative" and a "serious breach of Wikipedia policy" ( Revision as of 15:21, 11 December 2016).
He claimed in the Talk page (topic: Accolades on this page) that it was "disallowed content". Although he was asked to provide the exact section of the WP policy where such content is specifically disallowed in a Talk page, he has not.
I am requesting input from neutral parties regarding the deletion of this Talk page content and whether Wikipedia does or does not conclusively disallow it. And if there is no clearly defined and fixed Wikipedia policy, then the deleted content should be restored. Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion in WT:FILM regarding edits made by User:Tenebrae is also underway in Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film). Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 06:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article has been whitewashed by TheRexIsRising. It now holds that Pakistani blasphemy laws are "sacred" (I kid you not). Can I get some eyes on that article, please? Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
More eyeballs are needed at Libertarian Republican; a user has repeatedly inserted and reinserted contentious original research claims into this article without a citation to any reliable source. (The user is also inserting citations to the Libertarian Party platform and to a libertarian advocacy website, but even these (unacceptable) sources don't support the claims made — in fact, they don't mention Republicans or the Republican Party once). Neutrality talk 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place.
There is a wording dispute here [33] over terminology. One of the arguments is the concept of using only what "the main sources we use" say [34]. This has been followed by the idea that the sources we are using the the article say X, so we should say X (apparently irrespective of what other sources say) [35].
So my question is, if RS say X and Y which do we go with? IS it valid to argue that because our chosen "authoritative source" says X then (no matter what other sources say) it is we go with that?
(note this is not an RS issue, or even an issue of just this page, rather it is about the general concept). Slatersteven ( talk) 11:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895)#Rename_the_article_title, there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that "invasion" implies that the territorial sovereignty did not belong to Japan and has POV issue. Therefore I proposed redirecting the article to "Japanese conquest of Taiwan", but three other editors did not agree with the redirection. I haven't heard that they explain how not POV "invasion" is, though. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In Talk:Republic_of_Formosa#Description_-_republic_or_government_or_others, there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that word "republic", which is being used in the article for referring to the Republic of Formosa, implies statehood and has POV issue, and thus can mislead readers into believing the Republic of Formosa was really a state. I proposed changing the word to "polity", but an editor did not agree with that. Your opinions are appreciated. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Claims of POV editing have been asserted by several editors for the article Talk:Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier#NPOV. The article is somewhat troublesome because the subject of the article, namely Donald Trump, has a verified track record of making sensationalist commentary on twitter and other public media which at times fails fact checking. This results in editors of the various articles on Mr. Trump having to sift through his statements and RS to determine the veracity and content of the statements, frustrating good faith editors. Unfortunately, due to Trump being a "moving target" and the frustration of the editors involved, many folks have a negative experience attempting to write about Mr. Trump. As a result the article in question has evolved into something very unflattering to Mr. Trump, with editors who just do not trust Mr. Trumps public commentary. The article also has repeatedly been quoting unverified, salacious materials which have been removed several times by neutral editors. Please assign a neutral editor to join into the conversation on the articles talk page, and assist us in closing the POV issues with this article. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Food for thought, with implications for how our policies apply to Trump (and others):
BullRangifer ( talk) 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:Splitting of the moon#First sentence of the article the sentence "The splitting of the moon (Arabic: انشقاق القمر) was a miracle attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad" has been questioned with the suggestion that "alleged" be added. We do seem to use the word without any qualification, such as at Jesus walking on water although Miracles of Joseph Smith reads " the movement is characterized by a belief that the miracles," and doesn't even mention miracle in the first sentence, despite the title. And "The Miracle of Calanda is an event that allegedly took place in Calanda". But Miracle of the cruse of oil seems to assume that a miracle took place and tries to explain it (hm, any article with a sentence ending in ! needs work). Doug Weller talk 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
'Miracle' is a religious designation. It either is a miracle according to the religion concerned or it isnt. That non-believers dont believe in miracles is irrelevant - putting a qualifier in essentially implies that there are actual miracles that could be verified. As an athiest, of course, there are no miracles whatsoever, but the group of events religious people term 'miracle' is up to them. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This RfC has been open for two weeks, and so far we have only a few votes. The controversy is about the appropriate weight under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE regarding several fringe earthquake prediction theories, technologies & researchers. Participants need to be willing to at least take a quick look at the sources, and determine whether there is sufficient reliable source documentation to to support including the material.
Basically, there are three editors (myself, J. Johnson (JJ), and an anonymous Athenian IP editor) who have been debating these topics for the last six months, and creating quite a wall of text. JJ argues that the IP editor should be disqualified from participating in the RfC on the basis that he is an SPA and advocate. But then, JJ has been criticized for ownership behavior from time to time, and JJ has complained that I'm too pro-fringe, so maybe all three of us should be disqualified.
JJ has complained that the RfC is poorly framed. There are six questions, and there seems to be a consensus that two of them (posed as discussion questions) need to be thrown out. Be that as it may, I'm hoping that perhaps this RfC can settle the longstanding debate about appropriate content for this important page.
Please help!! JerryRussell ( talk) 18:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I am claiming that sourced content, backed by proven custom should not be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take a hypothetical example: According to the Jus soli legal principle, applied in Argentine nationality law, any person born in Argentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the category Category:Argentine people to John Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would be the difference if I added the category Category:British Jews to the real and relevant Milo Yiannopoulos Wikipedia article, if: According to the general principle in Judaism and Jewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. Furthermore from the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal, ( Matrilineality in Judaism). Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism and cannot be directly compared to other monotheistic religions ex. Christianity, which emphasises primarily faith and conversion. Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise Regards, RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr Wikipedia,
could you please provide someone familiar with COPE's standards,
and science-
C-o-I IRB-"conflicts" [as opposed to financial- CoI)
to review the TALK -edits, and "article" deletes
in Wikipedia's
TWA 841 ,
of April 4 1979.
The NTSB's Public Docket should include the background Group Reports,
and all
Petitions against the NTSB-AAR-81-8.
But, one "editor" (?) DELETED all- mention and links to the two
main Petitions.
Perhaps that one "editor" should tightly control, and LIMIT that
wiki-article to ONLY the Boeing Scenario and NTSB-AAR-81-8.
Perhaps Wikipedia's POLICY should suppress any mention of the Petitions against AAR-81-8.
But that one "editor", who seems to lack work-background in our industry,
has now taken-over.
So, OK, let one guy control that "article":
Could you subtly suggest that he allow a top-banner,
caution -- this Wilk "article" only presents the Boeing Scenario ,
as endorsed by the USA's "independent" Safety Board.
IGhhGI (
talk) 21:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
= = = =
Responding to 30Jan' comment above:
"... probably as one of the parties has a book ... refspam by one editor ... I just read it ... seems quite neutral ..."
Please excuse me if this response seems to belittle your analysis (just above). I have NOT any any book. There is NO "Spam" in any of the "Talk" (for TWA841) -- for some unexplained motive that one "editor" wants to prevent you (or any reader) from viewing the records (facts). As a test, PLEASE: go to that "talk" page, view the ORIGINAL uncensored "talk". Do you see "spam"???
A suggestion: On that talk page, allow some contributors (qualified men who worked in Flt Test and at TWA), to "link" to actual records from that accident.
There exists some sort deception evident by that one "editor". The "facts" in the case might not be clear to you, unless you can speak-Boeing, worked at Boeing Flight Test, and flew B727 at TWA.
That Wikipedia article has so many errs: PLEASE, to counter that bias simply offer the reader a link to the TWO MAIN Petitions against NTSB-AAR-81-8 (that "editor"
DELETED the links on 21Dec2016). For four decades this old case provoked controversy, assumptions became "findings", inference became "facts".
Some intervention is sought -- a balanced presentation. ==> OR, simply show a top-banner "This wiki-article presents ONLY the Boeing Scenario "
IGhhGI ( talk) 21:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
User:86.90.43.5 seems incapable of editing articles without skewing them towards a Nazi POV, or attempting to ameliorate the Nazi regime's responsibilities. All of his edits need to be closely examined for this bias, which the editor is not reluctant to express. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits ( example) use source http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2013/08/26/citizens-call-for-caw-turbine-shutdown for definitive statements on the issue. Some patient explanations are needed. Perhaps the article was too firmly pushing the "psychosomatic disorder" line before the recent edits (I do not know), but its current text is obviously inappropriate. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This was listed at Pages needing cleanup after translation, which is how I found it. I am not sure how much it's been worked on since but I just did a fairly thorough copy-edit and am confident that it's quite readable. I also removed some editorial language. This, and a reference in an edit summary to "Muslim scum" make me wonder about the article's neutrality not to say accuracy.
I am profoundly ignorant in the background history, sociology and geography of this event and am trying to recruit more editors who may know more to help out. Meanwhile I am taking off the rough translation tag, as it is not true now if it ever was. Elinruby ( talk) 23:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Emmett_Till#Emmett_Till_lead_sentence_RFC ResultingConstant ( talk) 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on the Tiger_Forces, a special forces unit in the Syrian Arab Army relies only on blog articles from
The article is found here Tiger_Forces
Long passages such as
After successful operations in Latakia and Hama, Colonel Suheil al-Hassan was tasked a special project by the Syrian Armed Forces Central Command in the fall of 2013—to train and lead a Special Forces unit that would work primarily as an offensive unit. Colonel Hassan handpicked many of the soldiers that would later form the Tiger Forces.
are cited to one blog article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/colonel-suheil-al-hassan-tiger-forces/ that is unverifiable and unsupported.
The author of these articles is Leith Fadel, who has a strong bias in favor of Bahar Al-Assad and the forces supporting him. Al Masdar news is a blog written by Leith Fadel and articles do not provide any type of verification. These articles do not provide verification and cannot be considered either reliable or verifiable. Furthermore, Leith Fadel has a history of making unverifiable claims, some of which have caused harm to other individuals. Evidence of this is found in this article:
Example
Mr. Fadel, whose Facebook profile photograph shows him with the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, tempered his criticism of Mr. Mohsen on Wednesday, saying, “Whether he is a former fighter or not, I cannot confirm — but I am happy his son is safe.” Still, the pro-government journalist’s Facebook post appears to have helped spread the rumor that Mr. Mohsen was either a supporter or a member of Nusra far and wide.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.3.79 ( talk) 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure the right noticeboard, but figured this was as good as any. A recent article led to a bit of back and forth at Donald Trump-Russia dossier, and I've had a bit of an unusual interaction with the locals there regarding the use and misuse of the Paul Gregory Forbes.com piece. Please opine at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Forbes / Paul Gregory, if you are so inclined. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a notification that, per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, I have closed the archived discussion located at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates. I felt a notification was appropriate as few people watch the archives. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
What information should be in the "Establishment" line in the infoboxes for Canada, Australia and New Zealand?
Following the Second World War, the UK provided a list of colonies or non-self governing territories to the UN. For most of these countries, the UK granted independence through an act saying they would no longer legislate for them. At the same time, the British government ceased to direct their governments, separate citizenship was established and they were admitted into the UN as sovereign states. Unlike the independence of the U.S., which was recognized by treaty, some anomalies remained. Many countries continued to share the Queen as head of state, their citizens continued to have some rights and obligations as British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in the UK, judicial appeals to the UK privy council continued and instead of the countries exchanging ambassadors, their governments exchanged high commissioners. Nonetheless, the recognized dates of independence are used for the foundation dates.
In addition to the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which were called "dominions") were members of the UN and considered independent. They and their predecessor states had enjoyed greater independence in the 19th century than any of the colonies had enjoyed on the eve of their independence. But what the colonies achieved on independence were achieved gradually by the dominions through convention and legislation, with legislation often lagging established convention. Here is a partial list of dates for Canada:
I think the proper place for all this information is in the article, not the info-box. I suggest that the info-box contain only one date, which would be Canada 1867 (Confederation) Australia 1901 (federation) and New Zealand 1907 (recognition as a dominion). These are the dates that are normally recognized as the foundation dates of these states, even though there is disagreement over when they obtained independence.
TFD ( talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, this seems like forum shopping by TFD. He has not gained support for his position at
Talk:Australia, where discussions involving multiple editors have generated some 13,700 words of often irrelevant content (primarily by TFD). His notification of this discussion at
Talk:Australia#Infobox at NPOVN says this discussion is about the "Foundation" field. However, {{
Infobox country}} does not have a field with that name. Nor does it have an establishment
field. The actual field is established
but the infobox provides for established_event1
- established_event13
and established_date1
- established_date13
because, as is the case with Australia, establishment was not a single date process. "Established" is also a rather vague term when it comes to any country. Even countries like the
United States, which has a defined independence date, do not stick to one single date. The United States has five listed. There was a similar discussion regarding what to use in the infobox at
Canada, and the consensus, as far as I can see, was to use independence and list multiple dates, like Australia and United States. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 22:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That's an inherent problem with info boxes which in essence try to reduce complex statements into a one word statement. IMHO, when in doubt (contested) , leave it out of the infobox and just cover it properly in the text. North8000 ( talk) 14:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There is (I think) an issue over at the The Principle page, it mentions 4 times the film is dodgy science , whilst not actually having anything about what the film actually says.
In the summery section " although the observations to which the film refers do not do that", "contrary to the cosmological fact that there is no center to the universe" In essence the same statement is made twice.
In the criticism and controversy section (the right place for criticisms of the film) "The film was criticized by the physicists who were misled into appearing in the film for being a dishonest presentation of its material and purpose" "while the scientific consensus is that observations have confirmed the Copernican principle".
In addition the lead refers to it as pseudoscience and states that "scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas for which the film advocates ", so in a way there are in fact 6 attacks on the science of the film. Given there are only two line about what the film says in the summery section (and that is only saying the film is about X, not a summery of it's claims), and that the rest of the article is about other complaints about the film (two whole paragraphs) this seems a bit too much criticizing. In essence it is just an attack piece in which every paragraph seems to contain criticism of the film in some way.
The discussion about this is here [37]. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue of this RFC (Which has run its course), mainly deals with WP:WEIGHT. As such, it directly involves WP:NPOV. A few other editors looking at it would help. If you have a chance to comment, please do so.
RFC: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#RFC_on_including_Russian_influence_into_the_election
Casprings ( talk) 02:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
An editor is making several edits that in my opinion seem to be subtly downplaying convictions in Ian Watkins (Lostprophets), an article on a convicted sex offender. Would it please be possible for someone to have a quick look and possible keep an future eye on this high profile article? Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 18:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
An IP has twice inserted a bunch of "incident reports" from websites like Jihad Watch, plus dumping a short and non-NPOV "history of Islamic extremism" into the "See Also" section. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Background: Several pages on Wikipedia that cover WWII German personnel use the German language version of the German Air Force as Luftwaffe.
Sample:
A disagreement on this has arisen at Talk:Erich_Hartmann#.22Luftwaffe.22_of_the_Bundeswehr, but the Talk page discussion did not result in reaching consensus. The diff in question is this, including "In the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" as a section heading. The same edit also shows the German language term for Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, while the en.wiki article is Inspector of the Air Force.
Since Luftwaffe, when used in English-language literature, is strongly associated of the air force of Nazi Germany, this usage strikes me as POV. Alternatively, it presupposes the knowledge of German not commonly found among general readers. In any case, such piping/use is unneeded as the en.wiki articles use English-language terms. Compare book search for luftwaffe bundeswehr and "German air force" bundeswehr.
I would appreciate un-involved editors weighing in on this discussion. Courtesy ping to editor Dapi89.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
In 1956, Reinert joined the newly established [[German Air Force]].Users that are interested enough will click on the link and find the full justification of the FRG for using that term. The German term, no matter how "official" or "factual" is not controlling here per WP:COMMONNAME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.. Also, basic good communication favors not using this version. To argue that a six-syllable compound foreign language word that requires three wikilinks to explain is not clunky suggests a very different appreciation for "clunkiness". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is currently claiming that sources can be banned in all use cases requiring special exemption appeals for any specific use. My understanding of policy is that this isn't "by the book" as outlined in my posts there. Please join in the discussion there. Should it prove necessary (24-48hrs?) we should move the entire discussion here. Endercase ( talk) 19:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that an absolute ban on linking to a site should be applied only to a very narrow set of potentially harmful cases: malware, shock sites, persistent perpetrators of spammy links. That a publicly available list should be made of those "sources" that includes or links to open discussion to allow for NPOV, transparency, and to prevent abuse. Otherwise, the context has to be considered before making a determination on reliability and should be addressed on the talk page of that particular article or escalated with "due notification". A reliability determination in context can and generally should include an evaluation of the longstanding history of the source. In cases where a better source is available to supply or "verify" specific information that source should be used in place of or in conjunction with the less reliable source. Endercase ( talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Misinformation has an image with headlines (in small text) from websites sympathetic to Donald Trump to illustrate the concept of Fake News. NPalgan2 ( talk) 00:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC discussion ongoing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that would benefit from wider input. The question is, should Russia's denial of interference be mentioned, or excluded from the lead? The RfC can be found here. Regards, Darouet ( talk) 16:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Issues of due weight have been raised in discussion. In particular, some members of a Wikiproject claim a project-level due weight policy which supercedes our project's neutrality pillar. Participation from experienced editors familiar with our neutrality policy are sought. Thank you in advance. 34.207.97.139 ( talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)— 34.207.97.139 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Located here:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This SPA (with a blockable name, but I'm not going to be the one to do it) is making edits that seem to me to clearly violate NPOV. Can I get more eyes on it? -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The article for the not for profit organization Foundation for Economic Education has an exact quote of, "is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation," which is a common statement made by not for profit organizations for legal and taxation purposes. An editor decided that the organization is “anti-government” and so removed the quotes (which creates plagiarism) and repeatedly changes non-political to the insult neoliberal. First did this as an IP editor, then created the account User:Blahblah fee specifically to make the same edit. IP blocking will not matter and blocking an account made a few seconds ago will not matter. So the only option is to allow the editor to make any change they like ignoring all language rules? Abel ( talk) 15:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
XSAMPA and I are having a debate about whether or not the Transatlantic accent should be instated into the aforementioned template. Currently, we only have his and my opinion. And I would like to have a third. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 23:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I could use some eyes on this article. Allegedly the name rights for the original group have been acquired by a "successor" band, and various editors with a probable COI have tried to add as much information as possible about the more recent band. Initially I removed all edits as promotional and unsourced, but have now rephrased and kept a short section with an independent source about the modern-day group (both incarnations share some common history, although most main members of the original group are dead). See also Talk:The Duprees for a summary of the concerns. I do hope the rephrased shorter version is an improvement, but would appreciate any additional advice about how to handle such a situation. GermanJoe ( talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Keyboard cat.jpg She's wearing a shirt! El_C 04:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor is creating a large criticism section in the BLP Steve Silberman that is now by far the largest part of the article. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Also reported at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Silberman
(other users notified)
There is an ongoing discussion here, relating to how to describe the expert opinion on the reasons behind the diaspora, in detail, whether the diaspora is a result of forced expulsion. This is a recent revert, where the longstanding/stable version ("The widespread popular belief (...) is not accepted by historians") has been replaced with text attributing the view the diaspora is non-exilic merely to "some scholars". The operative sources are as follows:
The options would be e.g. to describe, after the current version, that:
Personally, my choice is the first one, since the sources present the non-exilic diaspora as a consensus view among historians, which are the reliable sources in the matter. "Some scholars" would incorrectly assign this opinion to a group that sounds much smaller than what the sources say. And attribution with names, the third option, seems unnecessary since the sources do not present the fact that historians dismiss the "myth of exile" as a contested matter, they simply state historians don't buy this myth. The guideline seems to advise against this kind of attribution as well. In other words, there are two issues going on, 1) historians dispute the "popular notion" of an exilic diaspora, and 2) it is not disputed that historians are of this view. -- Dailycare ( talk) 14:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Please restore my sourced revision on the Second Sight article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_sight&action=history that seeks to balance out a blatantly unbalanced article. It is not a question of the validity of Second Sight. It is merely a question of balancing out the responses to one researcher's opinion of it. An entry this biased serves neither the skeptical or the credulous. And it most definitely violates Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Compare selected revisions (cur | prev) 23:39, 16 March 2017 Guy Macon (talk | contribs) . . (8,201 bytes) (-927) . . (Removed edit by banned editor Jamenta) (undo)
The Jamenta thing is a complete canard as has been discussed on the Administrator's Page. I will be logging on with my actual name so I can I can effectively challenge this concerted attempt to preserve a biased portrait of Myers.17:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 71.167.134.66 ( talk)
I am not Jamenta. I did ping Mr. Macon, or at least thought I did. I agree that the article is a mess. It would be fine to nuke it. But as long as it lives, can you please weigh in on whether you feel the pileup of Myers detractors serves Wikipedia's NPOV when there are more than one renowned supporters? 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your candor. Your conclusion that Wikipedia promotes a non-NPOV only (NNPOV?) for historical figures associated with parapsychology will likely prove useful on the AN/I thread underway now, or a new thread in the near future. 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
If you consider parapsychology "bunkum" and its supporters "not reliable sources" it is difficult to understand how you can maintain an NPOV toward historical figures who kept an open mind about it. I have no interest in initiating any articles related to parapsychology. I am only interested in keeping the record accurate and balanced on a period of history I have spent my life writing and publishing about. I will be signing on with a named user account to avoid any further misidentification with a public computer. I will use an anonymous name at first, until I feel confident that the higher level Administrators can handle the worst excesses directed toward contributors deemed by some Editors to be supporting "bunkum." The Jamenta nonsense is just nonsense to me as long as I remain anonymous, and as long as it is no longer allowed as a rationale or excuse to block my contributions. But it becomes libel if it persists with my real identity. And I am definitely not looking to engage that. If, however, any high-up good faith Administrator, like at least one who has emerged on the ANI forum, requests to know my actual identity, I will be happy to reveal it to them. 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I will need a longer version still to make sense of what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps a specific example might clarify. If a book, such as Myers' "Phantasms of the Living," is presented as being universally scorned by a variety of "scholars," of varying degrees of obscurity and relevant authority, is it not a proper understanding and application of NPOV to add a positive response by a well-regarded authority? In or out? Which option, as the previous Editor might ask, would more resemble the tactics of Fox News? 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 17:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Timothy. I agree that there are not 2 equally respectable positions when it comes to the question of is the earth flat or round. But since there is also not a single respected authority—professor, scientist, Nobel Laureate, etc. —who holds that position, your comparison breaks down precisely at the point of contention. 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an extended debate going on at Talk:Alkaline diet#Lead sentence about the usage of the term "false belief" to describe the topic. While it has degraded somewhat into incivility, the arguments on either side boil down to:
While there is a slight majority of supporters of using the term "false belief", WP:NPOV states quite clearly that the policy is not subject to or overridden by consensus. There just isn't a consensus on whether the policy is being followed. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it required for a page of a singer to have the 'unreferenced section tag' in Discography section on the artist's page if there are no references in that specific area, but sources (including secondary) in other parts of the page? For example, why should the page " Joi Cardwell#Discography" be tagged with the 'unreferenced section tag', but " Beyonce#Discography" isn't? I, personally, felt like the user who added it, is guilty of tag bombing the first page because he did not give a good reason for doing so. And I inquired to him about it with the same opening question and did not receive an answer. I'm requesting a neutral answer here. Horizonlove ( talk) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says, "We monitor hate groups and other extremists throughout the United States and expose their activities to the public, the media and law enforcement." [1]
Not surprisingly, groups and individuals reported by the SPLC object to the coverage they receive. There are continuous requests to add these replies to the SPLC article as "controversy." The problem is avoiding undue weight. I would appreciate any comments in how to handle this.
For example, Frank Gaffney was included in the recent SPLC "A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists". And editorial in The Jewish Week says, "Sharp criticism of Gaffney comes from a variety of respected sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls him “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” The ADL says he “has promulgated a number of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories over the years.” Those include charges that President Obama is a Muslim, Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood and Gen. David Petraeus follows Sharia law./Republican U.S. Sens. John McCain, Marco Rubio and Scott Brown have spoken out against Gaffney, as has former House Speaker John Boehner, calling such allegations “dangerous.”"
The mainstream assessent agrees with the SPLC and only a tiny minority of people disagree. Mostly if not entirely these people hold views that mainstream sources would describe as extremist. Quoting these views in the article gives false equivalency.
TFD ( talk) 00:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
does not need to originate from reliable sources-- this seems better framed as something like "what's considered reliable varies according to context..." (i.e. if we're citing them, they always need to be reliable, but sometimes biasd, primary, etc. sources can be considered reliable). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem ... is that the sources that are the most reliable (on that scale) that will be critical of SPLC...I don't think I follow the point you're making with this, as the way I read it is something I don't think you would actually be arguing. i.e. That we should go out looking for criticism to bring in and create a separate measure of reliability in order to admit some. Sources like Breitbart can be reliable sources for their own opinion, but the fact that they have an opinion doesn't mean it should be included (as with any opinion piece). If weight for an argument is established by other sources, there's a stronger case to bring it in, I suppose, but then the reliable source is the other one reporting on it, not Breitbart. I don't doubt at all that there's mainstream rs coverage of criticism of the splc (the particular example of that Fox News piece is probably better for a smaller-scale discussion -- it's not ideal, but it's many steps in the right direction, away from the primary sources and e.g. Breitbart). In any event, on the topic of weight, to elaborate on something I tacked on to my last comment, I think that coverage of SPLC is substantial enough that a criticism section here (as opposed to more detail in the separate list), should be for non-news -- rather than responses to this or that announcement/classification/publication, it should be about the organization broadly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Masem:Masem makes the point above that if we include an SPLC claim about a group then some sort of rebuttal by the group may be in order, even if it's just a sentence. However, this should work in the other direction also. At present there is a criticism section in the article (see Southern Poverty Law Center#Controversy over hate group and extremist listings). The last paragraph in that section concerns Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Nawaz is quoted as calling his listing as a Muslim extremist a "smear" but nowhere in the section, or anywhere else in the article, does it say why the SPLC listed him.
At present the article is locked from editing for the rest of the year over the attempt to add the following:
"In December 2016, Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer condemned the SPLC for listing Maajid Nawaz, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as anti-Muslim extremists. Dermer describing the SPLC's actions as an 'Orwellian inversion of reality" and accused them of trying to "stifle debate.'"
Again, the same problem -- there is no explanation anywhere in the article of why these people were listed by the SPLC. Editors trying to add it argue that NPOV does not apply since only the criticism, not the SPLC position, belong in a criticism section. Comments? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 23:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I could use some help determining if the long series of edits by 2001:558:600A:99:B1F9:36D3:FC39:4FC7 ( talk · contribs) fit WP:NPOV. This seems like a touchy subject, and the mass unilateral categorization of these acts seems controversial to me.
(In chronological order)
Because this affects many pages, it hasn't been discussed on any particular talk page. I'm looking for a sanity check on whether this seems WP:NPOV and not any specific action. Thanks for the extra pair(s) of eyes. AlexEng( TALK) 08:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Schneerson page is fervently protected by a group of editors. I have discussed this on the talk page, and placed an item on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. However given the past behavior of the editors Bus Stop, Debresser, and Kamel Tebaast, and their present intransigence to even provide an alternative entry, or placement, and recurrent raising of strawmen arguments, I have no optimism, zero optimism that this can be a consensus decision. The riots in 1991 occurred between two communities who rarely interacted. Most reviews of the events note how they almost do not see themselves. The events were convulsive for the history of New York City.
My goal is simple. The main reviews of the history of the time, or biographies of Schneerson, by third person authors, cite this event as important in his life, as linked to the leader of one of the two main communities involved in the riots. Again, we can focus on a single but important source: the obituary of Schneerson in the New York Times. Nearly 5-6 paragraphs of some thirty comment on this event or the repercussions. That alone should be a citable notion in the biography of the man.
My aim is that the biography link the fact that it was an accident in the motorcade of Schneerson that served as a trigger of the riots. After much discussion, I think we should also use the sources to say that Schneerson had nothing to say about the incident. Both these points have myriad sources. Given the controversial nature of the information according to editors, given the controversy that has ranged since, the most apt location is in the controversy section of Schneerson, which includes a discussion of whether the Rabbi dissuaded his followers from considering him the Messiah. I add this, because it does give some indication of why the article is so difficult to edit. I think other arguments about why the riots occurred, why this pedestrian accident led to a riot, the detailed responses of various communities, and community leaders and politicians, and Schneerson himself, can be discussed in the Crown Heights article. But the link exists, not because I want it, but because it is present in the neutral authoritative historical sources. To avoid it, is to belittle the role of an encyclopedia. Here was my suggested entry for the article (a subsection in controversies section):
The Crown Heights disturbances in August 19, 1991 were set off when a car in Rabbi Schneerson's motorcade went out of control and killed a 7-year-old black child. In the days that followed, a riot erupted in the neighborhood, reflecting existing tensions between Jewish and black residents. Two men, one of them a young Lubavitch adherent, were killed during the riots. [1] Schneerson had no public comment on the death of the child or the riots. [2]
I am looking for guidance on how to resolve this. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The reason I am here is because it is exasperating to argue with people like Debresser, who change the argument all the time. In the talk page, he stated: This was discussed before, at Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson/Archive_4#Didn.27t_he_run_over_somebody.3F. I stand by my opinion from then, that there is no connection to the rabbi. He tried to end the debate by saying it had been decided that there was no connection. Now he says he agrees with a paragraph. The discussion did not come to a consensus.
My point is simple: Reliable published sources make the point that this event is major event in his life. The present article does not mention it at all. The term hagiography has been used by numerous other editors in describing this article. It is tough not to use the term, when one of the controversies regarding Schneerson is whether he is the Messiah or not. Again, I successfully argued before after the dedicated efforts of many editors to remove a false statement from the article. This time, I do not have the patience with individuals who do not follow the guidelines of an encyclopedia. I am not interested in litigating legalities of the Crown Height riot in this article. The only point is that a major neutral and authoritative biography of Schneerson dedicates almost ten percent of the entry to this event. All the historical retrospectives of the event, discuss Schneerson's link to the events. This article includes zero. This is not going to be solved by mediation. It will require arbitration to keep the article encyclopedic. Rococo1700 ( talk) 20:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not asking for mediation. I initially had hope, but all suggestions are deleted and blocked, even if well-sourced. There has been intransigence in past, and after short discussion on talk page, there continues to be now. There is no movement. I recommend arbitration. I recommend a third party come up with a paragraph about the facts to be placed in the article, and allow outside editors including myself offer opinions. If both sides (the deletion and insertion sides) agree, we add more. If not, only the arbitration paragraph is allowed in. Following that, this article will benefit from a mechanism that prevents this task from being just deleted later. I am interested in changing the article than blocking the editors from all of Wikipedia. My fear is that they will however attempt to delete the entry. But let us begin by getting some facts in the article. I would like to write a paragraph under the heading Schneerson and the Crown Heights riot. I have provided my suggestion. Rococo1700 ( talk) 03:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Rococo1700: First, after looking at the article it does seem to suffer from a significant degree of WP:PEACOCK ("renowned" etc.). I had assumed there was more of a background to the dispute regarding the riot but the talk page conversation was pretty brief. At any rate, I did not notice any compelling reasons against inclusion or clear arguments as to why this is not a "controversy" related to Schneerson. Especially since this is not a BLP, any major incidents related to the person ought to be included somewhere in the article, and if the accident and riot were significant elements of the obituary it seems like inclusion is an obvious choice. @ Debresser: There also seems to be a lack of civility and respect on both sides of this. I'd like to remind everyone involved of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and of course WP:NPOV. Editing articles where one's personal opinions on or attachments to the topic are significant is a bad choice and there are many other articles on wikipedia that need attention. —DIY Editor ( talk) 18:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The article in question is Peruvian nitrate monopoly.
I am concerned that the creator of the article is pushing a fringe perspective that basically amounts to a conspiracy theory of the Peruvian state monopoly as the primary driver for the War of the Pacific, which was a conflict fought between Peru, Chile, and Bolivia over the control of nitrates in South America. This is the version of the article supported by the creator, Keysanger: [20]. I have edited the article to reduce the fringe perspective and with evidence that supports the mainstream view on the topic, which is that Chilean expansionism is what caused the War of the Pacific. This is my proposed version: [21].
I have attempted to discuss matters with Keysanger at Talk:Peruvian nitrate monopoly#Chilean bias - Article Needs a Rewrite, but the user obfuscates the matter by missing the point (whether purposefully or inadvertently, I don't know) and ignoring it (preferring instead to engage in edit wars).
I should clarify that my position is not against the idea that Peruvian Nitrate Company was attempting to gain an upper hand in its cartel of nitrates by purchasing a Bolivian mine. However, to manipulate the information to paint it as if Peru sought the start of war is simply ludicrous. Clearly, this exempts Chile's role in the conflict, despite the mainstream historical perspective is that Chile, which had been damaged by the Peruvian monopoly, was the country that resorted to the use of force in order to resolve the matter in its favor (much in the same way it had done during the War of the Confederation).
To sum things up, here is a straightforward quote from the historian Robert N. Burr:
Chile justified war against Peru on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to destroy Chilean nitrate operations and establish Peruvian predominance. It was claimed that since established Chilean interests and rights in the Bolivia littoral stood in the way of that scheme, Peru became secretly allied with Bolivia which it then encouraged to resist Chile's just demands. The extent of Peruvian treachery became evident when it sent to Santiago a mediator even as it prepared for war. [...] A detailed evaluation of the merits of these and other versions of war guilt in the Pacific conflagration of 1879-1883 is beyond the scope of this work. Several conclusions do present themselves, however, in connection with the circumstances and forces that affected Chile's decision to wage war and its formulation of war objectives. The most immediately obvious casus belli was the conflict of interests arising from one country's economic predominance on the soil of another. [...] Bolivians came to entertain fears concerning ultimate Chilean political domination of the littoral. But fearful, impotent, poorly governed Bolivia could neither strengthen its economic and political position in the littoral nor develop an effective policy toward Chile. For their part Chileans came to regard the coastal desert as their own in all but name. Not only were Chilean economic interests predominant, but development of the littoral was due almost exclusively to Chilean capital, labor, and technology. The spasmodic efforts of frequently corrupt local Bolivian officials to carry out the often arbitrary orders of the Altiplano were met by Chileans with angry resentment.
— Robert N. Burr, By Reason or Force (1974), pp. 138-139.
Sorry for the long quote, but I think it adequately sums up the point. Best.-- MarshalN20 Talk 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. Neutrality is one of the core issues of contention. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 ( talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please vote on it if the topic is of interest to you. Soham321 ( talk) 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I have many concerns about the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff article, which definitely does not meet due weight standards and has a number of other problems, some of the latter just possibly caused by language issues. For example, she does not offer a defense but an "excuse". The talk page shows that then-active editors felt that her contention that removing her amounted to a coup did not warrant inclusion because she was impeached in accordance with the constitution. According to those editors. Help is especially needed from anyone who speaks Portugese, but even if you don't -- I can just barely read it sometimes -- there is still plenty you could do. I am annotating the talk page; so far nobody is answering.
BLP in *enormous* need of help. It's an important event so deletion a very last resort Elinruby ( talk) 20:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
meanwhile, re the "coup" remark:
The sources may not support the coup remark -- at the moment I agree that most express skepticism, although not all, so a real weighing for due weight would require more research than I am willing to do right now. But there are solid sources that she *said* this. Elinruby ( talk) 23:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree Clearly bias against Dilma. Dr. Loo Talk to me
Perhaps we should have an article on the "soft coup" conspiracy theory. Several populist leaders (Dilma, Kirchner, Maduro, etc.) seem to love it, there should be some material for an unified article about the concept. Cambalachero ( talk) 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Good catch @ Elinruby:, as evidenced by the reactions of @ Fbergo: and @ Cambalachero: the article seems to be a magnet for tendentious editing with a lack of regard for wikipedia policies and guidelines. They also seem to have no problem violating WP:FORUM in the promotion of their clear points of view and should in my opinion entirely recuse themselves from editing this article. This type of editing damages wikipedia. —DIY Editor ( talk) 05:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention the controversy at all. I have listed some reliable sources on the talkpage (BBC, the Guardian). I don't really write articles, I prefer typofixing and related gnomework, can someone (preferably an experienced editor) please fix this problem? ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 07:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar concerning the use of the term pseudomedicine. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:441:A41B:9784:50F1 ( talk) 21:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Below is a Request for Comment I am posting here because it deals with multiple articles and templates. The issue is WP:Weight. This is an attempt to centralize discussion and drive at an overall consensus that can guide content.
In particular, this is to get feedback and gain overall consensus on what should be the WP:Weight of information in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election throughout various articles that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. If Wikipedia could come to a general consensus, it will guide content inputs into several articles.
To state my position clearly, I am of the belief that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. That being said, I am of the belief that it should be mentioned in the opening of articles that also reference the election. For example, in the current article United States presidential election, 2016 it currently reads:
It is my belief that Wikipedia should add a sentence similar to:
I believe something similar should be added to the opening of several articles, including Donald Trump. In my opinion, a foreign government's influence in another nation's election an essential fact to know in any article that relates strongly to that election. As a general rule, if another article mentions the 2016 election of Trump in its lede, it should also mention the CIA conclusions that Russia attempted influence the election in favor of Trump. I also believe it should be in several templates, such as Template:US 2016 presidential elections series and Template:Trump presidency, discussion currently here and here respectively.
Note: There are multiple ongoing discussions that somewhat relate to the question below. Many of the same editors are involved in each. I think it is important to come to an overall guiding consensus on this so it can guide inputs into multiple articles and templates. That said, I will link to this discussion on Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, Donald Trump, and United States presidential election, 2016. I believe most editors that are currently involved will see it and post here. However, I think it is also important to get uninvolved editors to give their opinion. Casprings ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. Should Wikipedia generally accept that in articles that are strongly related to the 2016 US presidential election and mention the election in the lede, it should also contain information regarding Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election?
2. Should the article Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election be included in templates related to the US's 2016 election? Casprings ( talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a vague pair of questions. Just how strongly related to the election are you talking about? Maybe you could provide a list or some good examples of what sort of articles and templates you think this information should be in. This somewhat comes off as POV-pushing, I'd like to see input from editors with no dog in the race before I offer an opinion. —DIY Editor ( talk) 02:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
that Russian interference or the belief of Russian interference by US intelligence in the 2016 election is one the most historically significant aspects of the election. Some editors agree with you more or less strongly. Other editors, me included, think this story is merely hyperventilation by the Democrats and some elements of US intelligence community and military-industrial apparatus, amplified by journalists who need to feed their publications. Both points of view are interesting, and none should influence what Wikipedia reports. In this context, I disapprove of pushing this information to numerous articles, as you suggest, because this is advocacy of your POV on the story. I recommend noting the allegations and hypotheses, both sourced, and letting readers make up their mind. — JFG talk 06:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
If some folks with a bit more expertise than me in the topic of international legal battles over alleged war crimes can please take a look, I would appreciate it. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The article in question is Chuck Blazer.
The following three sequential diffs are the subject of contention 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421661&oldid=742371419 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756421764&oldid=756421661 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chuck_Blazer&diff=756443152&oldid=756421764
Chuck Blazer has two sources of notability: soccer administration, and large scale financial crime. I believe the version of the lead I modified was too 'sanitized.' By the wording, Blazer might be an innocent Whistleblower. I changed the wording to make his criminality clear to readers early on in the article, and explain how he was coerced to be a cooperating witness. No POV commentary—his criminality is well publicized. Giant Snowman responded with a blanket reversion (no summary), while leaving a Level 2 Vandalism warning on my Talk page. I responded by opening a discussion @ Talk:Chuck Blazer. I believe my arguments there use Wikipedia policy to thoroughly justify my changes to the article. I especially put the torch to Snowman's attempt to justify his edit with WP:UNDUE, and I want to restore my edits. Tapered ( talk) 04:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Good news! I don't expect to be struck by lightning. I didn't keep precise numbers, but the number of New York Times articles which mention Chuck Blazer before and after the crucial year of 2011 (the kickoff of the ongoing Association Football scandal), are nearly equal. The only dedicated article of note before 2011 was in 2010—a Q&A about the World Cup. 2011 saw the largest number of articles, virtually all of which concern Blazer as an administrator, but an administrator dealing with the aftermath of the CFU scandal, the primary exception being a dedicated article about his resignation from his CONCACAF offices. All articles after 2011 concern Blazer's criminal activities, and there are several dedicated articles in 2015, by far the largest concentration. The preponderance of dedicated coverage @ NYT and hence Blazer's primary notability in 2016, is for criminal activity. Please note that the NYT may have the best soccer/association football coverage in the US, that Blazer is a native of New York City, and that he lived and conducted his business in NYC. This makes it likely that he probably received more press coverage before 2011 @ the NYT than any other media outlet, and that his notability is likely even more skewed toward his criminal activities in most other media outlets in the US and elsewhere (though he probably received significant coverage outside the US around the 2022 World Cup bidding process). Tapered ( talk) 07:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Any article included on Wikipedia, also promotes it by virtue of its existence. Is this ever a reason to exclude an article, because its promotion amounts to WP:UNDUE weight, assuming the contents conforms to WP:V and WP:RS?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman ( talk • contribs)
I guess that related to this is, can we have a neutral article without any critical analysis? Can ideas be described neutrally (perhaps using attribution) without comment, and not violate WP:WEIGHT. What if we have minority source in support, but no mainstream sources? Is it simply a matter a framing the subject appropriately? -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Apropos of certain points that are made in this conversation, maybe an essay I wrote many years ago might help: Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence. I think it is helpful to look at ideas on a spectrum. The strong cut for subjects which are "not notable" is to not have articles about them. Opinions which are really obscure may be marginalized within other articles due to our WEIGHT clause. jps ( talk) 13:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Revisiting this topic... (Prior discussion: permalink).
The matter of the WW2 German High Command press communiques ( Wehrmachtbericht) has been controversial over the years. Most recently, it was discussed at this noticeboard (link above), as well as at Military History Talk page ( Quoting from London Gazette versus Wehrmachtbericht), and various article Talk pages such as on Manstein ( link) and Bach-Zalewski ( link).
The material was deemed undue and was subsequently removed from articles. An editor has recently began reinserting this material on Talk pages of related articles, stating that this was being done for the purposes of archiving the transcripts: sample diff 1 and diff 2.
I don’t believe that this is needed or desirable, given that Talk pages are not storage areas for material that by consensus has been determined to be unsuitable for the main space. Given that the material represents unadulterated Nazi propaganda, it may be undue for the Talk pages either.
I would appreciate more input on this matter. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No matter how amusing they may be to some readers, the fact is inescapable: this was Nazi Party war propaganda. No amount of minimization or ridicule can change that. While I recognize the Mel Brooks approach [31] has merit, that's not what's available to the project on mainspace pages. The bigger issue, however, is that it is simply not necessary to include large quoted sections, either on article pages or on talkpages. These chunks are immaterial and do not expand understanding of the article subjects. There is no reason to have them on the article pages, and placing them on the talk pages after consensus has removed them from the article pages has the appearance of trying to perform an end-around. Delete and carry on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, editor Dapi89 sees the matter of transcripts differently (in addition to the original editor), as they have reverted my removal of the transcript from a Talk page:
I don't believe these transcripts belong on Talk pages, but perhaps more input is needed to convince the two editors? K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
"if needed countering the wrong information with reliable secondary sources, or if correct, confirm the information with other sources as well", as comparing and contrasting a primary source should be left to historian and researchers, not done by Wikipedia editors.
An good point was made over at MilHist: "cutting and pasting the transcripts into the talk page isn't good practice unless the consensus is currently being challenged"
(
link).
Question for @ MisterBee1966: is there an intention to challenge the current consensus? K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on NPOV as applied to fringe earthquake prediction theories at this article.
Talk:Earthquake_prediction#RfC_on_Earthquake_prediction_2 JerryRussell ( talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This is about the article Third Way, which I consider POV. On the talk page there were many attempts at generating discussion, all ignored. This is the latest. For example a years-old proposal of a secondary source has lead to no talk at all. My opinion is that there are other views: rightist or green, that are also to be included in the article. The best source could be Steve Bastow & James Martin: Third Way Discourse. Honestly, "Third way" seems to be at least partially a political marketing brand, however, there could be a useful collection of the different ideologies that can be described with it, or the adherents of which described themselves with it. Currently the article seems to serve as an advertisement of only one of these ideologies. 193.224.72.252 ( talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an NPOV dispute regarding the British Empire article. This same dispute has surfaced several times in the past, such as the article FA review back in 2010 and this talk page discussion back in 2014. The dispute is over whether the article covers the legacy of the British Empire properly, and whether it should cover some other aspects of the British Empire besides a narrative of its history.
Three users (including myself) from one side of this dispute have been adding an NPOV tag to the top of the British Empire article. Three users from the other side have been removing it, claiming there is no NPOV dispute and we need to make a case before we can place an NPOV tag. Take a look at Talk:British Empire. We have done that. We have had a 9000 word discussion about neutrality on the talk page. 6 of the 11 sections currently on the talk page were created by the three of us to discuss the NPOV issues.
Yet the other side simply says there is no NPOV dispute and we are not entitled to tag the page. Here are the dispute participants:
Can I get some affirmation that there is an ongoing NPOV dispute and we are allowed to tag articles we think have NPOV problems with NPOV tags?-- Quality posts here ( talk) 23:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't remove the NPOV tag but support removing it 100%. For an article to be a Featured Article, it goes through extensive peer review, were there any NPOV problems it would never have achieved that. The tagging is not being used to draw attention to an issue, its been used because editors are not prepared to use WP:DR and are gaming the system to force the changes they want into the article - including threats to force a FA review to remove the FA status. All of the changes I've seen so far are detrimental to article quality. The material they're seeking to impose on the article is not neutral e.g. [32] The violent expansionism and racial beliefs of the British Empire had a severely negative impact on the indigenous population. There are multiple examples of WP:OR and WP:SYN in what is proposed new section, WP:OPINION is presented as WP:FACT throughout the new section, e.g. one authors opinion that the British are racist. And the editors are fond of expressing opinions such as "There is no academic debate about whether the British Empire was racist. " This posting here is yet another example of forum shopping in a campaign that I fear is destined to end up at WP:ARBCOM but not until a great deal of editing time is wasted unproductively. As Only in death observed quite adroitly from reading that userpage one quite quickly concludes they shouldn't be editing British Empire and in fact I'm not sure they should be editing full stop. W C M email 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
An un-involved observation. Its seems to me, that if there's a dispute of the usage of a dispute tag on an article, then that in itself is a sign of a dispute over an article's content. GoodDay ( talk) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we get some unbiased contributors? It seems is not neutral like Acupuncture. The page is controlled by anti-Rolfing contributors. Example "In general serious people do not bother discussing nonsenses like Rolfing because they have better things to do." Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC) -- Mikehenke ( talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Historical Vedic religion is too euro-centric in its bias. It only references Western scholars. Unfortunately much of western scholarship on Indian history is built on layers of colonial bias. To make an article on India neutral and unbiased, it must cite modern Indian scholars in equal measure if not more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of the discussion includes matters pertaining to WP:NPOV. Additional input from participants of this noticeboard would be welcome:
For specific concerns, pls see:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
To keep track of all nominations and wins -- (because although the total sums can be included in the infobox, only organizations and associations with Wikipedia pages can be included in the table of accolades) -- a record of same was kept in the Talk page. This record supported the total sums. User:Tenebrae deleted this content, called it "violative" and a "serious breach of Wikipedia policy" ( Revision as of 15:21, 11 December 2016).
He claimed in the Talk page (topic: Accolades on this page) that it was "disallowed content". Although he was asked to provide the exact section of the WP policy where such content is specifically disallowed in a Talk page, he has not.
I am requesting input from neutral parties regarding the deletion of this Talk page content and whether Wikipedia does or does not conclusively disallow it. And if there is no clearly defined and fixed Wikipedia policy, then the deleted content should be restored. Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
A discussion in WT:FILM regarding edits made by User:Tenebrae is also underway in Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film). Pyxis Solitary ( talk) 06:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article has been whitewashed by TheRexIsRising. It now holds that Pakistani blasphemy laws are "sacred" (I kid you not). Can I get some eyes on that article, please? Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
More eyeballs are needed at Libertarian Republican; a user has repeatedly inserted and reinserted contentious original research claims into this article without a citation to any reliable source. (The user is also inserting citations to the Libertarian Party platform and to a libertarian advocacy website, but even these (unacceptable) sources don't support the claims made — in fact, they don't mention Republicans or the Republican Party once). Neutrality talk 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place.
There is a wording dispute here [33] over terminology. One of the arguments is the concept of using only what "the main sources we use" say [34]. This has been followed by the idea that the sources we are using the the article say X, so we should say X (apparently irrespective of what other sources say) [35].
So my question is, if RS say X and Y which do we go with? IS it valid to argue that because our chosen "authoritative source" says X then (no matter what other sources say) it is we go with that?
(note this is not an RS issue, or even an issue of just this page, rather it is about the general concept). Slatersteven ( talk) 11:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895)#Rename_the_article_title, there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that "invasion" implies that the territorial sovereignty did not belong to Japan and has POV issue. Therefore I proposed redirecting the article to "Japanese conquest of Taiwan", but three other editors did not agree with the redirection. I haven't heard that they explain how not POV "invasion" is, though. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In Talk:Republic_of_Formosa#Description_-_republic_or_government_or_others, there was a discussion about a wording issue. My opinion is that word "republic", which is being used in the article for referring to the Republic of Formosa, implies statehood and has POV issue, and thus can mislead readers into believing the Republic of Formosa was really a state. I proposed changing the word to "polity", but an editor did not agree with that. Your opinions are appreciated. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 13:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Claims of POV editing have been asserted by several editors for the article Talk:Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier#NPOV. The article is somewhat troublesome because the subject of the article, namely Donald Trump, has a verified track record of making sensationalist commentary on twitter and other public media which at times fails fact checking. This results in editors of the various articles on Mr. Trump having to sift through his statements and RS to determine the veracity and content of the statements, frustrating good faith editors. Unfortunately, due to Trump being a "moving target" and the frustration of the editors involved, many folks have a negative experience attempting to write about Mr. Trump. As a result the article in question has evolved into something very unflattering to Mr. Trump, with editors who just do not trust Mr. Trumps public commentary. The article also has repeatedly been quoting unverified, salacious materials which have been removed several times by neutral editors. Please assign a neutral editor to join into the conversation on the articles talk page, and assist us in closing the POV issues with this article. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Food for thought, with implications for how our policies apply to Trump (and others):
BullRangifer ( talk) 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:Splitting of the moon#First sentence of the article the sentence "The splitting of the moon (Arabic: انشقاق القمر) was a miracle attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad" has been questioned with the suggestion that "alleged" be added. We do seem to use the word without any qualification, such as at Jesus walking on water although Miracles of Joseph Smith reads " the movement is characterized by a belief that the miracles," and doesn't even mention miracle in the first sentence, despite the title. And "The Miracle of Calanda is an event that allegedly took place in Calanda". But Miracle of the cruse of oil seems to assume that a miracle took place and tries to explain it (hm, any article with a sentence ending in ! needs work). Doug Weller talk 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
'Miracle' is a religious designation. It either is a miracle according to the religion concerned or it isnt. That non-believers dont believe in miracles is irrelevant - putting a qualifier in essentially implies that there are actual miracles that could be verified. As an athiest, of course, there are no miracles whatsoever, but the group of events religious people term 'miracle' is up to them. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This RfC has been open for two weeks, and so far we have only a few votes. The controversy is about the appropriate weight under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE regarding several fringe earthquake prediction theories, technologies & researchers. Participants need to be willing to at least take a quick look at the sources, and determine whether there is sufficient reliable source documentation to to support including the material.
Basically, there are three editors (myself, J. Johnson (JJ), and an anonymous Athenian IP editor) who have been debating these topics for the last six months, and creating quite a wall of text. JJ argues that the IP editor should be disqualified from participating in the RfC on the basis that he is an SPA and advocate. But then, JJ has been criticized for ownership behavior from time to time, and JJ has complained that I'm too pro-fringe, so maybe all three of us should be disqualified.
JJ has complained that the RfC is poorly framed. There are six questions, and there seems to be a consensus that two of them (posed as discussion questions) need to be thrown out. Be that as it may, I'm hoping that perhaps this RfC can settle the longstanding debate about appropriate content for this important page.
Please help!! JerryRussell ( talk) 18:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I am claiming that sourced content, backed by proven custom should not be removed without any countering source or facts proving otherwise? Let's take a hypothetical example: According to the Jus soli legal principle, applied in Argentine nationality law, any person born in Argentine acquires Argentine citizenship at birth, even though the parents have none whatsoever connection to Argentine. So could I then add the category Category:Argentine people to John Doe's Wikipedia article, if I have a source and the legal principle that state that John Doe is born in Argentine and has thus has gained Argentine citizenship? So what would be the difference if I added the category Category:British Jews to the real and relevant Milo Yiannopoulos Wikipedia article, if: According to the general principle in Judaism and Jewish law, a person is automatically considered Jewish if their mother/grandmother is Jewish, which is the original and current definition of being Jewish. Furthermore from the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos has been born into another religion or embraced another religion, as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal, ( Matrilineality in Judaism). Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism and cannot be directly compared to other monotheistic religions ex. Christianity, which emphasises primarily faith and conversion. Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding Category: Yiannopoulos is Jewish - adequate sources verify this and should not be removed until proven otherwise Regards, RudiLefkowitz ( talk) 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Mr Wikipedia,
could you please provide someone familiar with COPE's standards,
and science-
C-o-I IRB-"conflicts" [as opposed to financial- CoI)
to review the TALK -edits, and "article" deletes
in Wikipedia's
TWA 841 ,
of April 4 1979.
The NTSB's Public Docket should include the background Group Reports,
and all
Petitions against the NTSB-AAR-81-8.
But, one "editor" (?) DELETED all- mention and links to the two
main Petitions.
Perhaps that one "editor" should tightly control, and LIMIT that
wiki-article to ONLY the Boeing Scenario and NTSB-AAR-81-8.
Perhaps Wikipedia's POLICY should suppress any mention of the Petitions against AAR-81-8.
But that one "editor", who seems to lack work-background in our industry,
has now taken-over.
So, OK, let one guy control that "article":
Could you subtly suggest that he allow a top-banner,
caution -- this Wilk "article" only presents the Boeing Scenario ,
as endorsed by the USA's "independent" Safety Board.
IGhhGI (
talk) 21:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
= = = =
Responding to 30Jan' comment above:
"... probably as one of the parties has a book ... refspam by one editor ... I just read it ... seems quite neutral ..."
Please excuse me if this response seems to belittle your analysis (just above). I have NOT any any book. There is NO "Spam" in any of the "Talk" (for TWA841) -- for some unexplained motive that one "editor" wants to prevent you (or any reader) from viewing the records (facts). As a test, PLEASE: go to that "talk" page, view the ORIGINAL uncensored "talk". Do you see "spam"???
A suggestion: On that talk page, allow some contributors (qualified men who worked in Flt Test and at TWA), to "link" to actual records from that accident.
There exists some sort deception evident by that one "editor". The "facts" in the case might not be clear to you, unless you can speak-Boeing, worked at Boeing Flight Test, and flew B727 at TWA.
That Wikipedia article has so many errs: PLEASE, to counter that bias simply offer the reader a link to the TWO MAIN Petitions against NTSB-AAR-81-8 (that "editor"
DELETED the links on 21Dec2016). For four decades this old case provoked controversy, assumptions became "findings", inference became "facts".
Some intervention is sought -- a balanced presentation. ==> OR, simply show a top-banner "This wiki-article presents ONLY the Boeing Scenario "
IGhhGI ( talk) 21:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
User:86.90.43.5 seems incapable of editing articles without skewing them towards a Nazi POV, or attempting to ameliorate the Nazi regime's responsibilities. All of his edits need to be closely examined for this bias, which the editor is not reluctant to express. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits ( example) use source http://www.shorelinebeacon.com/2013/08/26/citizens-call-for-caw-turbine-shutdown for definitive statements on the issue. Some patient explanations are needed. Perhaps the article was too firmly pushing the "psychosomatic disorder" line before the recent edits (I do not know), but its current text is obviously inappropriate. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This was listed at Pages needing cleanup after translation, which is how I found it. I am not sure how much it's been worked on since but I just did a fairly thorough copy-edit and am confident that it's quite readable. I also removed some editorial language. This, and a reference in an edit summary to "Muslim scum" make me wonder about the article's neutrality not to say accuracy.
I am profoundly ignorant in the background history, sociology and geography of this event and am trying to recruit more editors who may know more to help out. Meanwhile I am taking off the rough translation tag, as it is not true now if it ever was. Elinruby ( talk) 23:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Emmett_Till#Emmett_Till_lead_sentence_RFC ResultingConstant ( talk) 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on the Tiger_Forces, a special forces unit in the Syrian Arab Army relies only on blog articles from
The article is found here Tiger_Forces
Long passages such as
After successful operations in Latakia and Hama, Colonel Suheil al-Hassan was tasked a special project by the Syrian Armed Forces Central Command in the fall of 2013—to train and lead a Special Forces unit that would work primarily as an offensive unit. Colonel Hassan handpicked many of the soldiers that would later form the Tiger Forces.
are cited to one blog article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/colonel-suheil-al-hassan-tiger-forces/ that is unverifiable and unsupported.
The author of these articles is Leith Fadel, who has a strong bias in favor of Bahar Al-Assad and the forces supporting him. Al Masdar news is a blog written by Leith Fadel and articles do not provide any type of verification. These articles do not provide verification and cannot be considered either reliable or verifiable. Furthermore, Leith Fadel has a history of making unverifiable claims, some of which have caused harm to other individuals. Evidence of this is found in this article:
Example
Mr. Fadel, whose Facebook profile photograph shows him with the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, tempered his criticism of Mr. Mohsen on Wednesday, saying, “Whether he is a former fighter or not, I cannot confirm — but I am happy his son is safe.” Still, the pro-government journalist’s Facebook post appears to have helped spread the rumor that Mr. Mohsen was either a supporter or a member of Nusra far and wide.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.3.79 ( talk) 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure the right noticeboard, but figured this was as good as any. A recent article led to a bit of back and forth at Donald Trump-Russia dossier, and I've had a bit of an unusual interaction with the locals there regarding the use and misuse of the Paul Gregory Forbes.com piece. Please opine at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Forbes / Paul Gregory, if you are so inclined. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a notification that, per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, I have closed the archived discussion located at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates. I felt a notification was appropriate as few people watch the archives. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
What information should be in the "Establishment" line in the infoboxes for Canada, Australia and New Zealand?
Following the Second World War, the UK provided a list of colonies or non-self governing territories to the UN. For most of these countries, the UK granted independence through an act saying they would no longer legislate for them. At the same time, the British government ceased to direct their governments, separate citizenship was established and they were admitted into the UN as sovereign states. Unlike the independence of the U.S., which was recognized by treaty, some anomalies remained. Many countries continued to share the Queen as head of state, their citizens continued to have some rights and obligations as British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in the UK, judicial appeals to the UK privy council continued and instead of the countries exchanging ambassadors, their governments exchanged high commissioners. Nonetheless, the recognized dates of independence are used for the foundation dates.
In addition to the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which were called "dominions") were members of the UN and considered independent. They and their predecessor states had enjoyed greater independence in the 19th century than any of the colonies had enjoyed on the eve of their independence. But what the colonies achieved on independence were achieved gradually by the dominions through convention and legislation, with legislation often lagging established convention. Here is a partial list of dates for Canada:
I think the proper place for all this information is in the article, not the info-box. I suggest that the info-box contain only one date, which would be Canada 1867 (Confederation) Australia 1901 (federation) and New Zealand 1907 (recognition as a dominion). These are the dates that are normally recognized as the foundation dates of these states, even though there is disagreement over when they obtained independence.
TFD ( talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
To be brutally honest, this seems like forum shopping by TFD. He has not gained support for his position at
Talk:Australia, where discussions involving multiple editors have generated some 13,700 words of often irrelevant content (primarily by TFD). His notification of this discussion at
Talk:Australia#Infobox at NPOVN says this discussion is about the "Foundation" field. However, {{
Infobox country}} does not have a field with that name. Nor does it have an establishment
field. The actual field is established
but the infobox provides for established_event1
- established_event13
and established_date1
- established_date13
because, as is the case with Australia, establishment was not a single date process. "Established" is also a rather vague term when it comes to any country. Even countries like the
United States, which has a defined independence date, do not stick to one single date. The United States has five listed. There was a similar discussion regarding what to use in the infobox at
Canada, and the consensus, as far as I can see, was to use independence and list multiple dates, like Australia and United States. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 22:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
That's an inherent problem with info boxes which in essence try to reduce complex statements into a one word statement. IMHO, when in doubt (contested) , leave it out of the infobox and just cover it properly in the text. North8000 ( talk) 14:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There is (I think) an issue over at the The Principle page, it mentions 4 times the film is dodgy science , whilst not actually having anything about what the film actually says.
In the summery section " although the observations to which the film refers do not do that", "contrary to the cosmological fact that there is no center to the universe" In essence the same statement is made twice.
In the criticism and controversy section (the right place for criticisms of the film) "The film was criticized by the physicists who were misled into appearing in the film for being a dishonest presentation of its material and purpose" "while the scientific consensus is that observations have confirmed the Copernican principle".
In addition the lead refers to it as pseudoscience and states that "scientists who were interviewed in the film have repudiated the ideas for which the film advocates ", so in a way there are in fact 6 attacks on the science of the film. Given there are only two line about what the film says in the summery section (and that is only saying the film is about X, not a summery of it's claims), and that the rest of the article is about other complaints about the film (two whole paragraphs) this seems a bit too much criticizing. In essence it is just an attack piece in which every paragraph seems to contain criticism of the film in some way.
The discussion about this is here [37]. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The issue of this RFC (Which has run its course), mainly deals with WP:WEIGHT. As such, it directly involves WP:NPOV. A few other editors looking at it would help. If you have a chance to comment, please do so.
RFC: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#RFC_on_including_Russian_influence_into_the_election
Casprings ( talk) 02:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
An editor is making several edits that in my opinion seem to be subtly downplaying convictions in Ian Watkins (Lostprophets), an article on a convicted sex offender. Would it please be possible for someone to have a quick look and possible keep an future eye on this high profile article? Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 18:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
An IP has twice inserted a bunch of "incident reports" from websites like Jihad Watch, plus dumping a short and non-NPOV "history of Islamic extremism" into the "See Also" section. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Background: Several pages on Wikipedia that cover WWII German personnel use the German language version of the German Air Force as Luftwaffe.
Sample:
A disagreement on this has arisen at Talk:Erich_Hartmann#.22Luftwaffe.22_of_the_Bundeswehr, but the Talk page discussion did not result in reaching consensus. The diff in question is this, including "In the Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr" as a section heading. The same edit also shows the German language term for Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, while the en.wiki article is Inspector of the Air Force.
Since Luftwaffe, when used in English-language literature, is strongly associated of the air force of Nazi Germany, this usage strikes me as POV. Alternatively, it presupposes the knowledge of German not commonly found among general readers. In any case, such piping/use is unneeded as the en.wiki articles use English-language terms. Compare book search for luftwaffe bundeswehr and "German air force" bundeswehr.
I would appreciate un-involved editors weighing in on this discussion. Courtesy ping to editor Dapi89.
K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
In 1956, Reinert joined the newly established [[German Air Force]].Users that are interested enough will click on the link and find the full justification of the FRG for using that term. The German term, no matter how "official" or "factual" is not controlling here per WP:COMMONNAME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.. Also, basic good communication favors not using this version. To argue that a six-syllable compound foreign language word that requires three wikilinks to explain is not clunky suggests a very different appreciation for "clunkiness". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is currently claiming that sources can be banned in all use cases requiring special exemption appeals for any specific use. My understanding of policy is that this isn't "by the book" as outlined in my posts there. Please join in the discussion there. Should it prove necessary (24-48hrs?) we should move the entire discussion here. Endercase ( talk) 19:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that an absolute ban on linking to a site should be applied only to a very narrow set of potentially harmful cases: malware, shock sites, persistent perpetrators of spammy links. That a publicly available list should be made of those "sources" that includes or links to open discussion to allow for NPOV, transparency, and to prevent abuse. Otherwise, the context has to be considered before making a determination on reliability and should be addressed on the talk page of that particular article or escalated with "due notification". A reliability determination in context can and generally should include an evaluation of the longstanding history of the source. In cases where a better source is available to supply or "verify" specific information that source should be used in place of or in conjunction with the less reliable source. Endercase ( talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Misinformation has an image with headlines (in small text) from websites sympathetic to Donald Trump to illustrate the concept of Fake News. NPalgan2 ( talk) 00:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC discussion ongoing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that would benefit from wider input. The question is, should Russia's denial of interference be mentioned, or excluded from the lead? The RfC can be found here. Regards, Darouet ( talk) 16:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Issues of due weight have been raised in discussion. In particular, some members of a Wikiproject claim a project-level due weight policy which supercedes our project's neutrality pillar. Participation from experienced editors familiar with our neutrality policy are sought. Thank you in advance. 34.207.97.139 ( talk) 17:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)— 34.207.97.139 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Located here:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This SPA (with a blockable name, but I'm not going to be the one to do it) is making edits that seem to me to clearly violate NPOV. Can I get more eyes on it? -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The article for the not for profit organization Foundation for Economic Education has an exact quote of, "is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation," which is a common statement made by not for profit organizations for legal and taxation purposes. An editor decided that the organization is “anti-government” and so removed the quotes (which creates plagiarism) and repeatedly changes non-political to the insult neoliberal. First did this as an IP editor, then created the account User:Blahblah fee specifically to make the same edit. IP blocking will not matter and blocking an account made a few seconds ago will not matter. So the only option is to allow the editor to make any change they like ignoring all language rules? Abel ( talk) 15:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
XSAMPA and I are having a debate about whether or not the Transatlantic accent should be instated into the aforementioned template. Currently, we only have his and my opinion. And I would like to have a third. Thank you. LakeKayak ( talk) 23:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I could use some eyes on this article. Allegedly the name rights for the original group have been acquired by a "successor" band, and various editors with a probable COI have tried to add as much information as possible about the more recent band. Initially I removed all edits as promotional and unsourced, but have now rephrased and kept a short section with an independent source about the modern-day group (both incarnations share some common history, although most main members of the original group are dead). See also Talk:The Duprees for a summary of the concerns. I do hope the rephrased shorter version is an improvement, but would appreciate any additional advice about how to handle such a situation. GermanJoe ( talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Keyboard cat.jpg She's wearing a shirt! El_C 04:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor is creating a large criticism section in the BLP Steve Silberman that is now by far the largest part of the article. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Also reported at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Silberman
(other users notified)
There is an ongoing discussion here, relating to how to describe the expert opinion on the reasons behind the diaspora, in detail, whether the diaspora is a result of forced expulsion. This is a recent revert, where the longstanding/stable version ("The widespread popular belief (...) is not accepted by historians") has been replaced with text attributing the view the diaspora is non-exilic merely to "some scholars". The operative sources are as follows:
The options would be e.g. to describe, after the current version, that:
Personally, my choice is the first one, since the sources present the non-exilic diaspora as a consensus view among historians, which are the reliable sources in the matter. "Some scholars" would incorrectly assign this opinion to a group that sounds much smaller than what the sources say. And attribution with names, the third option, seems unnecessary since the sources do not present the fact that historians dismiss the "myth of exile" as a contested matter, they simply state historians don't buy this myth. The guideline seems to advise against this kind of attribution as well. In other words, there are two issues going on, 1) historians dispute the "popular notion" of an exilic diaspora, and 2) it is not disputed that historians are of this view. -- Dailycare ( talk) 14:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Please restore my sourced revision on the Second Sight article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Second_sight&action=history that seeks to balance out a blatantly unbalanced article. It is not a question of the validity of Second Sight. It is merely a question of balancing out the responses to one researcher's opinion of it. An entry this biased serves neither the skeptical or the credulous. And it most definitely violates Wikipedia's non-negotiable policy to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Compare selected revisions (cur | prev) 23:39, 16 March 2017 Guy Macon (talk | contribs) . . (8,201 bytes) (-927) . . (Removed edit by banned editor Jamenta) (undo)
The Jamenta thing is a complete canard as has been discussed on the Administrator's Page. I will be logging on with my actual name so I can I can effectively challenge this concerted attempt to preserve a biased portrait of Myers.17:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 71.167.134.66 ( talk)
I am not Jamenta. I did ping Mr. Macon, or at least thought I did. I agree that the article is a mess. It would be fine to nuke it. But as long as it lives, can you please weigh in on whether you feel the pileup of Myers detractors serves Wikipedia's NPOV when there are more than one renowned supporters? 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 03:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for your candor. Your conclusion that Wikipedia promotes a non-NPOV only (NNPOV?) for historical figures associated with parapsychology will likely prove useful on the AN/I thread underway now, or a new thread in the near future. 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 13:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
If you consider parapsychology "bunkum" and its supporters "not reliable sources" it is difficult to understand how you can maintain an NPOV toward historical figures who kept an open mind about it. I have no interest in initiating any articles related to parapsychology. I am only interested in keeping the record accurate and balanced on a period of history I have spent my life writing and publishing about. I will be signing on with a named user account to avoid any further misidentification with a public computer. I will use an anonymous name at first, until I feel confident that the higher level Administrators can handle the worst excesses directed toward contributors deemed by some Editors to be supporting "bunkum." The Jamenta nonsense is just nonsense to me as long as I remain anonymous, and as long as it is no longer allowed as a rationale or excuse to block my contributions. But it becomes libel if it persists with my real identity. And I am definitely not looking to engage that. If, however, any high-up good faith Administrator, like at least one who has emerged on the ANI forum, requests to know my actual identity, I will be happy to reveal it to them. 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I will need a longer version still to make sense of what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps a specific example might clarify. If a book, such as Myers' "Phantasms of the Living," is presented as being universally scorned by a variety of "scholars," of varying degrees of obscurity and relevant authority, is it not a proper understanding and application of NPOV to add a positive response by a well-regarded authority? In or out? Which option, as the previous Editor might ask, would more resemble the tactics of Fox News? 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 17:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Timothy. I agree that there are not 2 equally respectable positions when it comes to the question of is the earth flat or round. But since there is also not a single respected authority—professor, scientist, Nobel Laureate, etc. —who holds that position, your comparison breaks down precisely at the point of contention. 71.167.134.66 ( talk) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an extended debate going on at Talk:Alkaline diet#Lead sentence about the usage of the term "false belief" to describe the topic. While it has degraded somewhat into incivility, the arguments on either side boil down to:
While there is a slight majority of supporters of using the term "false belief", WP:NPOV states quite clearly that the policy is not subject to or overridden by consensus. There just isn't a consensus on whether the policy is being followed. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it required for a page of a singer to have the 'unreferenced section tag' in Discography section on the artist's page if there are no references in that specific area, but sources (including secondary) in other parts of the page? For example, why should the page " Joi Cardwell#Discography" be tagged with the 'unreferenced section tag', but " Beyonce#Discography" isn't? I, personally, felt like the user who added it, is guilty of tag bombing the first page because he did not give a good reason for doing so. And I inquired to him about it with the same opening question and did not receive an answer. I'm requesting a neutral answer here. Horizonlove ( talk) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)