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 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

• Talk page conversation

This article is protected for the second time over the inclusion of the following sentence (and whether it should be handled in other ways):

Vladimir Putin wrote a letter to Tadić a week before the election, in which he wished Tadić a happy 50th birthday and all the very best in his activities for “the welfare of our friends, Serbia.” ^[1]

The core question is whether the placement of this sentence in a section on his re-election, here (and in context), is undue and synthesis, implying political endorsement.

Additional input would be most welcome in helping to establish consensus. The primary individuals involved seem to have strong feelings about the subject of the article and certainly about one another. Two others have offered opinions but seem to have left the building, and the primary individuals have moved on to arguing over whether or not that constitutes "consensus." I'm not in position to offer an opinion, having come in as an uninvolved admin via the ANI listing. A previous listing at the content noticeboard evidently attracted little notice, perhaps because the sole respondent thought the parties were amicable and might work something out. I'd really appreciate feedback on the content issue at that talk page. We can't direct people to dispute resolution if dispute resolution doesn't work. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Given its size and now partial redundancy, I have collapsed the material below, which includes several notes from one of the participants (and another from me) and a proposal for moving forward. The proposal is also at the article's talk page and is under discussion, and it would not be appropriate to fragment that conversation by forking it here. But, again, more input at that talk page would be appreciated. Of course, the text below is easily viewed by clicking "show". -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just want to point your attention to the article WorkTime. I think LenaPro is working for this company in Canada and pushing it all the way on Wiki. 84.148.115.148 ( talk) 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly fails wp:notability. I think I neutralized the wording so it isn't spammy. Adding notability flag. - Sinneed 21:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• A user has insisted for over a month to place the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the recently cleaned World Domination disambiguation page. I imagine there is some sort of COI here, as this user appears to be an SPA for the Zion article and World Domination. Regardless, the overall consensus here is not to include it (Not to mention policy saying not to include it), to which the user agrees, then sneeks it back in a few days later. I have not contacted them regarding this matter yet. I believe that it should not be included at all, as it is not particularily notable as a New World Order conspiracy theory, and does not contain world domination in the heading title of the book (though one volume of the book does contain the term in a subheading). ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. On that disambiguation page, I wonder whether it is appropriate to group some entries, e.g. Empire with Imperialism. This might minimise the notion that the page is an open invitation to include every conspiracy theory. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Does not belong there. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking more throughout the edit history (Too lazy to get all the diffs), User:Steve Dufour was the last one to insert it into the article. Any comments at the talk page regarding this matter would be greatly appreciated. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He contacted me on my talk page asking for support a while back and I said that I did not believe it to be appropriate at that time. What has happened since. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially nothing. It's practically an edit war as the clear majority of editors consider the current version to be ideal (Linking both to title matches in music and games, as well as linking to the political concepts that do have articles since "World Domination" (And everything of a similar notion) does not. A select few editors slowly revert things back to the old version (pre disambiguation). The current version is very ideal for someone looking up "world domination" and not finding an article for that term, without being a smörgåsbord of pointless and irrelevant links. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree disambiguation page best way to go for World Domination fwiw. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... And it is one now. The main problem is the insistence of editors to either strip everything bare or add irrelevant links. For example, removing everything except the songs and games, which are not what the 450+ articles that link to World domination are linking to it for. They link the term in the political context of taking over the world. The idea that the term 'world domination' is a neologism is preposterous. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to post edits to tone down the rather dramatic language in these articles. They are written in a manner than advocates and promotes a particular college sports team rather than a neutral reporting of the facts. All of my edits are immediately reverted without comment. I then posted detailed concerns on the talk page and referenced them by posting the {{POV}} and {{cleanup}} templates at the top of the article, which ask that the templates not be deleted until the dispute is resolved. The comments have drawn a response from one editor, but have been generally ignored, and the template are quickly reverted without comments. The one conversation I did have on the talk page (after several deletions) was informative (my edit to change the sentence to #3 was changed back to #1):

Regarding the Orange Bowl paragraph, consider these three alternative sentences:

1. "One of the most historic stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl stadium was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the famed stadium."
2. "One of the most decrepit stadiums in college football, the Orange Bowl was retired following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the outdated stadium."
3. "The Orange Bowl was destroyed following the University of Miami's decision not to renew its contract with the stadium"

Which of the three was written by an Orange Bowl fan, a Dolphins Stadium fan, or a neutral party? Racepacket (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know why you just copied and pasted what you said earlier, but it does not address the statement I made, so I will not address it further and consider it closed unless you say otherwise (which I suspect you will).

Regarding the OB, it was both decrepit and historic. But your sentence is far too plain. ObiWan353 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Far too plain" language is a key to an encyclopedic, non-point of view tone. I am keeping the new references, but scaling back the claims because they are not a direct quote from the sources. Racepacket (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The editors that the two articles attract are unaware of what constitutes a NPOV encyclopedic tone. Could some disinterested editors please take a look? Racepacket ( talk) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The key here is sourcing. Terms like "historic" and "decrepit" are acceptable if they are widely held views that can be attributed to reputable mainstream sources. There is no rule that says articles are forbidden to use adjectives. Such evaluative terms should not be used without source citations, though. Looie496 ( talk) 16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The author was trying to criticise the decision to switch stadiums and dismantle the old "historic" stadium. The entire article is full of such POV pushing without any of the "some have argued x and others have argued y" but instead makes claims in the voice of Wikipedia. Please take a look. Racepacket ( talk) 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

After the above comments, as well as after leaving my concerns on the article's talk page, all of the edits which I made today to the page were reverted without discussion:

• the promise that the team would improve itself after the embarrassment in January
• [1]
• [2] "whopping" is unencyclopedic
• one of the most hostile road venues in college football
• chip on their shoulders
• suffer one of the program's most humiliating losses, a 47-0 beating at the hands of in-state rival
• Miami has had great success in producing players who go on to play in the National Football League.
• high expectations heaped upon them by fans and the national media
• a claim that no one took very seriously at the time

Note that even minor edits, like changing [[Orange Bowl (game)]] to [[Orange Bowl (game)|Orange Bowl]] were reverted en mass. Even adding names to references so that they could be used at a second location on the article were reverted. Bottom line this diff which omit the 20 intermediate edits show a complete reverting of all changes. So, the question is does the article meet NPOV standards, and what can be done about a pair of editors who have massively and systematically reverted many editors who have tried to improve the article? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Thanks Racepacket ( talk) 21:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ironically, it turns out that much of the unprofessional, over-the-top writing was a copyright violation cause by word-for-word (overstatement-for-overstatment) copy of the Univ of Miami website. I hope that if this is rewritten with more care and discernment to avoid POV. Racepacket ( talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We need more eyes on these articles, because the involved editors do not acknowledge any distinction between fact and opinion. Thanks. Racepacket ( talk) 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Today, User:PassionoftheDamon added the unsourced sentence "Nevertheless, the rivalry remains incredibly intense, with many Hurricane fans still considering Florida a more 'hated' rival than Florida State." I believe that this is an opinion and very POV. It is very difficult to compare the "intensity" of rivalries, and rivalries must be reciprocal. It is very POV to discuss UM's "hatred" of U of F, rather than the feelings between the two schools. This is written from the point of view of the UM campus and not from Wikipedia's neutral vantage point. It is also unsourced and probably not productive to work to reshape into something encyclopedic. I also suspect that over 95% of the people at the two schools do not "hate" at all. Do other editors have some wisdom on this? Racepacket ( talk) 17:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For many months editors I see as on opposite sides have battled over Sikh extremism. As I see it, pro-Sikhs have attempted to have the article killed as offensive, buried it in trivia, and generally obstructed. Anti-Sikhs have attempted to add every bit of violence, bad news, or extremism that presents Sikhism in a bad light, and generally obstructed. Both sides have used slanting, selective use of sources, citations of information to entire encyclopedia sets, or entire books, specious sources.

The edit warring, at least, has died down, but the insertion of what I see as off-topic content on both extremes has resulted in almost every section being flagged offtopic.

It is my hope that new eyes may see a way to move forward. I had proposed an idea for a multi-way merge, but it is very clear it won't be acceptable to either of the identifiable parties at opposite poles.- Sinneed 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder whether it is possible to construct a neutral article with such a title. I expect that the phrase "Sikh extremism" is used by commentators in the mainstream press, perhaps also by academics. But do they use it to mean anything other than "supporters of Khalistan (which we already have an article on)? Is there really a link between this movement and the Sikhs who struggled for Indian independence? I think it would be worth making with a merger proposal, even if it would be opposed. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish terrorism, Islamic terrorism, and others... I think probably it isn't possible to generate wp:NPOV versions... the PoV flag would be up forever.

There are, as far as I can see, 3 rough areas of Sikh extremism...

• Khalistan movement violence and terrorism
• Religious violence directed toward non-Sikhs
• Religious violence directed within Sikhism

On link... there is a cultural link. "...never bowing to tyranny..." is an ideal of Sikhism. This may be interpreted in a number of ways.- Sinneed 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Therefore trying to deal in the same article with every kind of violence that might ever have been perpetrated by a Sikh must tend to promote the notion that Sikhism is a particularly violent religion. Which is not the case, and we must avoid coatracking. Could most of the article go into a new Sikh nationalist terrorism, some into Indian independence movement and the rest into other articles as appropriate? Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the pejorative term " extremism" in the title of any article makes it biased and should therefore be avoided. Connecting the word with an ethnic or religious group makes it even more offensive. BTW glancing at the article it appears to violate rules against synthesis. Even if there is Sihk extremism, the article needs to show that in academic literature there is general agreement about which groups are or were extremist and which were not. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I share all these concerns. What I don't have is a way to make it better. :)

The article has been wp:POV forked to Sikh terrorism, proposed for deletion (no consensus). It has been used by both sides as a coatrack.

I can't see the Sikh nationalist terrorism name flying... I think the nationalist content needs to move into Khalistan movement and into the articles for the responsibility-claiming organizations. I did put the events into the articles, though I have no idea if it stayed.

The Indian independence movement bits IIRC are there already, though that would need to be checked if we eventually did multiway-split/merge the article.- Sinneed 04:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how about making sure that all the material is covered in the proper places (Khalistan movement, articles on the various groups, Indian independence), then putting this up for AfD again, explaining that the material is covered elsewhere. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally pro-tort-reform, fails to address 1) contentiousness of tort-reform, 2) represent both sides of tort-reform equally/even-handedly. I modified the opening of the article, and would be willing to work on tightening the rest of it, but want some feedback before investing too much time on it.

Currently the opening paragraph reads:

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the "McDonald's coffee case," is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to the plaintiff. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case is arguably noteworthy primarily because popular understanding of the facts strongly support one side of the politically contentious issue of tort reform in the United States.

I would probably delete references to "popular understanding" altogether in the opening summary. I would re-label "Similar Lawsuits" as "Criticism", with a pared down reference version of some of the text currently in "Similar Lawsuits" and a link to tort reform. I would also add a "Response to Criticsm", again with a tort reform, and with reference to disparities between popular understanding and actual facts of the case.

I suspect once I was satisfied with the neutrality of this particular article I would next look for concerns with the tort reform article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedral ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't say that the case is notable in the context of tort reform unless there is a reference for that. For example, if a major newspaper covered the case and included a discussion of tort reform, then that should be cited. If there is no link in a reliable source, then simply take the tort reform reference out. If the phrase "tort reform" does appear in the article, it should be linked, if not, then don't put it in as a "see also". Please don't relabel "Similar lawsuits" as "Criticism". We try to avoid Criticism sections. Would "Related lawsuits" be more neutral? I agree that the section could be pared down. A "Response to criticism" section would not be helpful, for the same reasons that we avoid Criticism sections. Any disparities between popular understanding and the facts of the case, can only go in if there are reliable sources for it. Come back if this doesn't make sense - it is only based on a quick reading - or for further opinions. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be hard to find articles from good sources for just about every view for this case. Finding something linking this case to tort reform is one of the easier - it's used quite often as an example of "the system gone wrong". For the sections, I agree with Itsmejudith that we should avoid the Criticism/Response sections if possible. In particular, this article might have some good hooks to bring in criticisms but with some context. For example, "Impact on Tort Reform" would be a good way to pull in some of the critics, provide the context and allow counterpoints. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Itsmejudith and Ravensfire. I would actually be most comfortable omitting "popular understanding" and also the related cases and reference to tort reform. The facts of the case stand on their own.

It's news to me that wikipedia avoids "criticism" sections. Seems to me I rather expect to see them here on anything contentious. But that's as a casual user. I haven't done much editing. Phaedral ( talk) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In theory Wikipedia policy is to avoid "criticism" sections. The truth on the ground can be rather different. Keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy section to this article. Voices who were opposed to the reforms of Bredesen seem to have been squashed. I request a team look at Tenncare to determine if a violiation of Neutrality has occured. Also the article to me anyway, reads like a campaign ad for Governor Bredesen.

Thank you

Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 12:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There haven't been any sources cited in over 2 years and it has been marked as needing sources. You could probably go through and make major changes if you have sources for anything and delete most of the rest which is unsourced. There are definately NPOV problems regardless, with statements like "In its first four years, TennCare accomplished what the state set out to do" which is an obvious loaded statement without any sources to back it up. Arzel ( talk) 13:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was mostly stubbed-up when I got there. Took out the rest of the unsourced politico-babble. Also stubbed-up the advertisement for associated Tennessee Justice Center‎‎.- Sinneed 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this article. I am unable to work on the article but I do appreciate the time everyone took to examine it. It had bothered me in the way it was written. Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 17:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record: The deleted content was pretty much accurate, albeit unsourced. The first several paragraphs of the deleted content were about the history of TennCare in the 1990s (long before Bredesen ran for governor). This material was fairly objective, and was written several years ago before Wikipedia contributors were particularly conscious of the need for sourcing. It was the last several paragraphs that reflected the current official POV.

There is a long history of litigation regarding TennCare, primarily class action lawsuits brought by the Tennessee Justice Center (which article also was reduced to a bare-bones stub), which is not really a law firm in the normal sense (as the current version of the article makes it appear to be), but rather is a nonprofit organization funded in large part by private donations. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I get the sense that most of it probably was accurate, but without any sources to back it up it becomes very difficult to determine what was accurate and what was not. Arzel ( talk) 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the TJC - I can't really buy into the organization taking in millions of dollars in lawsuit revenues not-really-being-a-law-firm argument (which millions, ahem, were for the poor, eh?). I did add primary sources for some of the restored content, and a couple of bits from actual wp:RS. I restored the August 2008 article flags under which I killed the unsourced content.- Sinneed 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm here to seek some outside feedback on an alternative medicine article, colloidal silver. The input must be from someone not involved with fringe theories and someone without an opinion on alternative medicine therapies.

What I am calling into question is the following paragraph:

"Colloidal silver is currently marketed for internal and external use as an alternative medical remedy though there is no scientific evidence to support its effectiveness in vivo.[1] Some in vitro studies demonstrate an anti-bacterial effect of electrically generated silver ions,[2][3][4] although a study of a colloidal silver solution marketed on the Internet showed no such antimicrobial activity.[5]"

There are two things here that I feel are absolute POV pushing by the editors that frequent fringe medicine articles. I'll start with the simple one:

"Some in vitro studies demonstrate an anti-bacterial effect of electrically generated silver ions,[2][3][4] although a study of a colloidal silver solution marketed on the Internet showed no such antimicrobial activity.[5]"

There are also about half a dozen more sources backing up the first claim. Ref [5] is the only reference that contradicts the rest. I'm trying to find the guideline/policy involving this, but it basically states that when the clear majority of studies side on one side, chances are that the single contradictory study was a one off, and should not be included. I have no objection to the study being included. What I have an objection to is "some", which gives the impression of "Some do, but most do not", when the opposite is true (Most do, but here is one that does not).

Is the word Some' appropriate in this case?

The second is more complicated.

"Colloidal silver is currently marketed for internal and external use as an alternative medical remedy though there is no scientific evidence to support its effectiveness in vivo.[1]"

The wording for this is taken directly, word-for-word, from reference [1]. What I dispute is the neutrality of source 1, and therefore the neutrality of the sentence that is on wikipedia. It is undisputed that the reality is that no studies have been performed at all, as opposed to studies that have negative conclusion (which do not exist). However, editors dispute that is A) That is not the scientific method, and B) It must follow the source EXACTLY!!!!!!>!>!!, to which I disagree as A) the scientific method is for scientists, not the general public who will be reading the article, and B) the source clearly weaselly words the sentence to give the impression that many studies have come out that concluded it was ineffective. I believe the sentence should read:

"Colloidal silver is currently marketed for internal and external use as an alternative medical remedy, though there has been no scientific research to conclude its effectiveness in vivo.[1]"

Thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a set opinion about alternative medicine therapies, some are total quackery while others have validity, and I know next to nothing about colloidal silver. Just based on what you have posted here (which may or may not be telling the whole story) I have some suggestions.

For the first dilemma, if you have multiple studies that are positive and one negative, why can't you change "some" to "most"? Seems simple enough.

For the second dilemma, I think your suggestion is reasonable. Again I'm assuming that everything you're saying is accurate. -- Atama 頭 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems simple, is not. Many editors (Who have vocalized their anti-alternative medicine position, though I'll admit that I stand on the other side of the argument) will not allow such changes and will mercilessly revert, and will gladly step in to stop another from having to revert 3 times. It has really come down to one side versus the other. I would like a compromise based on exactly what we can validate and what is the truth, regardless of whether a source uses specific wording to take its stance on the subject. As for the first part, the response was that saying "some do, here are some that do not" is more appropriate. I disagree when so many sources align to one side and only one source aligns to the other side. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 02:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are multiple positive studies and a total of one negative study, then saying "some do, some do not" is factually incorrect. To insist otherwise may show an editor guilty of deliberately inserting inaccurate information into the article, which may go beyond a simple content dispute. -- Atama 頭 04:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

False dichotomy being cited here. The studies which purport to show anti-bacterial effect do not conclude that the use of colloidal silver as marketed by alt med outlets is justified. The only study which actually looks at the colloidal silver as an alternative medicine per se is the one referenced. Following WP:MEDRS and WP:ASTONISH, I think it may even be justified to remove the first clause entirely since its connection to the product is not established by reliable sources. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of colloidal silver as marketed is irrelevant to the science behind the product. The anti-bacterial effects of silver ions, and therefore colloidal silver (silver and silver ions in water) is well documented. Using lawyering techniques to remove everything that doesn't shun the product is not gonna fly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please step into this kabal. They are now using the above argument to remove any positive information on the basis that those sources don't advocate the use of colloidal silver as an alternative medicine, which is irrelevant as they discuss the antibacterial properties of silver (Which is what the sentence they reference is discussing). Somebody please put an end to this kabal of anti-alternative medicine editors who gang up to get their illogical way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the well-known antibacterial effect of silver ions in vitro can in no way support any medical claims in vitro. Alcohol kills germs - that does not mean that a liter of vodka a day will improve your health. The first claim (silver has antibacterial properties in vitro) has nothing to do with any suggested medical benefits - even if it were antibacterial in humans, too, it might just as well kill benevolent and necessary human fauna than dangerous microorganisms. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence describes the external antibacterial effects of colloidal silver (as in the broad definition of what a colloidal silver is). This is well documented by about 11 sources on the article, and its removal is vandalism. Alcohol kills germs, and that does mean that pouring a litre of vodka (above 62% alcohol content I believe) over your open wound will sterilize it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schulz and feel that the sources are being misused the way they are in the current lead. This was resolved, but Floydian has 3 times reverted to his preferred version. Verbal chat 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This latest piece of the puzzle was "discussed" for under 12 hours, by two people, with one person agreeing and being bold. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) The cabal accusations and misrepresentations of Stephan's alcohol argument are not at all helpful. And careful what is called vandalism: there is reasonable debate as to whether those sources are pertinent to the article taken as a whole, so either adding or reverting them should be deemed above intentionally damaging the article.

As I see it, using these sources is arguably beyond the scope of the intent of the article, and including them is poor writing due to undue emphasis on a chemical property quite out of the article's context (at best) and weaselly and tendentious NPOV circumvention at worst. The sources might be useful for demonstrating that there is (or was) a plausible mechanism for efficacy, but to suggest they support that the product is effacacious is to misunderstand (at best) both the science and the scope of this project. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No sources have disproven those effects, which chemical or not are still used medicinally. The article covers a broad scope which needs to be properly split, I agree, but that is hardly grounds for the removal of selective information to suggest that colloidal silver is water with chunks of metal in it that does absolutely nothing. Historically it was used as a wound dressing, an in vitro usage. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ^τ _¢ 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The historical use may be something that merits some more attention: the cultural context of such a substance with associated rituals, etc., should be given more shrift on many articles as many substances have more cultural importance than strictly medical importance. But are you aware that in the other two sentences you made an otherwise empty assertion (disproving a negative, yada yada...) and asked a complex question? Let's do better, we are here to write a high quality reference work so we are all on the same page. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise that would be acceptable to me would be to separate the two sentences as below. In this way the studies are not used to support the use of colloidal silver medically.

''Most in vitro studies demonstrate an anti-bacterial effect of electrically generated silver ions,[2][3][4] although a study of a colloidal silver solution marketed on the Internet showed no such antimicrobial activity.[5]"

Colloidal silver is currently marketed for internal and external use as an alternative medical remedy though there is no scientific evidence to support its effectiveness in vivo.[1]''

Stephan Shulz has mentioned above 'the well-known antibacterial effect of silver ions in vitro'. It won't be 'well known' anymore if its excised from Wikipedia, as is being attempted here. DHawker ( talk) 22:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have for several years had a great deal of concern about the neutrality of the articles on climate and particularly the global warming article. Realistically I'm not sure that much can be done, because by its very nature, the kind of people who are interested enough in the environment to read up on global warming and altustic enough to want to edit wikipedia, are not going to be the kind of petrol heads who are disinclined to believe the flaky evidence about manmade warming. Furthermore, the "climate science" arena seems to be populated by a pretty close knit group of people and even with the best of intentions, such a group is liable to gang up (even without intending it) on outsiders who don't share their views. And, finally, whilst I've done enough research of the subject myself to know that the article is highly biased, to be honest it really isn't worth my time engaging in a fight which I've no chance of winning, so like a lot of editors before me, I have found more interesting things to do with my life.

So, what can be done? Once you have a group that set rules such as "if it isn't peer reviewed by our 'friends'(my belief!)" then it can't go in the article, then it becomes impossible to add any content even if it comes from reputable organisations like the BBC. And, when a group of editors become so powerful in a subject that they can literally dictate what gets in and what does not, then anyone with a contrary view becomes frustrated and finds other things to do, leaving the article with a dedicated but one sided group of editors, dictating the rules, supporting each other's views and generally excluding anyone who would help balance the neutrality of the article.

Personally, I think "something ought to be done", but as I'm not really willing to waste the days and days of effort ... no what would be the point it's impossible even to get simple factually well sourced statements like "it is currently cooling" in any form into the article so there's not a hope of being able to seriously rebalance the article. What can be done? 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 12:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it must start from the sources. Remember, these are science articles, so editors are going to be asking for proper peer-reviewed papers, or better still systematic reviews, from scientists practising in the field. "The field" has to mean climate science, I think - do you argue it doesn't? "The BBC" is great for news, but not an ideal source for science-related articles. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The scientific articles reflect the current state of knowledge as endorsed by all relevant scientific organizations (and even large numbers of marginal ones), including the uncertainties and alternative views. Our own article on Scientific opinion on climate change gives a good overview. The articles on the political controversy describe the wider range of non-scientific opinions. NPOV does not mean that each individual popular press editorial needs to be mentioned - see WP:WEIGHT. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Already I see the same arguments from the same contributors being trotted out again. If global warming is "science" then why is it so political? Why is there nothing about the strange statistical techniques used to "prove" the 20th century was warmer. Why does the "science" always have the same narrow group of "scientists" as authors? Why is the political report of the IPCC mentioned and not the scientific article from the BBC? Obviously this is a totally lost cause, whether or not manmade global warming proves to be true, the fact is that the reputation of wikipedia will be reduced because it seems to have no effective way to enforce neutrality ... perhaps worse, without the enthusiasm of the pro-"global warmers", I doubt there would be anything near as good in terms on an article ... I just wish it wasn't so obviously and blatantly biased! 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 13:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to hold your opinions; however, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There's nothing actionable in your report. If you have specific concerns, you may identify them, but alleging a mass conspiracy by pro-global warming theorists without any actual evidence is not particularly useful. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to get sucked into a useless dispute about the "evidence" on warming (which is pretty boring even to those interested enough to read it) This complaint is not about the evidence, nor about the goodwill of the editors, more a systemic problem with the way that wikipedia works which from time to time means that certain articles will be biased by the nature of the subject and the willingness/lack of interest of either side(s) to articulate their case. I'm only really interested to know if there is some kind of mechanism to put in "balance" where the nature of the subject creates an inherent bias. 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If "the nature of the subject creates an inherent bias", we reflect that bias. Nature has a bias for a spherical Earth over a flat Earth, of a heliocentric over a geocentric model of the solar system, and for special relativity over aether theories. That's how we report those things. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, as I made very clear the nature of global warming "hysteria" creates an inherent bias in the editors willing to contribute to the article. If you are the kind of person to go along with ... I don't mean to denegrate anyone but ... well it is a fad, it is a doomsayer prophecy, then you'll get off your butt and want to do something about it. But if you just think its a load of environmental faddists with a bee in their bonet, then ... you'll do something more useful than trying to edit the wikipedia article. Personally, I think that is the nub of the problem. The core group of editors are very very pro warming, and there is a complete absence of the kind of views and evidence which I read daily in all the papers I make a point of reading on the subject. To be blunt: the wikipeida article bears little resemblance to the general discussion on global warming in the knowledgeable press. As I said, I'm not suggesting bad faith by the enthusiastic editors which have done such a good job to put the (pro) warming argument, nor am I defending the huge number of people who don't agree with manmade global warming, but simply do not seem to want or be able to edit the page, but for whatever reason there is no doubt that the article is heavily biased to one side and I see no easy way to correct it. 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 14:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I answered in good faith above, but I now don't think you are interested in getting suggestions from this board but in continuing a discussion that was heading nowhere on the talk page. Our article clearly has to reflect what scientists in the field think. If you think science itself is cliqueish or if there's a problem with peer review, then there's nothing WP can do about that. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Itsmejudith. The last straw for me was when the bulk of editors almost unanimously decided the BBC was not a credible source because it wasn't "scientific". Moreover there are now seriously allegations about the honesty of that "science" which again I doubt will ever be seen in the article. The result is that the wikipedia is becoming of propaganda mouthpiece for the views of a very small group and to my mind highly dubious group of "scientists" which bears little resemblance to the general "consensus" in the media. For example, it is now common parlance to talk about the recent cooling in the 21st century. In contrast the wikipedia article only mentions warming. The result is that there is a whole debate about the validity of that cooling and whether 1998 or 2001 is the start year and whether 8/10 or whatever is sufficient time to make it valid. NONE OF THIS IS BEING CAPTURED IN THE ARTICLE. It is no longer a minor omission of an article, it is the systematic attempt to prevent any inclusion of material contrary to one side - material that is being discussed each and every day and material which anyone who reads anything about global warming will be aware of UNLESS THEY READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 14:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} I'm pretty up to date on the issues surrounding the science behind the confirmation of human-caused climate change. I'll put it on watch to make sure that WP:DUE is being adhered to. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, thanks, and apologies in advance, largely because like so many other editors, I'm quite convinced the article is biased, but I'm not prepared to waste the huge effort it takes to get even the smallest (anti) change through, so sorry for getting you involved as it'll be a pretty thankless task and unless I see a dramatic change I'm not going to do anything more than make the odd comment from the sidelines. Still, wikipedia wouldn't have got anywhere unless someone was prepared to take action to enforce NPOV so well done! 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE; your trouble getting edits supporting your position through are due to these two policies. They exist for a reason. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:V and WP:RS because the encyclopedia has to be based on what scientists say. If the scientists are actually wrong, then time will tell and the encyclopedia will eventually catch up. If you have a problem with who counts as a "scientist" then you have to take that up with the scientific community, not with us. We can only go with objective criteria, like do they have a PhD, in what, in which university do they work, which journals do they publish in, and what are the ratings of those journals. There have been similar debates around economics, history and other disciplines. The BBC is good for news - that is its job. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, the BBC is a very reliable source of news. It is not a very reliable source for scholarship on climate sciences. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

'Arrrrggggghhhhhhh' ... what do I find when I turn to read the news? Something called the "Christian Science Monitor" [8] published a few hours ago quoting the BBC as saying the world is cooling. To be honest, scientifically its pretty insignificant that we've had cooling this century, it's not a big deal, if manmade warming were true there would be such periods, but as a bench mark for whether Wikipedia is honestly reporting the subject it shows only one thing WIKIPEDIA IS NOT BEING NEUTRAL ON THE SUBJECT and I could never support an organisation that knowingly misleads the public. 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, Wikipedia is being neutral. WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT seems to apply here. Newsmedia =/= WP:RS for academic topics. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the CSM article is a) a blog (although probably a staff blog, i.e comparable to an editorial), it also, b) explicitly refutes the claims of cooling. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon223, You are simply proving the point. Vast numbers of the media (even the Guardian) have mentioned the cooling in the 20th century. There is no question that everyone who knows anything about global warming knows that there is a "discussion" as to whether the 21st century cooling is statistically important. The BBC is only the latest and most prominent media organisation to point out the bleeding obvious fact that there has been no net warming this century. You can quote wikipedia policy all you like, but the fact is that the editors who refuse any mention of the lack of warming this century are not only doing the reputation of wikipedia a lot of harm, they aren't even doing themselves any favours. By now most of the public will be aware of the claims of cooling, and when they turn to wikipedia to find the "official" line, what do they discover? NOTHING! Very, very obvious censorship which is bound to undermine the reputation of wikipedia (which I used to care about) and also the credibility of the whole article (which to be honest if I really were "anti-warming" I would just leave to stew in its own dishonest juices because it is now so rediculous it totally undermines the case for manmade global warming) 88.110.76.120 ( talk) 19:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest you add WP:CIVIL to your reading list. I am done here, Global Warming is staying on my watch list. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We have no procedures in place to find out the truth about controversial matters. (You might want to read WP:TRUTH, though.) What we do have is approximations, some of them tailored to specific fields. In the sciences it's relatively easy: Where there is a scientific consensus we report that; where there is significant controversy within science, we report that as well; for controversy to be significant it must be taken seriously by the scientists themselves, unlike e.g. the various kinds of creationism. You needn't like these principles, or their consequences in this case, but you are unlikely to change them. Hans Adler 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Hans has made the clearest answer, 88.110.76.120.

The global cooling/coming-ice-age scientific babble of the 20th century has been (take your pick) discredited or ignored by the 21st century scientific community. Arguing that the scientific community as a whole is wrong is a fruitless endeavor. WP will report on the views of the scientific community in science articles.

If the academic community were stating that college campuses were free and happy places, and the press was showing images of buildings burning and dead bodies on gallows, WP would carry more of the news, I should think.- Sinneed 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors William M. Connolley, Kim D. Petersen and Ratel are trying to include a section in the biography of Australian Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Garth Paltridge, that appears to have WP:OR and WP:SYN problems and more seriously seems to violate WP:NPOV via WP:WEIGHT to make a guilt by assocation connection with the Lavoisier Group.

I am unable to summarise their side of the story since I am just being reverted without discussion.

Reference Talk:Garth_Paltridge#Lavoisier_and_WP:OR.2C_WP:SYN.2C_and_WP:WEIGHT_problems. Alex Harvey ( talk) 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer editing the Paltridge page (mainly because of your tendentious editing), as you well know, so why are you meretriciously naming me here, other than to put your own subversive efforts in a more sympathetic light? IMO you have zero interest in an accurate encyclopedia and only care to protect and sanitise those who champion your fringe views about global warming. As for your wikilawyering claims of SYN and OR: as a matter of fact, although Lavoisier Group membership is secret, there is incontrovertible citable evidence that Paltridge is —at the very least— a Lavoisier running dog, as demonstrated by his appearances at their conferences, the fact that they organized his book launch, the fact that they have a page of his opinions at their website, and the fact that his anecdotes are first published in their own papers. One wonders what more proof one would require to state that he is affiliated with them in some way (almost certainly one of the 100-strong membership of the Group). ► RATEL ◄ 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this has to stop. If you can't control what comes out of your mouth you are not fit to be here. Is this understood? You are mentioned here because you wrote the disputed section. Your theory that Paltridge is a member of the Lavoisier Group might be true, and equally it might be false; of course he's mentioned at the Lavoisier website because he's a skeptic and they mention all skeptical viewpoints. This is sheer speculation; and either way, there is no evidence in reliable sources that anyone cares. Alex Harvey ( talk) 14:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of this is grossly incivil - may i suggest a redaction? -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I've restored the section once and modified it in an attempt to defuse. The reason i got interested was the claim by Alex that it was a BLP violation. I checked, and apparently the sources supported the section - i then left that article alone. I'm rather annoyed with the implications of bad faith that Alex is throwing around here. I'm also confused by the Guilt by Association claim... Is there anything bad about the Lavoisier group? And are implications or bad faith arguments towards it being given in that section? (hint: No). All in all, i'm sorry to say that i believe Alex is forum-shopping. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote - i'm also rather annoyed about not being informed about this.. i only found this by stumbling over it. -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

From the summary, I don't see any side. You've said it breaks lots of policies, but not how or why. Please justify your opinion. Also, please don't tell other people they aren't fit to be on wikipedia. That is grossly uncivil, which is a policy too. Verbal chat 16:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's changed and been protected since his complaint.

I don't see it as WP:NPOV, (except via WP:UNDUE, as the association is not really notable in regard either the Lavoisier Group or Paltridge, and only marginally so in regard the book), but the three different clauses (at least, at present) are from three different sources, and the combination of them has the clear implication that the Lavoisier Group indirectly pays Paltridge, hence controls his actions and/or opinions. I see other reason for the sentence to be there.

As for Scorcher, it's presently only being used to source "Lavoisier Group conferences feature all the usual sceptics, including … Garth Paltridge …." (Sections elided are clearly irrelevant to this article.) I don't consider that contentious, but the preceding and following sentences could not be used in any article about a living person, even with attribution.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

First: cool down and be as civil as possible, and even more. Attacking each other will not help. Take deep breaths and drink a lot of AGF :)

Now, I'm still trying to make up my mind on the controversy, which is not easy, but I can say from the start that this: and the combination of them has the clear implication that the Lavoisier Group indirectly pays Paltridge, hence controls his actions and/or opinions. - looks like a textbook case of WP:SYNTHESIS. In short: either you have a RS explicitly stating that, or we cannot write that, no matter how plausible it is. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of solid oxide fuel cell SOFC, a users Jarmil and 130.192.50.18 from the Politecnico di Torino (potentially the user's current workplace) repeatedly quote their own research. While that is ok to a degree, the topic is too broad, and research performed by many scientists, not just one, to be singularly represented by references from one single person. Previous attempts at making the range of research presented more unbiased have been reverted by user Jarmil. Future changes to the text cannot be made if the text is too biased. Not sure if anything can be done about it except wait until the broader research community changes the text over the next years. However, since Wikipedia is not a self-advertising center for individuals, it might be humbly suggested that this user account is looked at.
In fact, the edits are persistent throughout most wikipedia sites containing the word "fuel cell", e.g. Fuel_cell, where user Jarmil entered dozens of research papers by Milewk. J and Mill. A, making this page also biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Nimanan ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So that editors can better look into this I have placed links back to this notice on Talk:Solid oxide fuel cell and Talk:Fuel cell. I know little about this area, but I am slightly concerned by the removal of supposedly good sources. My instinct would be to add additional citations rather than replace one with another, especially when the supported text did not change. Two sources claiming the same thing seem better than just one. - 84user ( talk) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of sources with various Hamas officials and Arab news agencies have been presented that show "Gaza M/massacre" being used as to refer to the Gaza War in both Arabic and English sources. Many Arab news agencies used different names such as "War on Gaza" or "Assault on Gaza". Another source, which the RS/N shows consensus for being a reliable source, explicitly says that the conflict is "Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre" ^[9] and another says "what the Arab world has called 'the Gaza massacre'." ^[10]. Is it a violation of NPOV to say that the conflict is "known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre" and is it undue weight to include it in the lead in bold as an alternative Arabic name? nableezy - 15:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

( edit conflict)My 0.02 £: To include it (including also the other names, like "War on Gaza" and "Assault on Gaza") is not a violation if it is well sourced and correctly attributed. To include the saying "Gaza Massacre" in the lead in bold unless there is a decent number of independent sources clearly stating it is the default Arab name, seems seriously UNDUE/POV. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a "decent number"? nableezy - 15:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I'd feel safe with more than 5-6 high-profile sources calling it as such, or say 3 non-biased secondary sources that explicitly say that this has become the default name (You provided two sources but apparently from the same publisher, I mean independent sources). -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See here for examples of use from Hamas officials. Also the two sources above saying it is "known in the Arab world" as such are non-biased secondary sources (I dont think South Africa has a dog in the race) (not sure what you mean by "independent" sources, do you mean different publishers?). If you would like sources for usage by Arabs other than Hamas officials and spokespersons that can also be provided. nableezy - 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot read all that thread now, but I think I see the problem. The sources you use are comments from Hamas or anyway highly politically loaded sources, which use such denomination for clearly political purposes/biases. It's not like neutral articles on newspapers talking of "Gaza massacre" in a plain way. While you can for sure add that it has been called like that by Arab sources, citing your timeslive.co.za source, to add it in bold in the introduction requires more objective sourcing of its widespread and plain use in my personal opinion. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification (1)If you can provide non-Hamas and possibly non-strictly political sources which refer to it as such, it helps (2)Yes, I meant different publishers. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of living supercentenarians (people aged over 110) is split into verified people (almost always by the GRG [11]), and unverified people (all of whom have a link to a reliable source about their claim). The GRG lists around 70-80 living supercentenarians, but also recognises that there are likely to be 300-400 supercentenarians in the world (scroll to the bottom of the last link). The dispute surrounds the claims section. Currently claims are rejected unless they are from one of the 67 countries listed as a high income economy by the World Bank. However, many claims have been validated by the GRG and Guinness World Records even though they were not from one of these 67 countries. In fact the World's oldest person a few years ago, Maria Capovilla, aged 116, herself was not from a high income economy. I believe removing these based on their country goes against NPOV and damages the global scope and neutrality of the article. Another suggestion put forward was to only list claims from countries that have had validated supercentenarians in the past. This however is biased against smaller countries and also contradicts NPOV. For example, a country such as Iceland is unlikely to have many supercentenarians because of its low population. The oldest Icelandic person ever was 109, though that of course does not mean that no-one will be 110 in the future. The bottom line is that there are two sections to the article: a verified section, and an unverified section. However claims from certain countries are not considered either because they are deemed by some users to be either highly likely to be false, or highly likely to never be validated (both of which strike me as a violation of WP:BALL, and the first one also of NPOV). SiameseTurtle ( talk) 21:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning of the nation-limited-credibility, but I don't see how it is appropriate in WP. I don't understand why there is a need for 2 sections at all. If we have a generally wp:Reliable Source, then the claim is verified as far as WP is concerned. If we don't have that source, the individual should not be listed. If there is a specific counterclaim, that would be fine for wp:BALANCE.- Sinneed 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A few points. It is a gross exaggeration to state that "many claims have been validated by the GRG" from countries that don't meet the present criteria. Only 4 out of approximately 1400 cases in the last 40 years, and 2 in the last 10, is not "many". The suggested amendment to the current criteria to inlcude those countries with a history of verified supercentenarians is not a "big-country" bias it is merely an attempt to include those persons with a reasonable probabilty of being proven (if a ctually true in the f irst place. There is no suggestion that persons be removed from the list just because they belong to a "small country", people are excluded because they do not meet the agreed criteria: a reasonable prospect of being verified. If this is WP:BALL (a dubious argument) then including any unveified claim is WP:BALL and in fact worse as this will include not only more unverifiable claims but more than likely actual false claims as well. The assertion that "claims from certain countries are not considered either because they are deemed by some users to be either highly likely to be false" is not quite correct either; it is not just "some" users but the majority that have commented so far, in fact easily sufficient for consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{( Talk Contribs)} 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read consider wp:Reliable sources. There is no bit that says "...except that, if the nation is poor, information about it is less reliable and may be safely omitted from WP", nor even implies it.- Sinneed 01:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC) - edit/addition - - Sinneed 04:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To address that, I've proposed we list unverified claims from countries with previous verified claims. Canada Jack ( talk) 20:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Which doesn't solve the issue as it's still against NPOV to dismiss claims from small countries. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and not pre-judge. SiameseTurtle ( talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing content dispute at StandWithUs concerning this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=StandWithUs&diff=322009752&oldid=322004043

in short, editor ShamWow is of the opinion that mentioning the result of the investigation of this NGOs funding as published by Inter Press Service would be POV, whereas I am of the opinion that results of an investigation by a WP:RS such as IPS, worded after the article publishing the same, are inherently according to Wikipedia policies. Please comment both on the basic question, and also possible suggestions on improving the wording of the text to better comply with Wiki policies are welcome. The IPS story is run on at least five other blogs/outlets to which I have links. -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article in question [12] makes extremely partisan claims with scant solid evidence. The piece contains WP:Weasel words in key sentences: "found a web of funders" (without mentioning whom) and "some of these organisations" (once again). The article later names certain individuals and organizations, but without directly attributing the "extreme" statements to a particular one.

And beyond that, the organizations/individuals the author mentions are generally accepted as mainstream--such as CAMERA, MEMRI, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and Susan Wexner. They may be right-leaning, but they cannot neutrally be described as "hard right" or "extreme." The wording in this piece should quickly raise a WP:Red flag.

In sum, this particularly article is in clear violation of WP:NPOV and should be discounted given that it is not a WP:Reliable source. There is nothing revelatory about this "investigative" report. It is a partisan smear campaign. ShamWow ( talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ShamWow, what's meant by POV violations is something that wiki editors do, not what WP:RS do. Concerning e.g. CAMERA, it could be described either as neofascist or just an extremist organization, and is known e.g. for engineering a plot to undermine wikipedia. That's not "mainstream" at least where I live. -- Dailycare ( talk) 07:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to have a section on how the NGO has been received by other bodies and groups. That means a range of views, both positive and negative, reflecting the balance of what has been said "out there". If there is not enough to go on, then we have to worry whether this NGO is notable enough for an article. All such views must definitely be attributed, and IPS should be reliable enough as a source for its own viewpoint. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This partisan news service is simply taking mainstream organizations and labeling them as extreme right-wing. Supporting Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, is not a right-wing issue. It seems more right-wing to support chauvinistic Palestinian nationalism. I am fine in hearing how other actual news organizations perceive StandWithUs, but not some absurdly partisan report. ShamWow ( talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether you agree with IPS or not, but whether this is a viewpoint that should be reported. We all know that Israel/Palestine is a controversial issue, therefore we expect there to be at least two sides reported in every related article. Please go ahead and look for more references to StandWithUs in the media so that there is a full range. That would be very useful. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, article is WP:Red flag - surprising claim that is made nowhere else - WP:Undue - no other source has seen fit to print these accusations - and WP:NPOV - Wikipedia does not assert IPS claims. IPS didn't "reveal" anything, it was alleged. Based on these arguments, this article is not appropriate to be sourced and should be removed. Criticism of SWU should be included, but this article is not adequate per Wikipedia policies. ShamWow ( talk) 21:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The part about History in article Brazil was recently completly erased and replaced with new texts by user Lecen. Besides the fact that all the History part was erased (which is not allowed, since it was sourced), the new texts look really biased to me. The new texts clearly show a positive view of the user about Monarchy and a negative view about Republic. The Emperor Pedro II reign part only talks about good points and ommits the negative points of that government, and the user clearly attacks the Republic there. A discussion about this is going on at the talk page of Brazil article. [13] I hope more people may give their opinion about these recent changes, which seem obviously pro-monarchist to me. Opinoso ( talk) 00:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Lecen went about making the changes in a collegial and open way. S/he gave notice that s/he was going to do a rewrite, and asked for opinions. So I think you should spell out on the talk page what exactly you think should be different, not just suggest that the changes should be reverted straight back. If the talk page discussion does not get going then you should pick out the statements that you think are biased and make a Request for Comment. The section seems to be based on serious history books. If you think that the article does not reflect the views of historians of Brazil, then you will need to back up your suggested changes with references. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The books may be reliable, but the way the sources were used are far from being neutral. Just read the Emperor Pedro II reign to notice that it only cites the positive points about Monarchy. Now read the Old Republic and Vargas dictatorship] part. Notice that it only cites the negative points of Republic. In fact, the user clearly wants to sell the idea that Monarchy was good, while Republic was bad. Is it neutral?

In fact, there was already a part about History in that article, which was small, sourced and neutral. The user lecen erased the entire History and replaced it with these news Monarchists changes, which are too big for an article which is about Brazil, and not its history, and it's non-neutral as well. May I reverse the article to its original History part? Opinoso ( talk) 13:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, you may, but it could start a pointless argument and it is not the best thing to do. It would be much better to start a proper discussion on the talk pages, using examples and references. Or just ask on the talk page if anyone else supports you reverted Lecen's changes. You might be right about the section now being too long. You can discuss that too on the talk page. Come back here if there is not a reasonable discussion. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry about me ("Henry Gould") included very minor errors about my activities & publications in the 1990s. I corrected these errors. I also added a few external links to relevant information about me (an online interview, an essay on my work). I do not plan to make further corrections to my entry unless absolutely necessary. I hope the warning notice about "conflict of interest" will be removed. Thank you. Hhgould ( talk) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article Leopoldo Galtieri says in the lead that he was president of Argentina "during the last military dictatorship" and refers to the Intelligence Battalion 601 as a "death squad". I changed that to "during the National Reorganization Process" (name given to that government) and "The special military intelligence service Intelligence Battalion 601". However, a user reverted the editions and says at the talk page that such words would be euphemisms and that Words that label wouldn't apply in this case. MBelgrano ( talk) 18:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Reorganization Process is unacceptable because it represents the viewpoint of the military rulers. I do not know if dictatorship is NPOV. The term "death squad" should not be used for Intelligence Battalion 601 since, regardless of neutrality, a battalion is not a squad. You also must decide what should be in the lead. Rather than mention the battalion, I would mention his subsequent convictions and charges he was facing before he died. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Words that label is absolutely correct in respect of the Junta period. NRP provides a unacceptable veneer of respectability. You might include both. Leaky Caldron 19:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Leaky caldron about the inappropriateness of NRP -at least, of NRP only. I would use "military government", which to me seems clear enough and it's the definition in the NRP article. Also a dictatorship, technically, is rule of a single individual, while here we're talking about a junta, if I understand correctly. -- Cyclopia ^talk 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"National Reorganization Process" is not a "descriptive" name: it's simply the name used by that government. Like "Third Reich" at Germany or "Russian Provisional Government" at Russia. When media talks about it without intending to take an editorial stance of condeming it, (for example, disapasioned historical accounts) that's the name used; or more frequently it's contraction as "Process" (Proceso). MBelgrano ( talk) 21:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's not "descriptive" all the more reason to include both. Remember this is an encyclopedia - unambiguous descriptions are essential. Leaky Caldron 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By "descriptive" I mean that it's not a name designed by users of Wikipedia (such as "History of the United States (1776–1789)", see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Descriptive names), but instead a name that exists in the real world way before wikipedia. Even if "dictadura" is prefered by media that wants to take an editorial stand against it, the name "National Reorganization Process" is not disputed, nobody deems it incorrect or misleading, or explicitly condemns its usage. To follow better the neutral point of view, a good method would be to call the polemic things that have a common name simply by that common name, avoiding the use of labeling descriptions. MBelgrano ( talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I'd say, use "NRP military government". This way the nature of NRP is unambiguous, and the common name is used. -- Cyclopia ^talk 22:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree as well. I am normally reluctant to use words and phrases introduced by such regimes, but especially since the phrase is linked and has its own article, there shouldn't be any confusion. It is actually far more "pointy" to pipe to the article as "military dictatorship" -- when I click on the link I am being directed to the NPR-article. That heavily smells like someone's been trying to push a point of view. If the article is called NPR, then the link should have the same name. When it's called "the sun," it shouldn't be linked to as that shitty hot thing that gives me blisters on my skin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it NPR is the name of the "statute" under which the administration governed, not the name of the government itself. (The statute seems actually to be an order from the junta.) The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted that change to a long standing consensus text. I would also point out that the user who brought the issue here has failed to notify other users that he was doing so. I objected to the changes, the reason for doing so was to use an euphemism to lessen the context of the regime. It was a military dictatorship, there are plenty of sources in the mainstream opinion that describe the regime as a military dictatorship. NRP is not the mainstream opinion in the literature. We call a spade a spade, not an earth moving implement. Describing it as the NRP is simply a euphemism to lessen the impact of what it was. Justin talk 10:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It disagrees with the definition of NRP on the NRP page (which is "military government", and the nature of NRP conflicts with the definition of dictatorship -which requires a single leading individual. I tried a compromisal wording -which is also more informative in my opinion. If you want to add "authoritarian", I will agree. -- Cyclopia ^talk 13:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No it does not. The NRP page describes it as a dictatorship, it is also widely described as a military dictatorship see [14] for example. Even in Argentina it is known as a dictatorship, it is only described as the NRP by apologists for the military regime amongst fringe groups on the extreme right in Argentina. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream political opinion, the suggestion is to use a fringe description. Sorry but what you describe as a compromise is not more informative, rather it is applying a euphemism for a corrupt and despotic military regime; and it does not reflect sources. Justin talk 13:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point: Checking better the dictatorship page, it effectively says "A government controlled by one person or a small group of people.", so "dictatorship" indeed applies, contrary to my previous understanding. I apologize. I would leave NRP too because it's informative, but for what it concerns me, feel free to change "government" with "dictatorship". I suggest you however, before, to bring the "government" vs "dictatorship" issue to the NRP page -that's where it belongs- and prepare loads of reliable and non-biased sources to back you on this. -- Cyclopia ^talk 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, not sure what you mean ref the NRP page, since it already describes it as a dictatorship there in the lead. As to the need for sources, that isn't a problem, whereas the source for the converse is rare and limited to fringe groups. Justin talk 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made an answer at the article talk page. Now that more uninvolved users besides Justin and me have been noticed of this discussion, it should be followed there. MBelgrano ( talk) 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors are trying to make a statement of fact regarding the political leanings of this news aggregator. This is in spite of the fact that the majority of reliable sources delcare Real Clear Politics to be a non-partisan or Nuetral source of information. I introduced a compromise to best state their viewpoint, but this too has been reverted to a highly biased point of view.

I have tried to discuss this at length on the talk page and have included a list of all the sources I could find to point out thier the political leanings. Please tell me how this does not violate NPOV. Arzel ( talk) 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The last time this came up here I went over to the article page and it was quite clear that the NPoV statement was that the organization was conservative. This is a flare-up of a persistent case of political denialism and nothing more. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history you will see that Arzel ( talk · contribs) edit-warred this page heavily between Sept. 3 and Sept. 16. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How can you make this conclusion when there are vastly more reliable sources that make no political link to RCP and the ones that do make no conservative connection? You have basically two people making a claim that they are conservative and you are using this very fringe view as the basis for defining who or what they are? And leave my edit history out of it. Don't obsfucate the issue by turing it into an edit review. You would not even debate the issue on the web page, only dictate that they "ARE" conservative. Arzel ( talk) 18:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem distinguishing the site's affiliation (there is none) from it's political leanings (which are clearly to the right). This is a clear case of I can't hear you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And just what evidence do you have that they clearly are to the right? A couple of opinions? If they were that obviously biased then it would be a well known fact. I am simply amazed by the pure avoidance of one simple fact Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. The fact that the view of a couple sources OUTWEIGH the rest of all reliable sources is simply unbeliveable. You do agree that by following WP own policies they must at a minimum be listed as Independent and Non-Partisan do you not? Arzel ( talk) 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically it comes down to this. One person has a source that calls them conservative. I have many sources that call them "Non-Partisan" or "Neutral" yet the only source which can be included in the lead is the one that calls them conservative? How in the HELL is that not a biased point of view? Arzel ( talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As we went over, in depth and detail, with you, the last time you brought this up non-partisan does not mean lacking in a political position. You in the USA have two parties and politics is traditionally (inaccurately) divided into two "wings" but there is no correlation between the parties and the "wings". In the USA there is a right wing party and a really really really right wing party. A website could be affiliated with neither and still be right wing. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Even for the US that is blatantly a conservative/right-leaning site. I am willing to believe that they are not affiliated with any particular political party, but the sources presented at Talk:RealClearPolitics convince me that to leave out a description of their slant would be undue. - 2/0 ( cont.) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And you base this on what? Your opinion? Did you bother to look at the many sources that clearly define them to be independent? I have presented numerous sources that list them as INDEPENDENT, yet this information cannot be listed? By this measure I could list the NYT as being a Liberal Newspaper. Since when does WP get into the business of using OPINION as FACT? This is pure partisan politics and nothing else, and it still doesn't answer the question of how a WP:FRINGE view can be presented as the majority view. Arzel ( talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Independent does not mean politically neutral, Arzel. Please understand that. -- Cyclopia ^talk 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, since it seems both independent and conservative-leaning, I added the "independent" adjective. I hope this cools down the issue. -- Cyclopia ^talk 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-partisan means not associated with any party, i.e., not pro-Republican or pro-Democratic. That has nothing to do with being American conservative/liberal. Note that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is non-partisan (Republicans may join) but is not politically neutral. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand all of that, however, in America when describing entities which are viewed as neutral politically the word used is non-partisan. And let us not fool ourselves here. Conservative==Republican, Liberal==Democrat 90% of the time. The intent here is to identify them as conservative in order to discredit the information as being biased in favor of one political party. However, most journalistic institutions view them to be very much down the middle (with the exception of the blog). However, reviews of the agregated news stories and polling has been shown to be very balanced (not my words, those of one of the reliable sources). Arzel ( talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Do you have any evidence that when RCN is called independent it means independent of American conservative ideology and not independent of the Republican Party? No one is trying to discredit the information they provide. Their stories are after all reprints. Publications may be partisan or have a point of view yet still have a reputation for accuracy, like British broadsheets. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you would ever "Prove" that unless there was a specific article that made that specific comment (pretty unlikely). However, one of the best examples of the use of non-partisan to show this correlation is presented in this NYPress article. Emphasis, mine.

• • "In addition, another site that’s now a regular online stop for not only journalists—professional or amateur—but political enthusiasts and politicians as well, is Real Clear Politics, which provides a daily and non-partisan compendium of articles printed in leading newspapers and magazines, along with a comprehensive list of polling results, talk show transcripts, links and its own RCP blog, which, like the entrepreneurs who run the site, John McIntyre and Tom Bevan, tilts conservative."

Another good example is from a Mediaweek article.

• • "Real Clear Politics has a blog that's right of center. The main product is pretty balanced. We've done story counts, and we're satisfied they're giving ample story counts on either side of the aisle"

Now the counterpoint of conservative and non-partisan in this sense can really only imply that non-partisan is non conservative (or liberal for that matter). For the record, while searching for sources I did find reliable sources for the identification of the blog as tilting conservative with the main news polling aggregation as being un-biased. My compromise made this distinction as well.

The USAToday source, used in the lede, also refers to Blogs, and ironically doesn't label the Daily Kos to be a liberal blog. The Time source in the lead also specifically refers to the RCP Blog. Perhaps part of the problem is that there is RCP Blog and the Main RCP homepage with is a commpendum of news articles from all sides of the spectrum as well as polling aggregates. Arzel ( talk) 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, since when is WP in the business of using opinion as a method of definition? Media Matters for America, which is a liberal/progressive group is not defined as such. They are allowed to use their own definition of themselves, and editors have attempted to make that definition on that article lede. The liberal bias is quite apparent when supposedly conservative organization labeled almost universally yet liberal organization are not. Arzel ( talk) 14:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is listed, twice as progressive in the lede. This is a perfectly reasonable way of noting the political lean of that organization. It is labled. Furthermore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and while you are at it WP:TEND and WP:SOAP. Finally, in response to every conservative complaining about leftist bias in the media / wikipedia / children's cartoons / literature / etc. I have one thing to say: Reality has a left wing bias, live with it. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you looked at the attribution of that statement, it comes from the entity itself, not an outside opinion. By that metric we should only use the self-identification, why should RCP be treated differently? Arzel ( talk) 14:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You still POV pushing, Arzel? Kudos to Simonm because he's dead right concerning your editing. A8UDI talk 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom, baiting will do you no service here. Arzel ( talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Non-partisan" means not allied with any political party. Notice the phrase "either side of the aisle". That is a reference to the US congress, where politicians are seated according to their party membership, not their ideologies. The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please explain to me why a reliable sources would refer to their main site as non-partisan and in the same paragraph their blog tilt conservative? Arzel ( talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you not find any source that clearly states RCP is neutral? Btw the New York Press which you use to support the position that RCP is unbiased is itself conservative. There is a similar write-up in Human Events. [15] The Mediaweek source is not an article but a reply to the question: "Isn't it risky to be associated with a site that's considered right of center?" The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional Info on Cult of Personality (this is missing in the article) [16] [17] [18] & BBC 4 [19]

Communist propaganda within the Former Yugoslavia:

The Yugoslav Communist state propaganda machine shared much with the Soviet Union. The Soviet format was imposed and then slightly modified. The Yugoslav Communist state used youth indoctrination [20], which were all too similar to the Soviet Union [21] and the People's Republic of China. Communist political, historical and philosophical courses were all part of general education. They can be found in any Yugoslav primary school textbook from the 1970s. Media and arts were used as a powerful means of propaganda and were all placed under heavy censorship. Josip Broz Tito was the main subject. Images, monuments, towns, street names, endless awards were given and a never ending production of books, films and poetry were created. Financially a huge amount of resources were used to keep the Communist propaganda and political activities running on a daily basis. Glorification and hero worship of the leader Josip Broz were a constant diet for the former peoples of Yugoslavia.

Most of Josip Broz’s images, monuments, town names and street names are now being removed. This started after the fall of the Berlin Wall and after the break up of Yugoslavia.

Summary: The Josip Broz Tito article represents old views from the cold war era and by default wikipedia is pushing a political agenda. This information is now part of the Josip Broz Tito article, thus making the article biased and lacking a NPOV. Also there are parts of history from that era and region that are missing.

Administrators should give attention to these issues? Qualified references such as Encyclopaedia Britannica and BBC history [22]are being presented here and are met with silence. Summary of the other qualified professional authors, who have expressed a more current scholarly view:

• Ivo Goldstein [23] a Professor at the University of Zagreb & former Director of the Institute for Croatian History of the University of Zagreb.
• Jasper Godwin Ridley (1920 –2004) was a British writer, known for historical biographies. He was educated at Magdalen College, University of Oxford & Sorbonne. He received :the 1970 James Tait Black Memorial Prize. He trained and practiced as a barrister & professional writer.
• Paul Hollander [24] is an American scholar, journalist, and conservative political writer. Ph.D in Sociology. Princeton University, 1963 B.A London School of Economics, :Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Center Associate and Davis.
• Rudolph Joseph Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii.; and
• David W. Del Testa has a Ph.D. in History from the University of California at Davis

I have come up with a legacy''' chapter. This might give the article more of a modern scholarly feel. "One of Josip Broz Tito’s legacies was to bring peace and stability to the region, be it in Soviet style governance (following years after World War Two). In subsequent years he and his government started political reform and came up with their own brand of socialism. This was created hand in hand with his cult of personality. At first, it seemed that things were working out but in the end the economic political decisions that were made were flawed. Josip Broz’s style of economic socialism just could not compete in the world economic climate. Yugoslavia’s economic situation from the late 1970s onwards worsened with every year passing. With ethnic tension not resolved these were some of the factors that contributed to Tito’s Yugoslavia breaking up. Since then events such as Bleiburg [25] [26] and Foibe massacres [27] [28] that happened during the last days of WW2 have come to re-surface, which have now cast a dark shadow [29] [30]over his military leadership. Nevertheless at the time of his death he was much loved by the majority of the citizens of Yugoslavia"

Thank you. Sir Floyd ( talk) 11:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear reader I will be requesting an Editor’s Assistant on the Josip Broz Tito article. My request to add a Legacy Chapter to the article in question has been refused. Qualified references such as Encyclopaedia Britannica and Tim Judah of the BBC (The Times & The Economist) are being met with heavy resistance! Also other qualified professional references from USA, Great Britain and Croatia are not being taken into account. Consensus style of work is not present here. Regards Sir Floyd ( talk) 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is something like the tenth time User:Sir Floyd has been trying to enlist help in promoting his POV on the Josip Broz Tito article. He has arrived on the article some weeks ago, and has been compiling a collection of Googled pieces of text that have anything at all negative to say about the person, the funny thing is - he says everyone else is POV. :P His "sources" either do not show what he is claiming, are unreliable, and/or are cherry-picked for the promotion of his politically motivated agenda. His proposed edits are extremely biased, and would thoroughly destroy the neutrality of the article (which has been nominated as a Good Article). His "Legacy" section, is intended to blame Josip Broz Tito for the Yugoslav wars, the foibe massacres, and a number of other things he had nothing to do with or was not currently alive at the time. A number of users, including myself, oppose him and he's been trying to get them banned everywhere, from WP:AN/I to WP:AIV.

His "pleas for help" are clever, but I can't imagine experienced users falling for them. -- DIREKTOR ^{( TALK)} 12:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is funny, because those are my exact thoughts about Direktor. Defaming an historical figure, please, he is a politician. Where I come from politicians are constantly scrutinised. Tito was a leader & leaders have to be accountable. Sorry, but to me it's just old Communist rhetoric. Maybe coming from a different cultural background is causing the friction. You see from were I'm standing, Director is POV-pushing on a far great scale and sources for the Tito article are very questionable. Comments like " your not a native English speaker" doesn't help either. Maybe Wikipedia is just not set up for these type of intercultural interactions. Silly POV, cluttering the page with piles of useless text, more insults from Mr Director? His point of view is less clutter. Sure that's fine with me. Sir Floyd ( talk) 14:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Political articles are so inherently difficult to make NPOV, so I've added additional sources. Please :) look into them (I'm not making this stuff up): BBC 4 (Testimonials to the truth of these historical events [31] [32] . Article in the New York Times [33].

Also the article needs more information on the first two decades of Tito's reign. From the late 1930's onwards his style of leadership was similar to that of Stalin's. Tito was a member of the Soviet Communist Party and the notorious Soviet Police- NKVD (this is mentioned only briefly in the Wikipedia article) The NKVD executed the rule of terror and political repression, on a grand scale (NKVD executed tens of thousands of Polish political prisoners in 1939-1941/ Katyn massacre). Tito and his comrades set up their own KGB/NKVD style police units in the former Yugoslavia, that being UDBA [34] & OZNA. Tito and his comrades did the same & executed their own rule of terror and political repression until the reforms of the 1960's. These are the facts. Furthermore I ask, does Wikipedia need to have a moral obligation? Well in this case, I think yes. :) Sir Floyd ( talk) 04:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This person has no knowledge of Yugoslav history whatsoever. :) This is just another in a long, loong list of attempts on the part of this account to enlist people and create false preconceptions with his very old, very standard, copy-pasted "please help me" routine (which he wrote the book on). The links provided here are excellent if someone were disputing the events they describe, however they have nothing to do with the president. As does his own evil "KGB/NKVD style police unit" which was under the control of Aleksandar Ranković (a hard-line political adversary) and actually spied on Tito himself. In short, this person is frustrated at his inability to destroy the neutrality of an article with his extreme POV. He is here on a political agenda, which is widely opposed by all users who write on the subject. Of course, User:Sir Floyd considers us all "communist propagandists" who "spin it so well"... -- DIREKTOR ^{( TALK)} 17:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well this can go on forever. The Josip Broz Tito article is dated and a relic from the cold war, which might be ok for its time. All I asked from Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (if they are interested) is to check my sources, references & links and be judged by them. Also, I will not bother the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard with my expertise on the matter since that would be inappropriate for this type of situation. Sincerely, Sir Floyd ( talk) 01:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is more information that mass murder was carried out by Tito and the Partisans [35]. (I’m hoping that the Google Translate is working here) [36] [37] [38]. These events are inhuman to the extreme. It should have been mentioned in Josip Broz Tito article. It would make it less bias. They are factual events. Please :) look into them, as I said before, I'm not making this stuff up (have a heart). Regards Sir Floyd ( talk) 03:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

They are indeed factual events that are all explained fully in their own articles. However, as was pointed out to this persistent POV-pusher on numerous, numerous occasions by many users: they have absolutely nothing to do with Josip Broz Tito. "Have a heart"? -- DIREKTOR ^{( TALK)} 06:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tito was the commander of the Partisans and there are far too many examples of mass murders & mass arrests [39] [40] [41] for it to be ignored (& there are many more). Any good encyclopedic article should make reference to them. It would be like Stalin without his rule of terror being documented. This just dosen't make sense in the modern world. What we have here is a clear avoidance of these issues (in the article), thus making it biased. Direktor stated "they have absolutely nothing to do with Josip Broz Tito". Well then,what did Tito do? Did he let these horrible events just happen? Did he have a moral conscience (the war did end)? Was he incompetent? Was he the great leader that the Yugoslav Communist state propaganda machine portrayed him to be? Even the Wiki article states this. I have shown here credible references and sources to prove my argument, please take them into account. Sir Floyd ( talk) 09:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Addtional References:

• Croatian Government: [42] Deputy PM and with Representatives of the Croatian society of Political Prisoners-Victims of Communism
• Zdravko Dizdar (Croatian Historian/Croatian Institute for History in Zagreb) [43] : Partisan and Communist Repression and Atrocities in Croatia, 1944th to 1946th - Documents.
• Commission On Concealed Mass Graves in Slovenia [44]
• Janez Stanovnik: Post-war killings were occurring under Tito's command [45]: Slovenia Politician & Economist/Former Yugoslav Partizan Commander
• Mitja Ribicic - Internal Security of Former Yugoslavia: BBC 4
• Ivan Supek - Croatian Physicist, Philosopher, Writer, Playwright, Peace Activist Humanist & former Yugoslav Partizan: BBC 4
• Simo Dubajic- Former Yugoslav Partizan Commander - "Life Sin & Remorse" ABC News [46]
• Croatia's-Javno: [47] Mass Grave Massacre Ordered By Josip Broz Tito
• Croatian Center for Research of Crimes of Communism [48]

Sir Floyd ( talk) 09:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Slovenia Times: Post-war Killings Enter the Bloody History (03/04/2009) By Barbara Štor [49]
• Croatian Newspaper Jutarnji Writes on the 01/10/2009 [50]

Communist crimes: 100,000 Victims in 581 Mass Graves

In Slovenia, three basic books came out needed for the study of communist crimes in the immediate post-war period. It specifies graves where liquidation and execution of prisoners of war were carried out in its territory.

This is a report by the Commission of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for testing grave sites under the leadership of Jože Dežman and the historian Mitja Ferenc's works of the"Hidden in his Father Zakrito" and "“Prikrita Grobišča 60 let po Koncu Druge Svetovne Vojne”. 'The report of the Commission of the Government specifies the number of mass graves and victims and their nationality.

In this collection, in Slovenia, there was discovered and detected 581 mass graves in which, the author estimates about 100 000 victims in total. According to the research of Slovenian and Croatian historians, Partisans in Slovenia liquidated most of the Ustasa and home guard units. The Croats accounted for between 50 to 80 thousands casualties.

Note: Jože Dežman is a Slovenian historian. He is currently the director of the National Museum of Contemporary History in Ljubljana. [51]

Factual evidence (above) has emerged that the Dictator Josip Broz Tito (the Commander of all Yugoslav Partisans/Communists during WW2) and his comrads were responsible for these Communist War Crimes.

Wikipedia has an article about this individual which just seems to gloss over the all above mentioned events. There can be no buck passing here or omission of the whole truth. We have 100 000 victims for heaven sakes! Wikipedia is just pushing the point of view of a group of editors (political, in this case). This is not encyclopedic work, pure and simple.

Is Wikipedia providing a perfect vehicle for propaganda of this type.? Is Wikipedia taking on a darker tone? Where are the ethical & moral issues involved in creating a feel good story about Josip Broz a Croatian born in Austro-Hungarian Empire, now Croatia? What can one conclude from the wall of silence that is present here? As they say "silence can speak louder than words" These issues deserve some feedback if Wikipedia has a humanitarian side to it, preferably from someone who is impartial and educated in these matters.

The article should have a NPOV tag on it.The editors who wrote this article simply won't allow additional edits that reflect the whole story. Sir Floyd ( talk) 02:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a new participant trying to learn the way of Wiki. My entry on Lynn Vincent got tagged as not neutral, and I changed all the language noted. But the notice remains on the entry. I've asked the editor twice to explain why, and have waited three days. Is this delay customary? Is there an assumption still that the entry is biased? If the notice remains because of the discussion about "ghostwriter" versus "collaborator" or "collaborative writer," that to me indicates an unwillingness to accept the publishing industry's use of terms. It's not a choice based on pro- or con-Vincent (or pro- or con-Palin). I'm using the term "collaborator" because Vincent has her name on her books, or in the case of the soon-to-be-launched Sarah Palin memoir, Vincent was announced as her co-writer from the start. A ghostwriter by definition -- regardless of how the term is misused in various media outlets -- is not named. Help? Akp623 ( talk) 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can put a tag on an article. If you think the problem has been solved and the tagger hasn't responded to you after a reasonable time, you are completely free to remove the tag. Looie496 ( talk) 02:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Their is an article concerning the above; recently it has been updated to include information regarding 'pedges of allegiance' towards its self proclaimed leader Brian Tamaki. I suspect these updates have, in the main, been by supporters of this dangerous individual (I know that isn't quite an NPOV!!)

Tamaki and his organisation have been widely criticised within the media as a church with a cult like status. I note that there is little (if any) reference to this within the article; this article reads like an advertisement for their work and does not have any information on the many controversies surrounding this organisation.

I believe the article requires placing in a section of Wikipedia where editing is limited or moderated (similar to other areas that will be subject to vandalism)

Username Ianguy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.23.22 ( talk) 02:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been edited pretty significantly since this section was started -- in its current state, I don't see anything to complain about, so perhaps the problem has solved itself. Looie496 ( talk) 02:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The following article may have been created for purposes of self-promotion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Van_Brummelen

The subject of the article may lack sufficient notability to warrant inclusion in the Wikipedia.

Furthermore, it appears that this article was created by an editor who has created other pages at "Quest University" - a small, newly established, private university where the subject of the article is employed.

Hence, there is evidence that suggests that this article, and possibly others, represent abuse of of the Wikipedia for purposes of advertising the newly established private university and/or it's employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.11.253.66 ( talk) 03:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally see any lack of neutrality in that article. If you want to complain about a conflict of interest, WP:COIN is the place to do it. Looie496 ( talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

LTSally postings on the Jehovah's Witness pages, discussions, and on his personal webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LTSally on the Jehovah's Witness pages violates the Neutral point of view policy. He is openly involved in opposing the work of Jehovah's Witnesses. He also monopolizes the editing process and will not allow any changes other than his own. The page has basically become his page, along with some supporters. He makes comments in his web page which are slanderous against Jehovah's Witnesses, in the legal term of the word referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as,

"a claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community," "an intrusive, insidious, malevolent power — of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society." arrant nonsense." "the Watch Tower organization is the manipulative, controlling, tyrannical and unforgiving beast it is today. Through those books — and only those books — emerge the strange, breathtaking and sometimes shameful history the organization has whitewashed and distorted in its own publications"

I'm no expert on mind control techniques, but it sounds like the Witnesses employ a whole system of them. Close off access to outside criticism. Quash curiosity. Punish internal criticism. Establish an emotional dependence. Expel, isolate and silence malcontents and dissidents. And badger members to relentlessly preach, preach, preach the message

"Quote them back to those who place pressure on you to remain in the grip of the Watch Tower Society."

"the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses"

All of these accustations are false, and also are slanderous. I feel that LTSally should not be allowed to contribute any work to the Jehovah's Witnesses pages or participate in its discussions under that or any other name. There are one or two others on the Jehovah's Witness page who also violate the neutral point of view. There is nothing wrong with posting shortcomings of Jehovah's Witnesses, if these are taken in a balanced way and in overall context, but the work of RTSally on the Jehovah's Witness pages is both not neutral and slanderous. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the tone of those quotes, but complaints about an editor's behaviour belong at WP:WQA, or WP:ANI if they require administrator action. If you want to complain about NPOV issues in an article, you should point to some specific part of some specific article that isn't neutral. Looie496 ( talk) 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start because I don't know why I'm not neutral... Please some body help me—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shchoe ( talk • contribs)

A good article about a cosmetic product discusses its history, its method of action, and any news surrounding the product. The article you wrote, BB cream, reads more like a product review or an advertisement. The best way to write an article without making it sound like advertising is to find reliable sources on the product (these would disinclude any advertisements or press releases) and write the article only using what content can be found in those sources. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Stubbed. Stub-flagged. CN flagged both remaining sentences.- Sinneed 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The subsection on the EU ban now includes a statement saying: Critics of the EU's actions say that the bill did not mention or refer to any metrics that quantify the Canadian seal hunt as being any more inhumane than the accepted, legal slaughter of animals in the EU, ^{[1] [2] [3]} as millions of animals are slaughtered annually in the EU for food, fur ^[4], and entertainment. ^[5]

I think that it sould say: The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper has argued that there was no reason for the seal industry to be singled out for discriminatory treatment by the EU or anyone else. ^{[6] [7]}

The statement at the bottom is a rewording of the link in the reference whereas I can't seem to find a source for the above text.-- U5K0 ( talk) 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem already solved. thanks anyway-- U5K0 ( talk) 15:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Under "Deployments, the entry for Novell eDirectory states that "According to IDC, eDirectory is used in over 80% of Fortune 1000 companies."

The citation for this is on the Novell site in their marketing material ("Why Choose Novell eDirectory?"), which seems to cross the line on neutrality. Also, I was unable to confirm this number with a quick google search... the only references I was able to find were circa 2000.

I suggest that this may need removal or revision with current data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage sam ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Editorial hatchet applied. Chopped the advert about penetration in large companies... large companies use EVERYTHING somewhere. not a useful stat. Chopped a lot of internal brags, once the press cares (and it does) what the press says might be worth including.- Sinneed 04:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am mediating a dispute on the article Gibraltar. I have a NPOV question. In the opinion of this noticeboard, which statement is more NPOV?

1. “The majority of the Spanish population, with few exceptions, left Gibraltar. In spite of assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, and despite the efforts of British and Dutch senior officers to maintain order, lootings, desecrations and rapes were perpetrated by the ships' crew and marines. The townspeople took reprisals, murdering Dutchmen and Englishmen. When discipline was restored, most villagers decided to go in exile and, after some time, founded the nearby city of San Roque.”
2. “The majority of the Spanish population, with few exceptions, left Gibraltar. In the chaos after the surrender, the behaviour of British sailors (despite the effors of their commanders to maintain order) and a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors meant that few inhabitants dared to remain. By the time order was restored and despite the assurances that Spaniards who wished to remain would enjoy freedom of religion and full civil rights, most chose to leave.”
3. “After the surrender the majority of the Spanish population left Gibraltar.”

For the purposes of this question, please assume that the only question is NPOV. RS and such will be addressed elsewhere. --- Irbisgreif-( talk | e-mail)-( contribs) 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Three is obviously more neutral. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

3 is the only one without editorial commentary in it. Collect ( talk) 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been multiple issues at English Defence League. Most of these are minor being based on a word here, there general tone, etc. I have tried listing the reasons I feel it is in violation of NPOV and attempted to add the POV-Check template to get some eyes on it. Unfortunately, a few editors are adamant that it is neutral and per the sources. There have been allegations of POV pushing.

There is one issue that I feel would fix a glaring concern. The lead states "The English Defence League (EDL) is an English far right single-issue organisation formed in 2009.". "Far right" have caused debate and both random IPs and editors to edit war and express POV concerns over some time now. My concern with it is that we are breaking the WP:AVOID style guideline and the group disputes the label (as covered in the press).

• Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition...Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral...There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources, replace the label with information..."
• Per far right, the term "...often used to imply that someone is an extremist." The labeling is bad enough but implying they are extremists is a concern per the same principles of the words to avoid guideline.

To fix this, I have proposed two options

1. Use: The British press describe the EDL as far right.

This method is already utilized in the prose English Defence League#Views and reactions. Since the term is often used by the press it is a good option. However, this doesn't give much information besides what could be a speculzative or assumed claim. Another editor pointed out a great source and I presented a another proposal...

2 Use: Membership is comprised of various social groups including football hooligans and far right elements." in the first or second line.

This is drawn from the Telegraph who provided in depth reasoning: "The answer lies in a combination of anti-Islamic internet bloggers, who constitute the EDL’s intellectual 'elite’, organised football hooligan 'firms’, who provide the street-fighting muscle, and agitators from the Far Right who spy an opportunity to enflame racial tensions which have grown up around the Muslim community following the bombings in London on July 7 2005." [52] and was summarized perfectly by another editor here on Wikipedia: The organisation is a fusion. The internet bloggers by themselves would not have become the EDL we see on the street. They needed the muscle (the football hooligans) and agitators (the far right). Without the 3 elements together, EDL would not be the street based movement it has become. It is a coalition of the clever, the ignorant and the opportunist. The "right wing" element makes the movement we see on the street de facto right wing, whether the original thinkers like it or not.

This should be necessary and, fortunately, an easy fix. Use of the term "far right" is disputed even though I personally think it deserves some mention, even in the lead. To do this, we need to be cautious and word it as neutrally as possible regardless of how we feel about the group. this will provide needed information without conflicting with the lead's need to be concise and will actually improve the its ability to be a stand alone summary. Editors and IPs will more than likely continue to randomly express concerns causing a disruptive environment and this is more factual. Am I completely wrong here? Cptnono ( talk) 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• We have many many RS that they are far right. Do you have a single RS that disputes this? Only two editors have disputed this, Cptnono who has several times raised this despite clear consensus against him, and another editor with a clearly biased POV. Cptnono's proposed rewrites turn the article into an EDL press release, and that is clearly against policy - and consensus. Verbal chat 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• NPOV means that "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly". In this case reliable sources call them "right wing" and no reliable sources contradict this. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• The reliable sources could contain a systemic bias. They are reporting opinions, not absolute facts. WP:Undue_weight_(sources)#Telling_the_difference_between_facts_and_opinions. The nature of EDL might appear indisputable. But because a group of individuals retaliate (including violence) against what they see as offensive behavior by an ethnic minority does that make them "far right wing" in England? That they are reported so is not disputed. That they have right wing supporters and may have been infiltrated by right wing sympathisers, or that some of them are themselves right wing is all supported by sources. Does that make them a "far right" wing organisation per se? They invite membership from all quarters. They dispute most of the accusations and these denials are now in the article per WP:RS.

What Ctpnono is asking is whether the lead reflects the necessary balance or has the potential for a systemic bias in reporting been overlooked? Leaky Caldron 00:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ctpnono asks us to believe that all the reliable sources for this article may be biased, even though there are no reliable sources which say they are. Since articles rely upon reliable sources we cannot do that. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on the page has been reached on this, including LeakyC (although he seems to feel some obligation to Cptnono). This has now been taken to ANI twice and now here is what in starting to look like forum shopping. Cptnono is consistently and persistently taking a position on the talk page which mirrors EDLs own PR efforts, with no support. -- Snowded ^TALK 01:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I raised this since the consensus between some editors pushing for it while other editors give up is wrong. Even if 100 editors agreed I would still argue it since they would be breaking neutrality protocol. I find disregarding the importance of neutrality while being concerned about 5 words laughable. I don't know why and I don't care. It is a simple fix and I am bringing it to this venue to get fresh eyes on it. Many sources that say "far right" throughout do not offer analyses. We can do better than that. We can easily follow the ones that do provide the reasoning. Please also stop implying that I am affiliated with or care about the group. Cptnono ( talk) 04:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources that say should also be considered. Yes, there are far right elements. The group denies it is fare right. Many sources actually provide quotes from the group saying they deny being far right, fascist, Nazis (they burned a Nazi flag at a "press conference", and/or political. I'm not saying they are not far right. I'm just saying that although it is a "minority view" we need to follow neutrality guidelines and make it clearer.:

• [53] - Prof Matthew Goodwin is an expert on far right groups and advises the Home Office. According to him the group is at a crossroads.
• [54] - director of Kick it Out, the campaign against racism in football. "There is a sub-culture in football that respects some forms of hooliganism, but most football supporters will see through this and see that these groups, with far right links, are creating more hatred than they are protesting against."
• [55] - Mr McCabe, writing on his blog, ...: “This seems to be a pretty unsavoury right-wing alliance + The English Defence League has been accused by critics of being a far-right organisation, a racist organisation or of having links to the BNP, but it vehemently denies the claims.
• [56] The answer lies in a combination of anti-Islamic internet bloggers, who constitute the EDL’s intellectual 'elite’, organised football hooligan 'firms’, who provide the street-fighting muscle, and agitators from the Far Right who spy an opportunity to enflame racial tensions which have grown up around the Muslim community following the bombings in London on July 7 2005.
• [57] - Supporters are understood to have links with far-right groups and football hooligans. Some have been seen making Nazi salutes
• [58] - This group became the English Defence League (EDL), whose protests against Islamic extremists around England have led to claims that it attracts far-right extremists hoping to foment racial tensions and encourage further protests, which the group denies.
• [59] - It is accused of links with far right groups and one government minister has compared their tactics to the fascist street marches of the 1930s. + There also appears to be some loose affiliations with far right groups
• [60] - EDL supporters, who demonstrated close to a mosque in Harrow on Friday and plan a protest in Trafalgar Square today, are alleged to include far-right activists and football hooligans. Oswald Mosley does refer to them as far right in this piece, though.

Sources used in the source currently used to say they are far right. I feel these were cherry picked and for the most part are just a label thrown on by the writer without reasoning provided. There are a few more in the article that do this and were not used.

• [61] - As a label without reasoning provided
• [62] - As a label combined with the Casuals United group. The same source has a claim from a spokesperson that it was not a far-right protest.
• [63] - As a label without reasoning
• [64] - Discusses the Welsh version. They are a sister project. They also did Nazi salutes at a rally which is discouraged by the EDL(officially at least)
• [65] - As a label without analysis. "a spokesman for the Anti-Fascist Action group" tells the paper that some government officials are "fuelling the far-right"
• [66] Again as a label. However, Communities Secretary John Denham does infer that they are far right with " "I think that the EDL and other organisations are not large numbers of people. They clearly, though, have among them people who know what they're doing," he said. "The tactic of trying to provoke a response in the hope of causing wider violence and mayhem is long established on the far-right and among extremist groups." The article stresses twice that the EDL claims to be non-violent. Cptnono ( talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And no, the ANI was to get a a POV-check tag on the article which was removed. Editors want to argue about this one but it was just one of many which I listed. I believe the sources above speak for themselves. Some say link some say alleged and some just say it. If enough are qualifying it like that we should, too. Cptnono ( talk) 06:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Every national newspaper in the UK says they are "far right", so that is not cherry picking, and there are more sources on the article than those you use above. It took some effort to get you to summarise your reasons for the wanting the POV tag, and when you did they were all handled in 24 hours other than those where all other editors disagreed with you. There are no reliable third party sources which say they are not far-right, only their own webnsite and their apologists. -- Snowded ^TALK 06:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, up above I have provided major British reports that qualify it. These include BBC, Telegraph, Scotsman, Birminham Post, Guardian, Sunday Mercury. I also said there are more sources not listed saying far right. Before, I summarized my reasons more than once but people just wanted to argue about this issue. The ANI led to reinstatement of a POV tag that was again removed before everything was resolved. Please stop bogging this down with random allegations. Up above are several sources and explanation of the nuetrality guidelines we need to follow. Cptnono ( talk) 07:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As you say, you have summarised your views more than once, and have not got agreement to them on the article talk page. -- Snowded ^TALK 07:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why it is here. Cptnono ( talk) 07:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) When any dispute exists, use "alleged by." Opinions are dreadful things to vet in any article, to be sure, as they seldom represent absolute fact. Collect ( talk) 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate some of the editors here taking a look. I made a series of edits yesterday upon first encountering the article, removing what appeared to me to be someexamples of biased commentary. [67] [68] [69] [70] are the relevant diffs on my part. Two editors have been reverting, claiming that any changes to the article must meet with their prior approval before being executed. These reverts have been made without regard to the substance of my edits. I must say, I find their attitude a straightforward violation of WP:OWN, and the more distressing as it is in protection of what I consider to be rather clearly biased commentary unworthy of Wikipedia. In their defense, it appears they are interpreting a long-ago agreement that ended an edit war between certain concerned editors, as automatically binding upon all new editors, and giving them the right to revert any edits by new editors that have not gone through an extensive discussion process beforehand. Ray ^Talk 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ray's message is a miniaturization of what the facts are. This is a controversial topic that is under constant dispute, so there was a community consensus by half a dozen editors who were actually in dispute with one and another on that page, that all edits on this page need to be discussed ONE by ONE PRIOR to implementation, in order to avoid further edit-warring. But Ray decided to ignore this, and jump in the middle of an unresolved dispute, and make several major edits that are also related to the ongoing dispute, without bothering to read or use the discussions page at all. As for the substance of his edits, I have discussed them in details here, what he considers "biased commentary", are actually well-sourced facts -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 23:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:RayAYang definitely has point when he took issue with this

“

enabled Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to become an all-powerful monarch, who went on to rule Iran with an iron fist for 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979

”

. I believe No legitimate academic/ WP:RS would ever write such a stupid sounding thing. And one is not provided. If the "consensus" results in such bald face POV writing, then it shouldn't be respected. -- Firefly322 ( talk) 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of POV in that article, to be sure. Not even a close call. Collect ( talk) 12:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Ambiogenesis and the Origin of Life are related, but they are not one in the same as topics. I think that there should be a seperate page for origin of life, because there are many theories to the origin of life besides ambiogenesis. Ambiogenesis has almost no evidence backing it up, and is merely a speculation by scientist of today. Intelligent Design is a topic that has just as much merit to it, and although many may say it is only a religion, it has just as much or more evidence for it as ambiogenesis does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertimegm ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Intelligent design is a fabrication and a non-science used to fight against all or part of the theory of evolution. If you read the article, this is explained very nicely. Also, it's spelled "Abiogenesis." The neutral point of view (please also read) is the point of view that can be backed up reliable sources. It's not about distorting articles to satisfy a subsection of the population that is made uncomfortable by modern scientific understanding. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit surprised to see that origin of life is a redirect to abiogenesis -- it would seem to make more sense the other way around. But I wouldn't call this an NPOV issue. Looie496 ( talk) 02:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the term "abiogenesis" simply describes the emergence of life from non-life. It does not in itself posit the mechanism, or even any naturalistic mechanism. That's why our article qualifies itself with "in the natural sciences" and also contains a link to creation myth for non-scientific alternatives. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I very respectfully submit that the Saul Alinsky article is excessively biased in favor of the subject. To support that opinion, I offer the evidence of most of the articles about Mr. Alinsky that come up on Google after the Wikipedia one. I do not feel it would be appropriate for me to make any substantive editorial additions to increase what I perceive as the lack of neutrality without concurrence of other editors and would appreciate their opinions and direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay2 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that large part of this article is biased and written from a perspective supporting Hagin's ideas and beliefs. For instance, under the heading "Alleged Plagiarism without Legal Challenge" it is stated:

"Hagin chose not to litigate against these reckless and false claims, as would have been his right, as these claims were hearsay meant to damage him apart from a factual basis. Hagin's critics had not understood his exemplary life of avoiding needless harm to others as stated in Romans 12 and other references to bless them which persecute you, bless, and curse not."

Many other statements have a similar tone.

Jan Tik ( talk) 22:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Several users have been including into her article the fact that her son joined AmeriCorps into her section relating to the 111th congress. One example. I have asked numerous times on the talk page how this fact is relevant to her views on AmeriCorps, with the primary responses being that it is;

1. Her son.
2. It is ironic.
3. He is well known.
4. It is sourced.

To which I have responded,

1. The article is NOT about her son.
2. Irony is not a valid reason.
3. He is NOT well known and doesn't have his own article.
4. It is sourced, but that is not relevant, since not everything that is sourced is notable for inclusion.

It would appear that the ONLY reason for inclusion is because Bachmann is against AmeriCorp and the fact that her son joined has been used as a political point to make Bachmann look stipid. There certainly appears to be no other reason for inclusion since it has nothing to do with her congressional record on AmeriCorps other than being used for political purposes. As such I believe it clearly violates NPOV and is borderline BLP since it is being used purely for political purposes to denegrate the subject (Bachmann). Arzel ( talk) 06:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Arzel, your description of the dispute is a complete strawman. Me and other editors call for inclusion of the fact because:

1. Her son (right)
2. It is a well known fact, not a well known person. See WP:WELLKNOWN
3. It is sourced and it has been discussed enough in RS in relation to Bachmann to be notable for inclusion

The fact that I personally found it ironic and said it in a comment is of course not a reason for inclusion, and you're being disingenous in depicting us like we're doing such lame arguments. That you disagree with us, is fine. That you have to invent falsehoods about your opponent's opinions, is not. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Arzel uses WP:BLP as a carte blanche excuse to revert edits with which he disagrees (and here is no exception), for which he's been blocked in the past. Regarding this dispute, he's either right on the line of violating WP:3RR or has already violated it (I haven't dug into the history), and is now coming here to "ask the other parent" because he knows further reverts/edit warring on his part will result in a lengthy block. I'm not making a comment on the validity (or not) of the actual content, but rather noting an important point of order with regards to his (mis?)characterizations of facts and his actions. Also note he didn't bother notifying any other participants in this content dispute regarding his claims here. Addendum - also note that his attempts to remove this content were flatly rejected by uninvolved editors from WP:3O, which he simply ignored. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Blaxthos has made no other contributions in at least a year on that article, and has not engaged in any discussion. He does seem to like to follow me around though. Also, I didn't ignore the other opinions, but they simply didn't provide any rational reason for inclusion. Arzel ( talk) 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "any rational reason with which I agree", which doesn't excuse edit warring (and especially doesn't excuse edit warring under the false pretense of " WP:BLP") (and most most especially when you've been twice rebuked by multiple uninvolved editors during official dispute resolution processes). WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT anyone? // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What false pretense, I believe it is a boarderline BLP violation, but more so a NPOV violation. 3rd opinion is not an official dispute resolution process. Also, before you accuse me of not notifying anyone you should give me a few minutes to notify people. Arzel ( talk) 06:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How many editors have to disagree with you before you'll recognize that consensus is against you? You've been rebuked and blocked previously when making spurious claims of WP:BLP, and we're up to three or four editors who now oppose your edits. Continued defiance of consensus and flagrant misrepresentation of facts and policy is disruptive behavior, and should be met with a block (and probably a topic ban). // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is an idea, why not discuss my concerns rather than fly the overdone concensus issue. Give me one good reason why the actions of her son are relevant to her views on AmeriCorp. Because to me it looks like an attempt to paint Bachmann by the actions of her son, thus violating NPOV and BLP. Additionally, please stop with the accusations against me, I grow very tired of your whining about my edit behavior. If you have a problem report me and stop bitching about it. Additionally, Blaxthos has followed me to another article. Isn't there something about wiki-stalking? Arzel ( talk) 20:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Narcissism much? We both edit politically charged articles; also note said edit actually supported your edit; regardless this isn't the forum. To answer your one germane question, I direct you to the multiple third opinions from uninvolved editors that explained why the content over which you've edit warred is (1) absolutely not a " WP:BLP" [sic]; and (2) entirely appropriate. This is a clear case of WP:HEAR, which was noted by other editors long before I got involved. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(od)Are you going to give a reason why the actions of her grown son (an adult over the age of 18) have anything to do with Bachmann's views on AmeriCorp? Just saying something is appropriate without giving any rational why it is appropriate does not make it so. Arzel ( talk) 14:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to again direct you to the article's talk page, where many other editors have already covered this. It would appear that you refuse to acknowledge such so you can try to play this drama out here and hope for a different result. I'm going to stop taking the bait; our back and forth here has come to look petty, and I really don't see any point in continuing it. If outside opinions wish to render themselves, that may help, otherwise I don't see the utility in repeating myself ad infinitum whilst you ignore the obvious. Cheers. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. You have NO rational, just like those on the article talk page. Arzel ( talk) 20:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I anticipate that everyone will hate my solution, but here it goes: let us attribute the publicity associated with this fact to Bachmann's political opponents. That's essentially why this received any notice at all. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that her political opponents attacked her. Maybe we can dig up a source that provides her response to their derision. Normally we want to go with WP:ASF, but in this case the facts in question are only relevant due to their political undertones. It is dishonest for Wikipedia to not discuss that this is the case due to the obscurity of this particular bit of information. From the sources cited it is apparent that the people who discovered her son had joined TfA had to do some serious sleuthing to figure it out. ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I support ScienceApologist proposal. Sounds more than reasonable. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support that solution IF it decided that this belongs in the article at all. But I'm not convinced it should even be mentioned. While it has been fodder for her critics (and yes, it is ironic, thus interesting) it is not really a notable event for her biography and did not garner a lot of attention (unlike many other controversies in her life). It's one of the items that inches the article towards WP:COATRACK territory, under the guise of "criticism." -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, however to me ScienceApologist proposal seems to save both NPOV/UNDUE on one side and WP:WELLKNOWN on the other side. There's no coatrack in citing a fact and explicitly saying that it has been uncovered/discussed by her opponents. I personally see no coatrack even without mentioning that (I still don't understand why this information is an attack/"guilt by association"/whatever), but I understand it can be a fine line. -- Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you can't see this to be a political attack. I also reiterate that the actions of her son still have NOTHING to do with her views on AmeriCorp. Arzel ( talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an obvious attempt to minimize the Congresswoman herself by showing "Not even her family agrees with her". The fact is, the voters of MN District 6 agree with her enough to elect (and re-elect) her in years that Republicans nationally did terribly. There is absolutely no reason for this issue to be included in an article about Michelle Bachmann. If you think it's notable and want to add it to AmeriCorp, or start a new article, go for it - see if the true consensus agrees with you. Rapier1 ( talk) 22:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:Northern Ireland#RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country" concerning an NPOV matter. Perhaps I am just being dumb, but it appears to me that an overwhelming majority in that RfC refuses to acknowledge an obvious POV problem. I think the RfC deserves wider attention.

Northern Ireland has close political and cultural ties to both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Since Northern Ireland and the UK have a complicated history and no written constitution, it is not at all clear what Northern Ireland actually is. Obviously it is much more than a loosely defined region, and much less than a sovereign national state. But what exactly is it, expressed in words that fit into the first sentence of the article? Hans Adler 11:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is that portion of Ireland which remains part of the United Kingdom as a result of a vote in the Parliament of Northern Ireland and with boundaries ratified by the Dail of Ireland. As such, it is a "kingdom" literally. As are Scotland and England, with Wales being either a kingdom or principality depending on how you look at it historically. Collect ( talk) 12:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I think if there were any reliable sources for the claim that NI is a kingdom they would have been mentioned by now. Apparently the general view is that (at least in this case, and there seem to be no other modern cases) a "united kingdom" is a single kingdom consisting of "countries". If you were right I would expect plenty of Google hits for "Kingdom of Northern Ireland". But there are only few, and the majority are either of the form "A historical region and ancient kingdom of northern Ireland" (in the definition of Ulster) or of the form "United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain". Most other cases seem to be clear mistakes, such as "United Kingdom of Northern Ireland".

Anyway, the problem is now being taken seriously. Unfortunately there are still some extraordinarily rigid positions there, insisting that the first sentence must use " country" as opposed to " country of the United Kingdom", since uniformity between all four articles had been a major argument when resolving a dispute concerning country vs. nation at Scotland. I think neutral input is still welcome. Hans Adler 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The issues are whether consistency between the four country articles should outweigh everything else, given the asymmetrical historical development of the administrative arrangements of the different areas, and whether inconsistency would lead to a more general unravelling of consensus positions. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

“One of the four countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” appears to be widely acceptable. Indeed it has so few adjectives in it and is so anodyne that it is difficult to see how it could be contentious and would also satisy the consistency issue, if necessary. The issue the chief protagonist has with it is that he insists that a very large footnote citing sources which might have potentially concern to others, raising issues about style, presentation and content. Leaky Caldron 13:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the proposed note is quite long (it could be made briefer) but it does fully explain the issues involved in as neutral a fashion as possible. TBH there's no need for use of any of these words ("province", "region", "country") in which case their "absence" could simply be explained in a brief footnote to the effect that the issue of "what is Northern Ireland" is complex and fraught. (This is pretty much what other encyclopedias do.) My suggestion for the wording above was as a means to include the word "county" in a way that is at least fairly uncontroversial - but it does require explaining that even in that context calling Northern Ireland a "country" is should not be taken a face value. It was only one of many proposals (by me and others) and I think I agreed with all proposals except one.

The insistence of "consistency" with England, Scotland and Wales is to my mind far more of a sticking point. It precluded movement of any kind or any change of the more nuanced treatment that Northern Ireland deserves. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Queen Elizabeth II at coronation was styled "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland" etc. [71] notes usage of "Queen of Northern Ireland" , and there is still "Queen's Counsel" as a title in Northern Ireland. Thus suggesting that NI is, indeed, a kingdom. She is also "Duke of Normandy" and "Duke of Lancaster" by the way. Collect ( talk) 13:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NI is not a kingdom: it is part of a kingdom. In the same way that England, Scotland and Wales are not kingdoms, but they all form part of a single United Kingdom. Mooretwin ( talk) 13:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not an issue whether Northern Ireland is a kingdom. Perhaps it would be easier to agree on that than on it being a country, but that's irrelevant. The issue is what to say in the first sentence of the article. Is it enough to say it's "part of the UK", or must it be "a country of the UK", or even "a country that is part of the UK"? I don't think you are going to get much support for "Northern Ireland is a kingdom that is part of the United Kingdom" as the first sentence. Northern Ireland's kingdomness is definitely not something that reliable sources stress in this way, and neither do they stress that of England or Scotland. (In these cases "Kingdom of..." is typically used to make it clear that one refers to a historical pre-union entity.)

Besides, I am not sure that everybody would agree that a country must be a kingdom just because it has a king or queen. Elizabeth II is also Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia etc., but in this context these countries are referred to as monarchies rather than kingdoms. [72] (I guess this is to avoid offending people. Kingdom sounds a bit more as if the queen had actual control.) Hans Adler 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada and Australia are kingdoms but not styled as such. As Collect's source points out "Queen Elizabeth was crowned, and remains, Queen of Northern Ireland" (not Ireland). NI is not part of the UK, but part of the "the UK and NI", formerly the "UK and Ireland". So NI can be seen as both a country or nation on its own or as part of either Eire or the "UK and NI". It is common but incorrect to call NI a province. It consists of 6 counties of the Province of Ulster, but 3 counties are in Eire. Since NI has no long form name, how to describe it will unfortunately remain a problem. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actualy its the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So yes it is a region of the UK, just not of Great britain. Slatersteven ( talk) 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is separate from Northern Ireland. Together they form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is a united kingdom of England and Scotland. The Kingdom of Ireland was never united. See the Acts of Union 1707: "The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states, with separate legislatures but with the same monarch) into a single Kingdom of Great Britain." The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created by the The Acts of Union 1800 (sometimes called the Acts of Union 1801) describe two complementary Acts, namely:

the Union with Ireland Act 1800 (1800 c.67 39 and 40 Geo 3), an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, and

the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 (1800 c.38 40 Geo 3), an Act of the Parliament of Ireland.

The twin Acts united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The union came into effect on 1 January 1801.

The Act of 1707 does not mention Ireland becasue it was not subject to (nor party to) it clauses. That is why the union flag differs after the two acts. One includeds Ireland, one does not. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This article contains a clearly biased paragraph:

A criticism of the geolibertarian view of property is that scarcity determines the necessity of property rights. Thus, the fact that land is scarce is seen as all the more reason to make it private property. However, this is a non sequitur, as market allocation mechanisms can work just as well if an item in fixed supply such as land is public property. Geolibertarians consequently draw a distinction between land ownership and land tenure (see above). The notion that scarcity requires the scarce item to be appropriated as private property leads to absurd conclusions, such as that private owners should be privileged to charge other citizens for access to government services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.187.86 ( talk) 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a dispute currently going on at the aforementioned article, as to whether the environmental or the hereditarian hypothesis is overrepresented in the article in view of its real-world importance (or maybe the balance is right as it is). Editors are welcome to chime in on the talk page itself.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

After perusing this article, I've got to say that the current version looks fairly unbalanced. If there is a significant body of scientists out there that support a partially genetic basis for racial differences in IQ, then that proportion of scientists should be accurately represented in the article, and the article should not be written under the assumption that this conclusion is false. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 04:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is, those scientist that support a partially genetic basis are a very small, very vocal minority.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Varoon Arya pointed out on the article talk page, the Snyderman and Rothman study shows that it isn't a minority viewpoint among intelligence researchers. It's a minority viewpoint when you also factor in the viewpoints of anthropologists and philosophers, but the fact that this idea is supported by a majority of experts in one of the relevant fields should be enough to make it inappropriate for the article to present this idea as definitely wrong. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting that geneticists too reject the notion.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 05:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Occam, why are you citing a non-scientific survey from 1987 that doesn't fully attempt to address this question? The American Psychological Association consensus statement (based on published evidence, not selectively solicited opinions) from 1996 clearly states that there is NO evidence for a genetic basis for between group IQ differences (which we should be clear is very different from a parents' genes affecting a child's intelligence) and SOME evidence for the environmental hypothesis. The fringe position is that between group differences are primarily affected by genetics as opposed to environment. There is no proof other than massaged statistics... all of which are highly questioned in the literature by many types of scientists. (PS to those new to the group of "Race and..." articles, isn't it cute how editors with almost NO history suddenly appear "perusing this article" and commenting at this noticeboard.) T34CH ( talk) 16:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

T34CH: Varoon Arya and Ramdrake have debated at length about the significance of the Snyderman and Rothman study, both on the race and intelligence talk page and on the talk page for the article about this study. What I’ve stated here is the conclusion that they’ve agreed on, but I shouldn’t have to rehash the entire discussion that resulted in this conclusion. You can read the discussion for yourself, or not read it, but either way it isn’t my problem that you don’t appear to understand what the current consensus is about this study.

Judging by your edit history since October 29th, you appear to have no interest in participating in any of these discussions except when you have the opportunity to influence consensus, so your unfamiliarity with these topics is your own fault. (This also makes it pretty hypocritical for you to complain about Ferahgo the Assassin acting similarly—at least this editor has been editing Wikipedia sporadically for the past year, rather than suddenly jumping into the Race and intelligence article three months ago with no prior participation here.) -- Captain Occam ( talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Where have I said that I agree with the conclusions of the Snyderman and Rothman study? That I remember, I've been saying its methodology was flawed (selection bias for one, push poll for another) which allowed it to reach the conclusions it did.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You said on the Race and intelligence talk page: “we can even say that while #3 (the partially-genetic view) finds support among psychologists, it seems to be rejected by other sciences, with appropriate references, of course.” (This was in response to a point from VA about the Snyderman and Rothman study.) This seems to be a reflection of your exchange with exchange with Varoon Arya at here and here. He asked you over a week ago to find a reliable source that supported your criticisms, and with your lack of response there as well as your subsequent comment on the R & I talk page, you’ve made it clear that you haven’t found any.

This is currently the consensus—that these criticisms don’t exist in any reliable sources—and it will most likely remain the consensus until someone provides an example of a reliable source that makes one of these criticisms. As I said, your comment on the race and intelligence talk page seems to be an acknowledgement of this fact. What you’re claiming now is essentially just Wikipedia:I just don't like it, which is not to be confused with what consensus has established. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 22:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the survey, I can find several ways in which it might not be representative (the fact that 35% of the survey sample didn't bother to respond, the fact that the sample was hand-selected rather than randomly selected, the fact that it bunches up together anything between 100%genetic-0%environment and 0%genetic-100%environmental, all these make me doubt the statistical significance of the survey as a true representation of the experts in the field. However, on the other hand, I haven't yet found a systematic review of this paper. This doesn't mean that I can't find fault with it.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but the relevant issue with this study (or with any study, for that matter) is way that it’s been covered in reliable sources. This is what we need to consider when deciding what should be included in the article, both because NPOV policy states that articles need to be based on the coverage that their topics have received in reliable sources, and because any criticisms of this study that haven’t appeared in reliable sources are original research.

Your comment that I quoted seems to be an acknowledgement of the fact that this is the course of action required by Wikipedia’s policies, so I’m not sure why you’re disputing this now. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not having RS that made the same observations I made, I obviously wouldn't put that in the Snyderman & Rothman article. But my reservations are strong enough that I can't accept this as proof that most "intelligence experts" agree with the partly-genetic hypothesis. It's an opinion, like many others.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 00:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you’re entitled to your personal opinion about this study. But as I said before, what goes in Wikipedia articles (either the Race and intelligence article or the one about this study) needs to be based on what’s been reported in reliable sources, not based on our personal opinions which haven’t been expressed by any reliable sources.

You posted about this issue here in order to get the opinions of uninvolved editors about whether the article is unbalanced. So far, the only one who’s responded agreed with the consensus on the article talk page that it’s unbalanced in favor of the 100%-environment view, and that re-using material from 2006 would be a helpful solution. Including Ferahgo the Assassin, there are now six editors who’ve expressed agreement with re-using elements of the earlier version, while the only editors who’ve expressed disagreement are you, Slrubenstein, and (possibly) T34CH. (The reason I’m not sure in his case is because the only thing he’s specifically said that he opposes is reverting the whole article; he hasn’t said either way about just re-using certain elements from the earlier version.) Six to three in favor of this would qualify as a consensus. We can give this thread another day or so see if anyone else responds to it, but assuming that no one does, I hope you’re willing to accept that the direction taken by this article needs to be based on consensus, not based on your personal opinion. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about giving it one week instead of one day? Why do you want to rush this change through? Also,counting from the page, I see, in favor: yourself, Varoon, David Kane, Ferahgo the Assassin and possibly Distibutive Justice, for a total of 5. Opposed, I see myself, Slrubenstein, Fences and Windows, and T34CH, for a total of 4. Hardly a consensus.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What Fences & Windows said was, “Please don't start a sandbox version, and don't restore version from 3 years ago […] By all means take ideas from earlier versions, but discuss those that might prove controversial first.” In other words he opposes reverting the whole article, but approves of reusing material from the earlier version, as long as it’s been discussed first.

There are two reasons why I’d like this issue to be resolved sooner rather than later. The first is that Varoon Arya has expressed concerned about off-wiki stealth canvassing going on in order to block this proposal ( here), and as I stated here, T34CH’s sudden reappearance as soon as we began discussing this has made me concerned about the same thing. To use VA’s term, you and Slrubenstein probably have the necessary “connections” to canvass enough other editors to turn consensus against my proposal, if either of you decide to do so. However, the current discussion is mostly limited to editors who have been currently involved in this article, so if any stealth canvassing is (or will be) going on, it hasn’t significantly affected consensus yet. I’d prefer that this discussion be resolved while that remains the case.

We shouldn’t need a week for this, and I worry a little that the reason you want this is so there will be more of an opportunity for stealth canvassing. If we end up waiting close to that amount of time, I hope I’m wrong about the reason you wanted this.

The second reason I’d like to resolve this as soon as possible is a direct result of the article’s recent history. It seems like every few weeks, someone comes along and makes a huge number of changes to the article without discussing them first, and the ensuing discussion about these new edits ends up filling so much space that all earlier discussions are pushed into the talk page archives, where they can no longer be edited. To go with the most recent example, all of the discussions which were occurring before T34CH’s recent bout of edits are permanently unresolved for this reason. Depending on how long I wait for feedback on my proposal, something similar to this may happen again, and cause the discussion about my proposal to suffer the same fate.

In any case, waiting only another day was just a suggestion from me; we don’t have to actually abide by that. The fact of the matter is that the only standard which really matters here is whether the editors currently involved in the article are still voicing their opinions. As long as they still are, the discussion isn’t over yet. But once every editor involved in the article has expressed their opinion as much as they’re going to, there’s no need to wait any longer than that, unless someone wants additional time to canvass editors who abandoned the article months ago. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) So, after you votestacked the issue, you now want to steamroll it to ensure there isn't enough time for people to discuss the issue and chime in properly? Interesting way to try to get your way. Also, thoroughly objectionable. But there's no need to do this: a lot of editors have this article on their watchlist, and even though they may have been silent up to now, they will eventually make thir voices heard, one way or another. No need for canvassing.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn’t we already discuss the votestacking issue? I’ll quote my earlier comment about this, to which you had nothing to say in response:

“Ramdrake: I contacted all of the editors who were currently involved in the article except you, and the only reason I didn’t contact you also is because you’d commented on my proposal already. It’s a bit of a stretch to call it “votestacking” when I’ve sent notices about a discussion to all of an article’s active users who weren’t already participating in the discussion. If I were actually trying to stack votes in my favor, I would have contacted Aprock also, since he’s someone who approved of my suggestion and is no longer participating here.”

I know you saw this comment, because you continued to participate in the discussion page after I’d posted it, even though you did not attempt to address my explanation of why I contacted who I did. By continuing to make this accusation against me while not providing any evidence for why my own explanation of what I did is inadequate, you are violating WP:NPA. Stop it.

The discussion about this on the Race and intelligence talk page has been inactive for around a day now, and it’s no longer the weekend. (You initially said that you wanted to wait until the weekend was over before making a decision, since fewer editors are active on weekends.) Waiting another week, until next weekend, is excessive. When I think we’ve waited long enough, I’ll be posting something on the article talk page about the best way to proceed in light of the results of the discussion, and anyone who thinks it hasn’t been long enough by that point can express their opinion about this there. If no one except you thinks we need to wait for an entire week, you’ll need to accept the consensus about this also. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No issue with content, if its properly sourced, but title, tone and some of the word choices could possibly be more...neutral, especially when compared to similar articles on the West Bank like List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus... -- nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 16:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is now a template too: {{Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel}} -- nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have addedd a reference to an LA Times article ^[8]. under "Obama Administration critisizm of Fox News" twice only to have it removed twice by a person that doesn't like the source (feels it's biased). I maintain that the fact that it was reported is the issue here and the edit fairly represented those facts, along with a clear referance to the White House denial. My position is that these facts are not-debatable...they occured, are "notable" and should be referenced in that section or a section of their own. Looking for calm and reasoned opinions here. Rapier1 ( talk) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has only a single interested editor, and seems POVish in my opinion... positive content is removed or deprecated, negative is highlighted, content is slanted. I have no interest in pursuing this barely-notable health spa article, and the POV tag I had attached has been removed twice by the only editor. I won't edit war it in, and I find communicating with the editor there unpleasant. Just a call to see if interested eyes might be drawn to the article. - Sinneed 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor, I have read this article and see no basis for your tags, so I have removed them. This sort of drive-by tagging is unacceptable unless you clearly explain on the talk page the specific parts of the article that are objectionable -- you haven't done so. You can't maintain a tag just because you see the article as non-neutral, you have to give editors some concrete information about what it would take to get you to remove the tag. Looie496 ( talk) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"This sort of drive-by tagging ..." - that was not nice. If you review, you may find your statement to contain a falsehood. In any event, thank you for your review.- Sinneed 05:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The below has recently been brought to my attention. It appears the editor, Hiberniae has engaged in a prolonged and sustained campaign using wikipedia to forward his negative agenda against kedco Since being cited by Dekisugi for vandalism on December 11 2008 for a personalised attack using the Kedco Page his campaign has been intensified: The unhealthy personal obsession with this company drives the point of view and tone of all his edits, resulting in a negatively biased wikipedia page. References for the negative observations are unreliable and include his own personal blog wood-pellet-ireland.blogspot.com where he makes no secret of his 'agenda'.

Since he setup his wikipedia account almost a year ago, 98.8% of edits have been on Kedco and closely reflect the tone of the 11 separate blog posts that reference Kedco in a negative manner. Despite some editors' attempts to remove the bias (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kedco#Corrections ) Hiberniae has displayed a steely determination to keep his biased point of view on the page by repeatedly reverting edits. This resulted in what looks like a recent "edit war" resulting in the page being protected with his controversial content included. Surely it would be more 'neutral' to protect the page with the biased material excluded? RenewableK ( talk) 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you made any attempt at all to discuss this with Hiberniae before coming here? I don't see any sign of it -- no messages from you on the Kedco talk page. Or is it possible that you're the sock who provoked the edit protection, given that the message above is your first and only contrib? Looie496 ( talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. No, I have not discussed anything with Hiberniae previously as this was only brought to my attention very recently by someone concerned with the extent of the discussion arguments and negative bias on the wiki page. I am a relative newbie(if you can access my a/c details?, it will probably make it clearer) to wikipedia and made contact here as it was a reccommended forum through research I did before posting. I have just discovered what a sock is now after your question above and no I am not one. From my reading of the discussion page there has been prolonged discussion on the issue of bias to date with Hiberniae, Seamus72 and a number of IP numbers. The substantive issue here in my opinion is that the a/c Hiberniae was setup for the sole purpose of attacking Kedco with negative bias at every opportunity. The same person very early referred to the CEO as Fuckley(instead of Buckley) - hardly an encyclopedic reference or display of neutrality?

I am wondering is it possible to talk with an administrator directly around such issues of abuse of wikipedia? RenewableK ( talk) 12:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ameriprise Financial page has a POV tag on it. I am an Ameriprise advisor, and have been since April, so I really don't want to remove it. However, going through the article and the discussion page I see one person that seems to hate the company for some reason, and a lot of people trying to make good faith edits. I'm afraid I don't see the POV problems, but then again I am a suspect source. Please examine the site and if we could come to a consensus and either fix the problems or remove the tag. Thanks! Rapier1 ( talk) 04:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Thanks for being open about your status and for seeking discussion. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I note the History section has some terse one sentence descriptions of major milestones, yet later there is a whole section going into some depth about legal troubles spanning only the last four years. And another section devoted to a single sentence about a computer security lapse. Now other than the one sourcing to The Register (which is somewhat tabloidesque and does not have the best reputation for fact-checking), the sourcing appears fine. So I can see the merit of arguing the page has undue weight issues. I'll have a go. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I place a {{ disputed}} tag on a section at Mole (unit). It was removed claiming that no rationale was given so I re-added it referring explicitly to the previous talk page comments. It has since been removed again claiming my comments are not substantial enough. I'll accept that my comments do not represent a complete statement of case but they are enough to point out precisely where the problem area is, that the current section is unsourced and actually goes against sources it acknowledges in the text. The opponents of the template have also presented 'no case either subsequent to my comments or previous talk page comments along the same lines.

I do not propose to get involved in a protracted discussion of the substantive issue here - it is after all an inappropriate place for that debate. However it seems fundamentally wrong to remove such a tag without any prior discussion or addressing the concerns raised. I'm reluctant to re-add the template again since it would arguably be going into 3RR territory (although I am confident I could justify my actions under that policy) so does anyone have any useful views or input? CrispMuncher ( talk) 12:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You have not made a single post on the talk page. You need to contribute to the discussion there, not just add tags while waving your hands toward a previous discussion. Looie496 ( talk) 15:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't start a new thread, but I certainly made a post - look at the edit history. CrispMuncher ( talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Fight_Dragons

Original:

Tour

In September 2009, they began their US Tour with punk group Whole Wheat Bread and popular nerdcore-hiphop artist MC Chris. On this tour Brandon Majors, in a concert review, described the sound of I Fight Dragons as "a bit recycled."[8] In another concert review on the same tour, Noelle Lynn Blood wrote that "[t]he band's style was fairly original" but noted that they "failed to harmonize between the three singing members and this killed their overall impact."[9] In a short, positive review on his blog, Mankvill describes I Fight Dragons as "a fun band who plays pop punk/rock with chiptunes" with a sound that's "[i]nfectious as hell."[10][11]I Fight Dragons just raised a cool $10,000 for their band in under 48 hours. They offered fans a chance to buy a lifetime subscription to the band's music -- including anything and everything they ever release -- for $100, and limited the number of available subscriptions to 100... ...I Fight Dragons were already doing an exemplary job of offering fans and mailing list members a steady stream of free high-quality MP3s while leveraging social media to deepen their connections with their audience. We view this latest move as the payoff for all that community building and we hope that this provides an example for other groups to follow in the future.

Who is we? Why are our hopes being expressed on Wikipedia? Why is Wikipedia quoting opinions from reviews? The reason for these revisions: Much of the above content has nothing to do with touring, and is based in personal opinion. Revised:

Tour

I Fight Dragons appeared in concert at Dragoncon 09 in Atlanta, Georgia. In September 2009, they began their first US Tour with punk/rap group Whole Wheat Bread and nerdcore-hiphop artist MC Chris. A critical portion of their touring process is a social network they call the Advanced Guard, a group of fans that help promote the shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.131.194 ( talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed a sentence from there which I considered not to be neutral, or someone's opinion; don't we need references for such things? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

References would be awkward on the main page. Though there is still de-facto discrimination in the US, 1) the situation is somewhat better now, 2) racism was never and is still not just in the South, and 3) the sentence you removed wasn't really necessary to understanding racism in America 70 years ago.-- chaser ( talk) 16:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Fox News Channel article there are several areas where politial partisanship is causing edit wars. In this particular case, editors are sourcing Media Matters For America in a section that claims that FNC has misrepresented facts. I have no problem with the section being there, but I believe (and have created the edit) that if we are going to source a group that is self-identified as "Progressive", and specifically dedicated to being a "watchdog of conservative media", then it is completely appropriate, and in fact necessary, to state this up front in that section as stating "The self-described "progressive" group Media Matters For America has catalogued what it believes are the most...". This edit continues to be erased by partisan editors on the Left and I'd like a consensus on the issue. SIDENOTE: The word "Accusations" is continually removed as well. I maintain that this is a "controversies" section because these facts are not universally accepted, and the article should not try to present these accusations as anything other than that. Let the reader form their own opinion. Rapier1 ( talk) 05:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As a left wing liberal, I have to agree. My personal view is that FNC is rubbish, but there has to be a myriad selection of objective, non-partisan sources that state such which can be included in place of any source that labels itself with a partisan POV. I would submit that there exists a neccesisty to include within the FNC article, as well as CNN, MSNBC, etc, sections which break down what each of the networks does within the realm of objective journalism versus what they program for pure opinion, or opinion in the guise of objective journalism. To take a current headline, Lou Dobbs quit CNN yesterday not coincidentally long after CNN proved the Birthers are nonsense but Lou decided to lend credence to the movement anyway. Hiberniantears ( talk) 06:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear case of trying to influence the reader's opinion of the source before reading the criticism, thereby neutering it. A classic example of poisoning the well. Media Matters for America is Wikilinked, should readers need to do some reading on the source -- spoon-feeding an opinion in this manner is inappropriate, which has been consistently upheld in previous discussions surrounding this very organization. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the support. There seems to be one editor (Blaxos) that continually reverts good-faith edits on the FNC site because he feels that the chennel isn't truly a "news network". The Left feels FOX is too biased, the Right feels MSNBC and CNN are biased. If we are to maintain neutrality and an encylopedic point of view then we have to resist the temptation to edit each page in an attempt to minimize them. I'd really appreciate some assistance trying to develop a consensus on these issues. Thanks! Rapier1 ( talk) 18:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a flat out lie. One, The discussion here is regarding labeling of MMFA, which I have only reverted once, and have since been participating in discussions (like this one!). Two, all of your responses are peppered with strawman arguments about the motives of other editors, and how they're completely wrong. I don't appreciate the false accusations. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

News from Fox is RS. Opinions from people on Fox is opinion. Just like MSNBC, or any other source. Opinion providers are not the same as the network news, and there is a big difference between deliberate misrepresentation of facts and having differences of opinions. MMFA frequently blurs that line, and claims misrepresentation of fact where what really is occuring is a matter of opinion. I have not found any reliable source for the news reports being deliberaltely faulty, and the characterization of FNC as deliberately doing such must, perforce, be labeled as opinion of a specif group (which is self-characterized as a watchdog for anything it thinks is right wing). Collect ( talk) 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Mark Foley and Mark Sanford sex scandals had both labelled as Democrats during the news broadcasts. Foley, I could understand, but Sanford was the chairman of the Republican Governor's Association. A fact that was picked up by our dear friend Stephen. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Blaxthos, explain to me then why it is not posioning the well to add "conservative" to the Media Research Center on The Media Elite article? [73] John Asfukzenski ( talk) 18:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"This is a clear case of trying to influence the reader's opinion of the source before reading the criticism." What? Poisoning the well has nothing to do with describing the organization the same way it describes itself on its own website. It would be disingenuous not to provide the context in this case. As the user above me pointed out, you appear to follow the same logic when it suits your political views.— DMCer ™ 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So I think there has been some confusion here. Originally, the text that was inserted was using the subjective and contested phrase "left-leaning website", which is absolutely unacceptable. Also, previously the article had already described MMFA accurately (NFP media watchdog), so I felt it was completely unnecessary to seek out and label MMFA each time it is mentioned (which is unnecessary). It looks like the previous mention of MMFA is no longer in the article, so I'm perfectly okay with using MMFA's self description (not buzzwords like "liberal" or "left-leaning"). Editors on the talk page have been talking about how they believe MMFA has an "agenda" that must be mentioned, and the falsely stating that said "agenda" is against conservatives. MMFA's only purpose is as a media watchdog -- they have no stated intent of limiting their criticism to media organizations with a conservative agenda. Indeed, a reasonable person could easily say that it just so happens that conservative media just happens to be the ones consistently misrepresenting facts, organizing and promoting conservative "tea parties", switching video footage to give the impression that conservative rallies are more popular than they are, doctoring photographs of other journalists, etc etc etc. I'm fine with the self-described "Progressive Media Watchdog" label once in the text; I'm not okay with people trying to extend labeling or imply agendas beyond what the organization themselves state. Hope this helps. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, again. As I've stated before in our dabate, as per the website of Media Matters For America at ( http://mediamatters.org/p/about_us/) they state the following: "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.". That's pretty blatant to me. Now, I'll assume that you were unaware of this fact, rather than attempting to deliberately mislead to push a particular agenda. The fact that MMFA's intent is to monitor conservative media is stated by MMFA. Whether or ot you personally believe that to be the case is irrelevent from an encyclopedic point of view. If this organization is going to be used as a source in an encyclopedia, then in order to preserve NPOV, they have to be referred to as a biased source. Rapier1 ( talk) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." appears to state that they do not examine any liberal misinformation. Yes -- the agenda is against conservatives, in their own words. Collect ( talk) 21:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I was under the impression they did not limit their research and criticisms to one particular ideology. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When Media Matters is used as a source for facts, there is no need to mention them in the text only in the footnote. When their opinion is mentioned then it is appropriate to mention their political leaning. In the current example Fox News showed the wrong footage when covering a "Tea Party" event (fact) and MM said it was intentional (opinion). The larger problem here however is the some editors are presenting the numerous examples of inaccuracy in FN in order to provide an impression that their news reporting is biased. That is pure synthesis. If they want to show that FN is biased they should provide a reliable source that says so. The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I request some input regarding a dispute at the above talk page. The dispute revolves around the history and founding of Sinn Féin. The differing viewpoints will be clear from reading the talk page, but it boils down to this. The current Sinn Féin party' led by Gerry Adams, sees itself as the rightful successor (or indeed one and the same party) as the original party founded in 1905 by Arthur Griffith. This is supported by three references.

• Sinn Féin: A Century of Struggle, published by Parnell Publications and edited by Micheal MacDonncha (former editor on An Phoblacht). This is Sinn Féin's own publication.
• Sinn Féin, 1905-2005: in the shadow of gunmen, by Kevin Rafter. No one has actually provided any content from this, so it would appear the source is solely the title
• Sinn Féin: a hundred turbulent years, by Brian Feeney. However Feeney seems to contradict the view that the current party were founded in 1905, writing: "In early 1970 neither the Provisional IRA nor its political mouthpiece Provisional Sinn Fein, had much of an existence outside west Belfast. Its new Dublin-based leaders had almost no followers. There were of course, pockets of support around Ireland where various individuals in the republican movement, emotionally spurred by the events of August 1969, gave their backing to the breakaway group, which as yet had no organisation on the ground" the following page he says: "Others both inside and outside the movement viewed the Provisionals as a dangerous backward looking offshoot from a republican movement that had spent the best part of ten years trying to jettison irredentist violence and rhetoric"

Mooretwin has provided several sources to support 1970 as the date of formation:

• Richard English (2004), Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, Oxford University Press, p.107
  • Traditionalists like Mac Stiofain saw the way things were going: taking about a third of the delegates with him, the Provisionals’ Chief of Staff departed, reassembled in a pre-booked hall for another meeting, formed what became Provisional Sinn Féin (PSF) and announced publicly that a Provisional Army Council had been set up to reorganize the IRA.
• Jonathan Bardon (2005), A History of Ulster. Blackstaff Press Ltd, p. 675
  • [Sean Mac Stiofain] led the coup that split the movement in December 1969. The breakaway group, as an interim arrangement, elected a provisional executive just before Christmas, with Mac Stiofain as chief of staff and Ruari O Bradaigh as president of Provisional Sinn Féin, its political counterpart. Ten months later they stated that this temporary period was over, but the names Provisional Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA remained with them ever since.
• Brendan O'Brien (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the IRA: From 1916 Onwards, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.75
  • In a pre-planned move they immediately went to a Dublin city venue to form a caretaker executive of a new (Provisional) Sinn Féin.
• Ed Moloney (2007), A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books, p.72
  • Later that evening they met to set up an Executive for their own version of Sinn Féin and elected Ruari O Bradaigh as the first Provisional Sinn Féin president.
• S. J. Connolly (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Companion to Irish History, Oxford University Press, p. 543
  • … the movement split in January 1970 into official and provisional Sinn Féin, mirroring the split within the IRA the previous month.
• Thomas Hennessey (2005), Northern Ireland: The Origins of the Troubles, Gill & Macmillan, p.358
  • And from this point there were two IRAs … matched by two parallel Sinn Féins – Official Sinn Féin and Provisional Sinn Féin.
• Brian Feeney (2007), O'Brien Pocket History of the Troubles, O'Brien Press Ltd, p.138
  • Chronology: 1970. January. Provisional Sinn Féin founded.
• W.D. Flackes and Sydney Elliott (1994), Northern Ireland: A Political Directory 1968-1993, Gill & Macmillan Ltd, p. 284
  • Entry for PROVISIONAL SINN FÉIN: The political counterpart of PIRA which dates from January 1970, when the split occurred in the Republican movement.
• CAIN Abstracts on Organisations
  • Entry for Sinn Féin (SF) [synonyms: Provisional Sinn Féin]: The party was formed out the split in the IRA in January 1970 when the original SF split into the Official SF and the Provisional SF.
• BBC Fact Files.
  • The modern party was founded in 1970 when Provisional Sinn Fein split from Official Sinn Fein, although it derives its name from an organisation founded by Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith in 1905.
• Kevin Rafter (2005), Sinn Féin 1905-2005: In the Shadow of Gunmen, Gill & Macmillan, p.96
  • MacStiofain and his supporters had prevented the constitutional change but they were in a minority. They quickly departed to form a new organisation that would shortly come to represent the traditional republican doctrines and a majority within the militant republican constituency on the island. The new movement pledged its 'allegiance to the 32-County Irish Republic proclaimed at Easter 1916 ... etc.
  • After the split in the republican movement in 1969-70, Adams sided with the newly established Provisional movement. (p.9)
  • ... nobody, and no party, has a monopoly on the legacy of 1905. (p.18)

So basically there are two schools of thought on this. At present, the claim that the current party were founded in 1905 is given preference above the view that they were founded in 1970 following the party's split. This is reflected in both the infobox and the lead. Valenciano quotes NPOV on the talk page, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable" So both views should be represented, probably with preference given to the 1970 sources due to the weakness of the 1905 sources.

Adams' party have a legitimate right to claim direct lineage to the original 1905 parry, but so do the Workers' Party of Ireland, Republican Sinn Féin and others. Various compromise versions can be seen in the article's history including some worded by me. But the stable version of the page seems the best wording to me. This was changed without discussion on the talk page. This was a terrible idea, all editors involved are aware that controversial changes should be discussed beforehand.

Opinions greatly appreciated? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Stu's analyis. Fianna Fail and Fine Gael also have claims to the legacy of 1905 SF. Jdorney ( talk) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. It's in the nature of a political split that both/all sides should claim to be the legitimate continuers of the original tradition. So follow the reliable sources in the way you say and seek out neutral wording as far as possible. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's a source giving 1905 as the foundation date of the Workers' Party:

• Alan John Day, Henry W. Degenhardt (1984), Political Parties of the World, p. 240: Entry under "The Workers' Party": Founded: 1905. Mooretwin ( talk) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Was this discussion notified on the talk page of the article itself? If not then the above does not constitute a consensus for change. I note that participation above comprises only one side of the argument on the talk page itself. -- Snowded ^TALK 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The point was to get new input, not to get all the already involved editors to repeat themselves here. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So surprisingly the only people who contributed here had previously agreed with your POV. Gaming the system? Cathar11 ( talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Judith and JD had not participated in the disussion when I posted here. In any case, I was not gaming the system. I was seeking further input from uninvolved editors, which is the purpose of this page. How they responded is up to them. Can you explain how that is gaming the system? If not, please withdraw your accusation. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed Judiths comment who is new to the debate. If the question gaming the system is offensive to you and not applicable I withdraw it. Cathar11 ( talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If my intent was to game the system I would have emailed several users privately asking for their support, or something similar. Whereas I posted on the noticeboard specifically for disputes of this type. Gaming the system implies I was trying to "enforce a specific non-neutral point of view." I'm trying to do the exact opposite, so yes I do take offense. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

well dry your eyes you should have notified other editors, if you wanted outside views why didn't you ask the editors who you know agree with what you are trying to do and ask them not to post here. BigDunc 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

withdrawn, apology and disagree . Cathar11 ( talk) 16:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I did want outside views, so I posted here. Replying editors are then free to agree or disagree. It's that simple. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no neutral point of view.The writer(s)ought not take side.It is apparent that there are only favorable points of view about such a controversial figure,many cuban intellectual exiles consider that Boff and Frei Betto backed Castro's despotic regime,for example. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.145.128 ( talk) 09:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Leonardo Boff has taken up religious and political positions that aren't shared by everyone, we can expect there to be some criticism in reliable sources. If you can look up that criticism, then you can add it to the article. But be absolutely sure to stick to what those sources say and report them neutrally. Stick very carefully to our policies on biographies of living people. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this: [74]. I think that it is important to qualify that one sources is a dedicated book chapter on the issue (article's subject) and the sources which disagree are ones which make cursory mentions of the subject in one sentence. I think that removal of those qualifications creates an undue numerical bias (several refs vs one), which is misleading (as the several refs are less on topic than the one that is). In other words, and invoking WP:UNDUE: I think that it is important to give extra weight to the point represented by a book chapter, as otherwise the reader is misled by the pure number of references (one to several) to believe that the POV represented by several sources is "better" (but in fact the sources are not equal - a book chapter dedicated to the subject in question vs several sentences mentioning the subject in passing). Am I correct? Which version is more neutral? Comments appreciated. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. Just as I noted in the previous discussion ( Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Is detailed attribution OR?) the principle itself (that the longer text is automatically "more reliable", "better" or "worthy of more weight" than a shorter one) could be very dangerous outside this dispute. Furthermore, is it really necessary? For the article seems to cite a couple of additional sources that seem to describe a more nuanced version of the view currently supported by "passing mentions" in a more detailed way:

• Senn, Alfred Erich (1966). The Great Powers: Lithuania and the Vilna Question, 1920–1928. Studies in East European history. Brill Archive. pp. 45–46. LCC 67086623. [75],
• Eidintas, Alfonsas; Vytautas Žalys, Alfred Erich Senn (September 1999). Edvardas Tuskenis. ed. Lithuania in European Politics: The Years of the First Republic, 1918–1940 (Paperback ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 78. ISBN  0-312-22458-3. [76] (more specifically, [77]).

Would the use of these sources to support (and rewrite) the sentence in question alleviate your concerns? -- Martynas Patasius ( talk) 19:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are good sources, and I note that neither of them supports the claim that "the treaty left Vilnius in Lithuania". The first one doesn't address that at all; the second notes that "Vilnius was left..." - a correct, passive voice. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Diabetes_Association

"The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is the leading national association working to fight the deadly consequences of diabetes and to help those affected by diabetes. The Association funds research to prevent, cure and manage diabetes (including type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, and pre-diabetes); delivers services to hundreds of communities; provides objective and credible information for both patients and health care professionals; and gives voice to those denied their rights because of diabetes[1]."

Every single reference in the wiki entry is to the ADA itself. The language is straight from their website. http://www.diabetes.org/about-us/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.185.4 ( talk) 03:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be dealth through the discussion page and not here. Same IP seems to think Atkins diet cures diaebtes. Advise that this article needs citations. Dont think the IP understans purpose of this board. Cathar11 ( talk) 05:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeking some advice. There has been edit warring since yesterday [78] in regards to the charges of racism made against this film. The problem is due to the weight give to the "Philadelphia Weekly" reviewer in the article: [79]

The Philadelphia Weekly reviewer essentially makes the same criticism as the NY Times reviwer, but the NYTimes gets a sentence and the Philadelphia chap gets paragraphs. There are three editors who have performed multiple reverts, but so far only two of them have engaged in discussion on the talk page: Talk:Black_Hawk_Down_(film)#Philadelphia_Weekly. The third editor ( User:Crotchety Old Man) - who has been reverting this evening - won't participate in the discussion despite being asked to do so by me: [80]

Some impartial assistance would be much appreciated. Thankyou. Betty Logan ( talk) 00:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sulaiman Al-Fahim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'd like to request some help with this article. We've got an on-going, low level (a couple reverts per day) edit war between Jessica Hoy and a number of other semi-interested editors. I initially reverted Jessica Hoy's edits, as they were unsourced and POV (in the overly positive direction). In discussions with her(?) on our respective talk pages, it appears that the lack of sources and the poor style are mostly a result of being new to the editing process, and having a hard time with the distinction between positive POV and neutral edits. If her edits weren't constructive, I'd revert, but they do add useful information (the original information was a few years out of date), and she is correct in that the initial tone of the article was somewhat overly biased in the negative direction. I have rewritten a section or two in neutral POV, and Jessica was more than willing to keep the version that indicated negative things (a suspect claim to the title "Dr.") without overemphasizing them. Good faith is not just assumed but demonstrated on her part, but her skills as an editor are such that assistance is required. I was hoping I could get some assistance cleaning up both the prose and the sources for her edits to meet acceptable quality and NPOV standards. Any interested editors who could contribute to fixing up her version of the article to fix POV issues while keeping the new, useful information would be welcomed. — ShadowRanger ^{( talk| stalk)} 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[81]

New to posting, so be kind if I haven't found the right place to put this:

I have serious issues with the main header paragraph on the Jesus Christ Superstar article. It reads as follows:

I'd have had no problem with this paragraph if it had at least pretended to be discussing how the play deals with faith, spirituality and examination of the veracity of the claims made by Christians about Christ's divinity, but it doesn't. It has nothing to do with those things. It's merely a mini-sermon masquerading as a summary and it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidnowlin ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. I don't know a lot about Jesus Christ Superstar, but on the face of it your comments sound reasonable. There doesn't seem to be anything to stop you from just going ahead and editing the page, as far as I can see. -- FormerIP ( talk) 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd day the problems here are more of veriability and original research. Your best bet is to take it up on the article talk page and see if you can resolve it there first. If no-one responds to your reservations then just go ahead and edit the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP I am afraid you are giving bad advice. To Davidnowlin: Wikipedia is not an outlet for opinion. After visiting the article I find the whole thing ridiculous. There are huge spans of text without any source or reference. Concerning your query until a source is provided for the given paragraph there is no way we can determine any NPOV issue. Ask for a source on anything you feel is amiss. Tag the article and each individual sentence you don't agree with using the "source needed" tags. Allow reasonable time for usual editors to provide said sources. If not sources are provided then feel free to remove the content as Original Research. This works both ways if you do not want to remove a sentence but just change it into something more agreeable to your views then you need to provide a source to justify the change.-- LexCorp ( talk) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify here. Even if you go to the Talk page and somehow reach an agreement with current editors. The whole exercise is still flawed. You must provide reliable sources for any opinion put forward in the article and more so when said opinion is subjective.-- LexCorp ( talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Or you follow WP:BRD. :) I've reverted all of that material, which was added without sources by an IP contributor today, to restore the last version. I've left the ip contributor a note about WP:OR. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

- ::::Lex, yes I agree that sources should be given, and I should have said that. However, it looks as if most of the suggestions are about typos (no source needed) and issues to do with the plot (which can be sourced from the libretto - David has already given them, they just need to be formatted properly). They don't look controversial and objections would seem unlikely, so I think this is about being WP:BOLD and not asking for permission to edit when the whole point of WP is that you don't need it. Apologies for getting all defensive, and I see that Moonridden girl has hit upon what may be a better way forward anyway. -- FormerIP ( talk) 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry there if I jumped directly into the jugular. I am in a jumpy state after a tedious and lengthy discussion in the waterboarding talk page. I agree that if there is not contentions WP:Bold is the way forward for this article but editor should really come together in this article and fix the unsource material.-- LexCorp ( talk) 02:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First let me say, sorry that text seems to be repeated in here. I'm afraid that happened when I tried to edit what I wrote and it just seems to get worse when I try to fix it. I think I'm gathering that I did (as I feared) post in the wrong place. I looked at the talk pages before I came here, actually trying to find some way to put up those cool flags I see on other pages (like the Weasel Word flag, which I've always really liked, or the citation needed tag or what not). I couldn't figure out how to do it. This is my first time editing, which also might explain why I didn't want to just go in there with a broadsword and cut out the stuff I didn't like. I just read those paragraphs and my mouth dropped open and I wanted to respond. It's not what I'm used to finding at Wikipedia. I think I will attempt to follow the advice I've been given and try to move the discussion over to the discussion page. Thanks again, all. :) Davidnowlin ( talk) 01:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Final note: Thanks again. It looks as if Moonridden girl has simply (and boldly) fixed the problem. And I have taken my first step into the fast-moving waters of Wikipedia: Behind the Curtain at The Sum Total Of All Human Knowledge. Until now I've only used this place as an information source. I'm fascinated by my first peek at how it works. Thanks again, all, and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidnowlin ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Very proactive of you to try to figure out a way to deal with your issues with the article. :) Knowing when to talk about a situation and when to just fix it is probably a matter of some experience. If I had seen something I didn't like and boldly overhauled it on, say, Barack Obama, I might cause some dismay with other editors. :) If you find something in an article that seems dodgy, there are two good things to do: first, check the page history to see when it got here. If it is something that has developed over time and especially with the input of multiple authors, you may want to discuss it at the talk page before implementing your changes. If it's been there a while and the page history shows that the article is heavily edited, you might also want to discuss it at the talk page. Check the talk page. Lots of recent conversation or evidence that somebody is keeping an eye on the article? You might want to bring it up there first. This is not required, but it's a courtesy to regular contributors and can help avoid conflicts. Sometimes regular contributors may take offense if you just come up and implement your version without considering their opinions. :) Generally, material comes to this board when people are arguing about content in an article, and LexCorp gives you some good practical advice for that situation. In those cases, it may be best to tag and wait. (Tags are found at Wikipedia:Template messages). Alternatively, it is sometimes fine to just go ahead and change the text, though it may be a courtesy to explain why at the article's talk page. In this case, I left a note for the contributor because the odds are good he or she is not familiar with Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)