Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

For general questions about the NPOV policy, please go to the Neutral Point of View talk page.

Guidance on how to make articles conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy can be found on pages listed in Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view, primarily the policy pages Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. For a list of articles that have been marked as potentially containing a NPOV problem, see Category:NPOV disputes

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research noticeboard. For review of whether a source is reliable, go to the Reliable sources noticeboard.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias whether these would be better venues for the issues you're trying to address.

Click here to post a new topic or discussion. NOTE: This noticeboard is intended for advice concerning specific NPOV issues. Please be concise. Post what is wrong with what content where, what you think it should say, and why. This board is intended for NPOV inquiries of a simple nature. For complex issues, please consider an article RFC or mediation. Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc.

Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters

• Boycotts of Proposition 8 supporters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article is mainly "owned" by one editor. I (and others) have been discussing it on the talk page, but it is still primarily a one-man effort relying significantly on POV and cites to op/ed columns of newspapers. Certainly not NPOV. tedder (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: the article's text issues are being resolved via discussion, but there continues to be an edit war over its inclusion in Category:Religious persecution. AV3000 (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is still an issue, perhaps bigger now than ever. POV disputes and ownership. tedder (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of the article is to list those on the receiving end of the boycott in the hopes of furthering the goals of the boycott. I don't think including a "hit list" in a Wikipedia article is appropriate. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of boycott targets should be limited to politicians and those who have already been "destroyed" by the boycott. However, I note several individuals or companies (El Coyote Restaurant, Cinemark Theatres, Sundance Film Festival, A-1 Self-Storage) where the call is CURRENT to harm them in some way NOW. Once the harm is done (like the people who resigned or got fired) then it is one thing - you can't kill a dead horse. But to appear to "help out" the organizers by "publicizing" their non-politician targets on Wikipedia is not right. It may be legal, but it is not right. I suggest limiting the list. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take closer look the issue at hand, but the question whether same-sex marriages should be allowed or not is certainly not a religious persecution issues, and I have done quite an amount of work on articles related to religious persecution. Zara1709 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning "terrorist" and related words at Wikipedia:Words to avoid

There is a discussion concerning WP:TERRORIST ongoing, and User:Dank55 suggested that I raise the topic over here, for resolution by people with more experience on POV issues. Specifically, the current discussion centers on whether words like "terrorist" should be banned from the narrative voice of the article. RayAYang (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the word "terrorist" pops up on this page, its archives, and the NPOV archives a lot. That suggests that, although we don't have a specific policy, how we want to handle this word is more a matter of policy than guidelines, and more a matter for NPOV experts than for style geeks (such as myself). You can see the arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?; if you'd like a summary here, I'm sure PBS, Ray and others will be happy to give it a shot. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be disappointed if we can't draw some discussion on this noticeboard; better to discuss policy matters here than to force them back into style guidelines talk or article talk pages. Would anyone like a summary of the arguments at WT:Words to avoid? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The problems with the use of the word terrorist in the unqualified narrative voice of the article is best described in the section "Pejorative use" in the article Terrorism.

The section has a quotation from Bruce Hoffman "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." As Wikipedia has a built in bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) inexperienced editors in good faith can and do use the word terrorist citing reliable sources without realising that they are presenting information with a non neutral point of view.

For example in the 1960s the British called the Mau Mau terrorists and if Wikipedia had been written in the 1960s most of the reliable sources of the day would have labelled the rebels as such. However more recent research, particularly as the President elect of the US had a grandfather who was tortured by British because of his suspected links to the Mau Mau (Beatings and abuse made Barack Obama’s grandfather loathe the British The Sunday Times, 3 December 2008), presents the same issues from another perspective. An article written in the 1960 would have been much less bias to the British point of view if the article stated "The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, members of which are considered to be terrorists by the British colonial government (citations), ..." than if it said "The Mau Mau terrorist movement is attacking civilians in Kenya (same citations), ...".

Personally I think that the general sections in this Policy are enough to cover this concern — "A simple formulation" ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"); Let the facts speak for themselves"; and Attributing and substantiating biased statements — and that the details should remain in a guideline. --PBS (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with people making the arguments for how NPOV applies to the word "terrorist". On the other hand, logically, if we put this in WP:Words to avoid, then why are we not also defining "late-term abortion", "global warming", "intelligent design", "cold fusion", "independent candidate", etc? Why single out "terrorist" for this kind of discussion? It doesn't fit with 90% of the current content of WP:WORDS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution may be to step back, consider this as a more general issue with WP:WTA, and change the emphasis of that guideline's lead section to more strongly refer the reader back to NPOV. I say this because, to me (as to PBS I think), all "words to avoid" are words that fail WP:ASF by presenting an opinion as fact, often implicitly. This approach may solve the problem by making the rest of the text of WTA more of a list of examples of the general principle - a how-to guide on the application of NPOV to word selection, if you will - and less of a proscriptive list of problem words. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two ongoing problems here. The one Dank55 points out, and to which I am sympathetic, is that WP:WTA is not meant to be an elaboration of WP:NPOV. Rather, it's meant to be a style guideline, along the lines of what I associate with Strunk and White. That is to say, ideally it would give advice on ways to avoid mushy and unclear prose in favor of concrete, definite, and punchy prose, thereby improving the clarity and presentation of our articles. It is my feeling that the current guideline has been somewhat hijacked from that noble purpose, and actually acts against it in some places. In the case under dispute, it suggests we lose words like "terrorist" in favor of the much vaguer and muddled "militant" or "partisan," actually contradicting principles of good English style.

The second, closely related, dispute, regards the characterization of terrorist by PBS and his quoted sources as a purely pejorative term, as opposed to a term with strong negative connotations which can nonetheless be descriptive and factually accurate, and thus wholly appropriate for the narrative voice. Words like assassination, murder, kidnap, killer, pirate, loser, poisoner, spy, dictator, secret policeman, all have negative (in some cases, strongly negative) connotations, but we cannot deny that their negative associations spring from their accuracy of description, rather than any intent to insult. However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity. See how awkward that construction was? But if I said "terrorism in Mumbai," people would know that I didn't mean "militants" had staged a march with fiery rhetoric, nor that "partisans" of particular factions had taken part in some sort of unspecified political activity. Where the word terrorism, in its plain meaning, fits, we should not shy away from it. Wikipedia is about facts, not the avoidance of giving offense. RayAYang (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC

RayAYang, you have just made up your own definition of terrorism "English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity". So those people who include the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 are mistaken and that was not a terrorist attack because it was against a military target? Does that mean an attack on congress is a terrorist attack because it is against a civilian target but an attack on the White House, the residence of the head of the American military, is not a terrorist attack (based on the US assertion that targeting Saddam, head of his military, was a legitimate US war target)? Does that mean one can not label United Airlines Flight 93 as a terrorist attack as the target was unknown and might have been a military one? The IRA never attacked Londoners to terrorise them (Having survived the Blitz without being terrified there was nothing that the IRA could do that would have come near that) instead their aims were to make the cost of maintaining the status quo ante bellum in Northern Ireland too high for HGM. So does this mean as the motive was not to terrify Londoners that these attacks were therefore not terrorists attacks? --PBS (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not define terrorism. I provided an example of a specific class of activities that are unambiguously considered terrorism, in the descriptive sense, by the overwhelming majority of English language users. This is a subset of the set of activities considered to be terrorism -- there are others that are considered terrorism as well, needless to say, with varying degrees of controversy, which is where the train wreck that is a full definition of the term currently resides. It was not necessary for me to opine on whether every single event that has ever been called terrorism actually is a case of terrorism, for me to point out that terrorism, unmistakably recognizable, does indeed exist. The existence of such a subset is a glaring counterexample to your insistence that terrorism is a purely pejorative term, as opposed to its being a term with a legitimate descriptive purpose in the English language. Ray (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So when a person uses the term terrorism do you not consider it to be a pejorative term? Have you ever known a state in the last 30 years to describe its actions as terrorism? As to your statement "However fuzzy the definition of terrorism gets around the edges, there is no other word in the English language for easily describing the deliberate targeting of undefended, or weakly defended, civilian targets with violence in order to instill fear and hopefully compliance in a target political entity." So in your opinion was Goebbels correct to call areas bombardment by the RAF and the USAAF in WII terror bombing, from which if follows if ture that that RAF and the USAAF were terrorist organisations? Does this mean that the IRA was not a terrorist organisation because although they targeted civilians as they did not do it to install fear? --PBS (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, PBS, what does my opinion of particular controversies matter? Do you deny that there have been self-described terrorist organizations? That the term terrorist brings to mind a specific subset of activities for which there are no other handy words? That the word is an accurate description of these events? There's nothing in your reply I couldn't, with just a bit of editing, apply to the word "murder" or "assassin." Does that mean you want to ban those words too? What about killer? Kidnapper? Is there a single word in the English language describing generally disapproved activities your logic wouldn't require us to ban? Ray (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder is a crime, as is terrorism. Wikipedia should describe convicted murders as such, and the same goes with convicted terrorists (and there are many). When a murderer is not convicted, he is often referred to have been "charged" with murder, often by the police or authorities. Similarly, those terrorists not convicted should be described as "considered" to be terrorist, by whoever is making the charge.VR _talk 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The terrorist section needs a home, if not in the style guideline then somewhere else. The issue comes up too often, and is too contentious, to let things develop ad-hoc. The problem is that the word is quite pejorative but also does have some meaning. It is inconsistently applied and in many cases not objective. It may be useful, for example, to describe the Red Brigades a terrorist group to quickly and conveniently place them in context and inform the reader what kind of organization they are, but calling Greenpeace terrorists probably does not help us understand who they are or what they do. There are political and some practical reasons for the expanding definition of terrorists to including anybody who unlawfully damages anything or anyone for a political purpose. Now we have eco-terrorists, domestic terrorists, and drug terrorists. It seems to be more a mater of name calling and political ideology than actually explaining anything. Are rioters terrorists? Saboteurs? Crazy people? If you call someone a terrorist you can turn opinion against it, and likely get more funding and law enforcement resources. We have to be careful with that word.Wikidemon (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I don't see that that's a problem. If we state accurately and precisely that Charles Manson committed murder, we may turn opinion against him. However, when opinion turning against somebody is a natural consequence of facts objectively and fairly represented through precise use of the English language, that's not a problem. As far as the home question is concerned, I'm wondering whether it'd be wiser to break WP:WTA up into two sections, one on NPOV issues and one on style issues. Ray (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Most tags of murder are not a problem because people have a clear concept of what murder is in most circumstances and it is defined by law. But the type of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was still open to being called murder until Sir Michael Wright ruled out that option. In that sad case it will probably be accepted by the majority. But what about the victims of Bloody Sunday (1972)? There is no dispute that the killings took place, but that is about where the agreement stops, whether the Paras were or where not murders is a political label. What about Muhammad al-Durrah -- same thing. Much better to report the facts in a Wikipedia article on these two cases rather than to state in the passive narrative voice that they were either murder or lawful killings (unless one is attributing the accusation or justification for the killings to an authoritative source). Labels become much more difficult when they are one side descriptions and that is reflected in Wikipedia text. For example "Tyrant" and "Massacre" have both been subject to much debate because they do not have precise meanings, and they do carry a pejorative connotations. Take for example the run up to the English Civil War was it an Eleven Years Personal Rule or an Eleven Years' Tyranny -- it depends it you are a Cavalier of a Roundhead. That was some time ago, and the politics of it are not going to spark a civil war, but with more recent events such labels do indicate a political statement eg Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, Mugabe: Liberation hero turned tyrant. -- PBS (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PBS, many tags of terrorism are not a problem because people have a clear concept of what terrorism is in most circumstances and it is defined by law and common usage. That there are disputed cases doesn't mean we should ban the tag entirely, merely ask people to exercise caution where there is dispute. Where there isn't, the tag is uncontroversial and should be permitted. That's all I've been saying here. Ray (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WTA doesn't ban anything. It is a strong recommendation that we avoid the words in it, to ensure that bias doesn't creep in and NPOV suffers. It is a call to stand in attention, and a tool to use in ending edit wars. But a hard prohibition? We can always WP:IAR. If fact, look at my contribs, then look at my points at WT:WTA then look at were in the mainspace I am most currently active, and look at what word is used there without my general objection. It gives you an idea. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, why is this discussion here and not in WT:WTA? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dank55 suggested we start one here in the hopes of getting learned opinions from people wise in the ways of POV disputes. That did not prove as successful as might have been hoped, which was one of the reasons I suggested an RFC over at WT:WTA. Ray (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I was hoping to get wider input here but it didn't happen. I'll change the template to point to WT:AVOID. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In a NPOV world, one should watch when they use the word terrorist, but to say to avoid the word at all is ridiculous. It's a word that describes someone who fits a certain kind of characteristics. The word itself cannot be censored. Petrafan007 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Banana plantation

Resolved

Please check Banana plantation for neutrality. Biscuittin (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just a stump and a poor one at that. Biscuittin has made improvements. I made a few edits. Lots of work to do, but I don't see this as an intervention issue (looks like the original POV pushing author is gonners anyway). Suggest this be marked "resolved" and the multiple warning tags on the article be reduced to a single "Gawd could this 'un use some help!" LOL. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosher tax

I understood "kosher tax" to be fees paid for kosher certification. When trying to quantify this, I checked the Wikipedia entry called "kosher tax", where I found out, to my horror, that I was a white supremacist. This hardly seems fair, because these markings  are on many food products, and the article implies that in merely questioning them, one is commiting a racist act. I consider it a consumer issue, in both pricing and preparation, and should not be called an anti-Semite or an extremist for merely questioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHerbertSewell (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears you've been had, because there is no such thing as "kosher tax", but it is a common antisemitic canard in North America, and the article documents that.Galassi (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty common reading difficulty, I fear. The article says "The "Kosher tax" (or "Jewish tax") is a canard or urban legend spread by antisemitic, white supremacist and other extremist organizations.[1][2]". It does not say "Dr Sewell" is a white supremacist; it's saying the lie that he appears to support is spread by white supremacist organizations. Reading is hard. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's rather odd that the intro of the Kosher tax article uses harsher language than the intro of the Blood libel article, which deals with a much more serious allegation. Blood libel is described as "sensationalized allegations", whereas the kosher-tax myth is "a canard" (with link to Antisemitic canard, which defines it as a "deliberately false story") attributed to the malice of villains, namely "antisemitic, white supremacist and other extremist organizations".

How is it that we are able to speak calmly and neutrally about blood libel, which has been a source of countless cruelties and killings and is arguably a large part of the cultural background of antisemitism that led to the Holocaust ... but a nasty, petty, snarky little urban legend like the kosher-tax myth draws such vehement condemnation in the article intro? --FOo (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Paudash Lake

This article was suffering from serious NPOV issues and so I originally tagged it with {{peacock}}. The tag was removed four times by an anonymous editor (later determined to be User:Lake Central). The user left messages on my talk page objecting to my actions here, here, here, and the latest one (where I am called a liar and a fool) here.

I have attempted to remove the more blatant POV edits as well as some unencyclopedic content here, only to have it reverted by the above user editing anonymously. I suspect that this is going to continue, so I am bringing the issue here for wider discussion. ... discospinster _talk 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

DIFFS (I'll send you a bill)

---

Peacock Tag Reverts

• Rev1 1st by anon user 216.209.115.73
• Rev2 1st by anon user 209.226.186.79
• Rev3 2nd by anon user 209.226.186.79
• Rev4 3rd by anon user 209.226.186.79

............................Looks like same user, different IP - AOL?

Good Faith Edit Reverts Without Cause

• Rev 1 1st by anon user 216.209.115.158
• REv 2 2nd by anon user 216.209.115.158

...........Note similarity to 216.209.115.73 above - Same user? - AOL?

Just Too Funny. Must See

• I don't know what the hell to call this. LOL
• Like an unwelcome guest, it won't leave.

This is not a war of the titans, and certainly not an earth-shaking topic. But it does deserve attention.

72.11.124.226 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Paudash Lake #2

It is difficult to effectively deal with to an individual who:

a. Attempts to make their complaint known by the use of highly ambiguous, unspecific tags.

b. Finally makes some specific complaints regarding the so-called promotion of a non-profit lake conservation association, which makes no sense, and the mere mention of the nearest downhill ski facility to Paudash Lake, for which an explanation was provided.

c. Suddenly proceeds to make a quick and clumsy audit of the Paudash Lake article, removing content on which no specific complaint had been made and leaving a rather strange explanation that certain words, listed for the first time, were not acceptable in Wikipedia articles.

d. Fails to address a demonstration that the allegedly unacceptable words are utilized in Wikipedia best-practice Featured Articles and, instead, raises yet another complaint.

If this individual actually believes that certain words are unacceptable in Wikipedia, then I would expect her to edit them out of the noted Featured Articles. But, of course, I don’t see this happening. What I do see, is a damaged Paudash Lake article, and one which is damaged for no apparent reason other than personal whim. Furthermore, there seems to be no sense of proportion on this matter, which simply involves a pleasant resort area, rather than some controversial politial or religious matter. Lake Central (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think discospinster deserves a medal and ticker tape parade for her diligence in spending time suggesting improvements to, and then actually improving an article that is *not* on the top ten (or even top 1,000,000,000) list of "places to be seen" among controversy-seeking editors. Editors like her are gold. The article was plainly a travel brochure, and she improved it greatly without raping it. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued..... Some scenic places are legitimately and universally acknowledged by words such as "spectacular," like the Grand Canyon. This falls under a legitimate interpretation of WP:CommonKnowledge at least. That doesn't mean that the flood gates can be opened to every place on the face of the earth being billed in such terminology by those who are smitten by (or paid to promote) that place. All she did for the most part was to remove adverbs that are "sales pitches" while leaving the sentences intact. Dont' be offended. In removing glowing adverbs, she is not suggesting the place is a dump. If your patch of paradise is so great, it should have legions of fans who have published legitimate source material using great adjectives. Quote them and cite the source. Presto. You have your splendiferous adverbs back. She is right and you are wrong. Take this as an opportunity to make your good article even better. Shes doing good to the article, not harm.72.11.124.226 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Nazi Germany

I removed some material that violated NPOV from the article Religion in Nazi Germany. The disputed material is in the section entitled "Nazism and religion". I removed the following material:

"Heclo, who recently published a book ''Christianity and American democracy'', argues that "religion is to have a place in public life"<ref name="Helco14">Hugh Heclo, Religion and Public Policy, p.14; Journal of Policy History, Vol 13. No.1, 2001</ref> and emphasizes its importance for a developed democracy:

"If traditional religion is absent from the public arena, secular religions are likely to satisfy man's quest for meaning. ... It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions - a Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber - who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth."<ref name="Helco14"/>"

I wrote about my issues on the discussion page:

"I have removed the quotation block for the following reasons: 1. The book that the quotation came from is "Christianity and American democracy", which is not even a history book and so is not an appropriate source for the article. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 2. It is off topic, this article is NOT about the role of religion in communism or fascism in general, it is about the role is religion specifically in Nazi Germany. 3. This article is also not about whether or not "religion is to have a place in public life"; if you want to include this somewhere then find the correct article for it (not this article). 4. It pushes a point of view by being blatantly anti-secular/anti-atheist; blaming "secular religions" and "atheistic faith" for "fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century", which is no way a generally accepted statement among historians. This violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

User Zara1709 reverted my edit and added a reply to the discussion board that did not even address my concerns.

I do not want to start an edit war and am hoping for help in resolving this problem. Thank you for your time. selfworm^Talk) 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that in a previous discussion Zara1709 explicitly stated "Yes, it is POV, but it is there exactly for this reason; to illustrate that particular POV;" [...] selfworm^Talk) 10:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was busy that day and didn't write an elaborate reply, but I can give you one now:

1), 2) Yes, one could object to the quote because it is not from a work about Nazism, and also makes a general statement concerning totalitarism; However, it approaches the problem the same way that most historians do it since the 1960s. I've added a reference to a work with the definite title The Nazi Persecution of the Churches. The problem is that the author of that book elaborates the issue in more detail and I haven't found such a nice quote in that book and that is is from 1968. The quote currently used is from a rather recent work and Hugh Heclo certainly is a notable academic, although he is working on different topics.

3) Yes, the topic of Religion in Nazi Germany is somewhat different from the question what importance religion should have in politics. But obviously they are related. And the historian Richard Steigmann-Gall just had to connect these two topic in the conclusion of his book. I think this is clear from the section.

4)Well, in case you haven't noticed this already: Steigmann-Gall makes an argument quite similar to yours, only not quite as direct. "Blaming 'secular religions' and 'atheistic faith' for 'fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century'" is not acceptable from a historians point-of-view. At least concerning Nazism he could confirm it. However, contrary to what you think, before Steigmann-Gall's book, most historians who work on the topic would have agreed to a less direct version of that thesis.

Of course, following wp:NPOV, we must not participate in such controversies. But we must give a balanced account of all the views, and if we'd remove that quote, that would make the article seriously imbalanced. If I find the time, I'll read a few more books on the topic and will see if I can replace that quote with a quote from a history book on Nazism. Zara1709 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

With the little work I've done on that section in the meantime, could we close this issue as 'resolved', then, or do you still feel that I did not take your concerns into account? Zara1709 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue is not yet resolved. If these POVs are going to be included in the article then I suggest that we include a paragraph at the beginning of the "Nazism and Religion" section that clearly identifies and explains the different ideas of Historians and Political Scientists like Hugh Heclo (are Political Scientists acceptable sources for a history article?). Also, please more clearly express yourself, I don't know what your talking about when you write "argument quite similar to yours". selfworm^Talk) 03:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

David Smick

Written clearly as an advertisement. Mhym (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to your version (plus the image). Besides being written as an advertisement, it was also a copyright violation [1] --Megaboz (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

User:Capasitor was suggested not to use the partisan sources at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Sources. However he engaged into bad-faith assumptions here, but was stopped by mediator User:Golbez and me. In this section further evidences on violation of existing policy have been given so that Capasitor retracted, resorting to the off-topic. I reverted the article once. Additional recent evidence is here. --Brandспойт 07:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there was a suggestion - or, more precisely, a violent racist demand - not to use certain sources based entirely on alleged [and unproven] ethnic origin of well-published, well-quoted and well-respected Western academics. These scholars have nothing to do with nationalist biases of some Soviet and post-Soviet academics that from Armenia and Azerbaijan WP should indeed shun. There were three quotes brought up to discredit mentioned academics by User:Grandmaster; all three of them were proven irrelevant and/or offensive of WP's regulations and spirit (one was from a nationalist-minded scholar who used factually mistaken info to press his emotionally-charged accusations). Since then, after suffering a moment of intellectual bankruptcy, Brandспойт engaged in a series of blind reverts and acts of edit-warring. Please block Brandспойт from editing Nagorno Karabakh - he is a disruptive user with poor English who is contributng nothing of substance to this and ALL other articles he tries to influence. Capasitor (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Capasitor, can you understand that the is no racism here? The discussion on talk has ended. We must stick to third-party scholars to avoid or minimize possible bias. You may call me as you wish till the end of the world, but this is not the way. --Brandспойт 12:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Check: Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution

Resolved

The article strengths and weaknesses of evolution needs to be checked for WP:NPOV. The basis for this challenge are as follows:

Undue Weight states, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." (Emphasis added.) Attempts to insert a neutral explanation of the subject have met with reverts by editors who doggedly insist that "this article will, of necessity, give an entirely negative weight on the topic " to the exclusion of all else. (emphasis added.)[2] While Undue Weight rightly dictates that majority scientific opinion be given more weight than the the minority opinion, it does not - as the authors claim - PRECLUDE a neutral airing of the minority opinion.

Undue Weight further states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (emphasis added.) Again, the very subject of the article is "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" which by it's very existence implies a POV that there are "weaknesses" in the science of evolution. That is the subject of the article, so regardless of "fringe opinion" arguments, SOME weight should be given to the subject from the proponents' POV because of it's "significance to the subject." per WP:NPOV. That the majority opinion be given more weight is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is the notion as stated above by authors that they will "not allow" any representation of the minority opinion.

Impartial Tone states"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." The wording of the article is not just weighted to the majority opinion, it is simply a recitation of that POV. The authors argue that opposing POV reliable sources simply do not exist, therefor the POV cannot be cited. Their argument is to forbid citing the source of the POV itself (an advocacy group) as inherently "unreliable" because they are by definition "ignorant" "fringe" creationists who cannot be given any inclusion in the article at all, even though their movement is the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.

Impartial Tone also states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." The entire article is not just an endorsement of one POV, but a sustained argument of that POV's positions. The use of dismissive quotes and advocacy wording is so pervasive in the article as to not require citations of instances. A read of the article leaves one with the impression that this is an position paper in opposition to the subject, not an encyclopedic article.

Neutrality and verifiability states, "Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." Authors insist (see links above) that absolutely no weight can be given to the subject POV because all reliable sources are on their side, and none exist for the subject POV. Clearly the NPOV rules address this. Such is not an argument for excluding neutrality from an article, as the authors maintain.

There are certain factual errors in the article. The errors (surprise surprise) lend weight to the POV of the authors, and tend to discredit the subject POV. I have suggested that such errors be corrected.... we shall see if the authors comply. Error: Language not "proposed." It already exists. "Proposal" is to remove it.

Finally, the subject article may violate POV fork in that it creates a topic covered ad nauseum in other topics, for the sole purpose of criticizing it.

If the authors hold to form, they will accuse me of being a creationist with an agenda. Such is not the case, and I challenge them to prove such slanderous accusations. I am in fact an unapologetic believer in evolution science. However, I have the ability to put my personal opinions in the back seat and let neutrality be my compass when editing Wikipedia. Neutrality and a fairly balanced representation of the subject is all I am looking for.24.21.105.252 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The tendentious anon IP has presented various original research, but despite research has consistently failed to present any verification from reliable sources, and has shown a consistend failure to understand NPOV. The alleged "factual error" appears to be an inability of the IP to read the article as written. Other opinions welcome. . dave souza, talk 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The authors of this article appear to have created it as a means to "hijack" the subject, and form their article entirely as criticism of the subject. Authors even maintain that allowing the subject POV is not permissible in the article, because adherents are "ignorant." This subject is probably best handled in one of many existing articles on challenges to evolution, but even if left as a stand-alone subject, it is not just "weighted" in favor of one POV, it is simply a position paper for that POV. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arguments that my proposed definition of the subject constitute original research are simply an avoidance of the challenge. My proposed definition is not the subject. The neutrality of the article is the subject. If you feel my proposed definition is OR, fine. You may be right. But that has NOTHING to do with the challenge at hand: The neutrality of this article. Your tactic appears to be to throw anything against the opposition and see what sticks. How about this for a novel idea: Address the neutrality challenge per my points above. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While this IP may feel well qualified to speak for "the subject POV", such original research is not permissible and sources are required. The article already cites proponents of the creationist viewpoint, taking care to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. While detailed proposals will be welcome, unsourced assertions of "censorship" don't cut it. . dave souza, talk 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

dave souza persists in perpetuating the FALSEHOOD that I "speak for the subject POV." That is absurd. I am an advocate of NEUTRALITY. He persists in ignoring the neutrality challenge and of creating the FICTION that the topic is not neutrality, but original research. My proposals for more neutral wording are IRRELEVANT to this discussion, and dave is using that as a distraction. Forget my proposed wording. Try addressing the neutrality challenge. You sound like a broken record. This is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Based upon this IP user's complaint I expect a very different article than what I saw when I went to check. It certainly appears to follow our NPOV policy quite well, and certainly is not an attempt to create a POV fork because the content in no way contradicsts the facts or tone of the main evolution article.

If you have specific things you want explained to you, it's best to keep it to the article talk page instead of cluttering up things here. DreamGuy (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy, you seem to be backing off your line edit remarks in the article that there are "still way too many" scare quotes in the article, even after you took some out on 2 edit sessions. Since scare quotes are a POV issue, then it would appear on the surface that you agree to that extent that there are some POV issues with the article. That you don't agree with all the challenges I put forth is not necessary for me. Just that you agree to any extent shows you at least have a more neutral eye than some. Thanks for your input. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see this article doesn't violate any part of the NPOV policy.Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like during the debate here and there, the main author/editor of the page made extensive revisions, and corrected many of the more obvious POV issues..... Still some there, but this could probably be closed. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The changes there since this was listed have been cosmetic. There were no obvious POV problems at that time either. Not seeing any now. It should be closed, and essentially was, as being a false complaint. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)

Greetings, there are a number of ongoing NPOV disputes at the Stormfront (website) article which would benefit from the input of neutral and experienced editors. Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Removed_per_POV, Talk:Stormfront_(website)#Racial.2Fracialist_and_NPOV are the specific discussions. Any assistance keeping the article neutral appreciated, Skomorokh 20:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

This article is almost entirely in favor of vegetarians and their lifestyle as the most healthy, ethical, moral, etc etc. All criticisms of any pro-vege statement is removed without due reason or discussion even with citations. No criticism section or article fork is present. Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like certain sections could benefit from more balance. For example, even though there is a "benefits and concerns" section, I can only detect benefits in it. I don't see the article on the whole as grossly unbalanced, though. More a job of adding a bit here and there than a wholesale neutrality challenge. Can you cite specific examples of unjustified removal of viable content? 24.21.105.252 (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is strongly in favor because there are no valid criticisms of vegetarianism. The evidence is overwhelming that vegetarianism is superior for both human health and the environment. Look at the quality of the references in sections like Vegetarian#Longevity. Ethically it's considered superior as well on most if not all points, so there's not much to criticise. Veganism does have some concerns, which are well covered in Veganism#Nutritional_concerns.

Most of the criticisms from decades past (complete protein, quantity of protein, lack of iron etc) have been conclusively shown to be false, but they've hung around in popular culture. Phil153 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

In this article about subjects criticized as pseudoscientific, only negative judgments about a subject's scientific nature are currently permitted to appear; references that supports a subject's scientific validity are systematically excluded. The substance of the current dispute can be seen in this diff and this talk page discussion. Is this not a POV-fork? hgilbert (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The editors there seem to disagree with you. If it's a POV-fork, from what article does it fork? dougweller (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's more a NPOV violation; my question is whether it is permissible to only allow one side of an argument in any article. hgilbert (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing as an involved editor, I think that that is an exaggeration - the focus of the list should be to explain why each entry meets the inclusion criteria, but the normal Neutral point of view policy still applies. For a pretty decent treatment of a tricky case, scroll down to the entry for hypnosis. There is still scientific debate over what exactly it entails, but there is no serious doubt that hypnosis occurs. However, Mesmer was a charlatan, and past-life regression does not come up very often at American Anthropological Association meetings. In the entry, the nuances of the first point are omitted, the second point is stated, and the latter two points are treated more prominently. This is precisely as it should read. I just raised some points on sourcing at the above-linked talkpage discussion, and more eyes are always welcome. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Hgilbert, that's what happens in the articles themselves for each subject. Here it's a matter of staying on-topic and space conservation. The main point of the article should not be allowed to be buried and smothered with fringe POV. Present them in the articles. If you want to continue to make the article your personal battle ground, or to attempt to right great wrongs, then you should edit on another wiki or make your own website. We already have enough tendentious editors here. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be stated more clearly in the lead that inclusion on the list is not a definitive judgment on the value of the discipline as a legitimate science, but a "sense" of the scientific community which may or may not change with time and further research. Wording to that effect is there, but it is rather vague and weak. Other than that, I don't see huge issues. I can see where a fan of a listed topic might get their knickers in a twist over being listed, but that's life in the big city. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The "sense" of the scientific community is reflected in its publications. The full range that these cover should be included (rather than cherry-picking those that reflect a single point of view); that's called a neutral point of view. The publications are in no way fringe. hgilbert (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "sense" of the scientific community is reflected in its peer-reviewed publications. But WP:WEIGHT dictates that the mainstream scientific opinion be given more weight than minority opinions. So, the fact that a minority opinion is published does not mean it can be given equal weight to the mainstream opinion. Now, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION to this rule, and that is when a topic is ABOUT that minority opinion. In that case, WP:WEIGHT states that it IS ACCEPTABLE for minority opinion and even WP:FRINGE opinion to be given MORE WEIGHT than they would be ordinarily accorded. But never under any circumstance MORE than the mainstream opinion. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is clear. The problem is that the minority view here is not currently represented at all, despite numerous peer-reviewed publications that have been cited to support this view. Should there not be some representation of this? hgilbert (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it from your perspective is that the article isn't about the topics themselves, but about their presence in the category of pseudoscience. I always want to see more information, rather than less, so I sympathize with your desire to see both sides elucidated to some degree. To get past the WP:WEIGHT purists though, you have to find a justification for it, with copious iron clad sources, and even if you succeed in finding that justification, some editors just dig in their heels and refuse to look past a shallow interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. Good luck.72.11.124.226 (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Soviet war crimes" article

Resolved

I request some help on the Soviet war crimes (section During the Continuation War). The discussion is here. The current article does not give any reference to the deeds of the opposite side, which, in my view, violates the "Bias" section of the WP:NPOV. I proposed creating a new article abt. alleged Finnish war crimes and giving a link to it in the section about alleged Soviet war crimes in Finland, but was rejected by User:Whiskey. In order to stop the edit war I ask someone to help us resolve this dispute. Thank you in advance! FeelSunny (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I look at the article I see a problem. The article is about SOVIET war crimes. So naturally, the article should be about...... SOVIET WAR CRIMES. If you can find good sources that claim justification or extenuating circumstances for the Soviet war crimes, based on Finnish war crimes, then that might be a way to get them in. But such "excuses" or "finger pointing to the other side" ('they did it first...') need not carry AS MUCH weight IN THAT ARTICLE because the article is about the Soviet War Crimes, not the Finnish War crimes. Is there an article on the Finnish War Crimes? If not, that is where the information should be!72.11.124.226 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In the articles about other war crimes there is no paragraphs or even sentences about opponents war crimes. Only in the See also-section contains links to the opponents war crimes, without any explanations.--Whiskey (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Whiskey and an IP. WP:NPOV indeed requires representing all views, but only on the subject of the article. One can create War crimes of World War II to represent all sides of the conflict.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the rules say. Do not paraphrase them, please:

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. Finnish atrocities that were documented in 1941-1944 surely had influences the nature of WWII in Karelia and made it much more cruel. FeelSunny (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of mentioning alleged Finnish war crimes in an article about Soviet War crimes. In any case, claiming that Finnish war crimes somehow influenced and made the Soviets commit even more worse war crimes seems to be WP:OR to me. Martintg (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because the article on Soviet war crimes doesn't keep harping on how guilty everybody els was doesn't mean it's biased. What are we, Cardassians? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I agree and the Cardassians example was really convincing:) I will not insert this information in the Soviet war crimes article. I will create a separate (now missing) article about Finnish war crimes and then we will try to find out the way to link this page to the circle of other war crimes articles. FeelSunny (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job, FeelSunny. What I like about this resolution is that even though you lost this round and conceded, in effect you WON because a stand-alone article on Finnish War crimes will now be created, thus filling a void. And, "See also" links in both articles would be entirely appropriate. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design: Peer Review

Under the Peer Review (6.2) section on the intelligent design article, there is a sentence that says the following:

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being considered as valid science. To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

I then added the following:

although Discovery Institute claims to have a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications.

it got reverted 3 times in one day. One moderator said it was NPOV, another said it was SELFPUB. I agree that it is NPOV. You?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a serious revert war going on over there. Possible WP:OWN issues.24.21.105.252 (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• The DI's claims fail WP:SELFPUB as they are "unduly self-serving" -- and in fact have been repeatedly debunked (as I documented on article talk). Petrafan007 & 24.21.105.252 appears to be engaged in a campaign of disruption on Intelligent design-related articles, attempting to manufacture controversies where none exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Hrafn and its hardly a "revert war" --Snowded TALK 08:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• The claim that peer-reviewed literature exists certainly seems to be made. Given that, it seems there is dispute about the assertion that there is no peer-reviewed literature, so it doesn't seem compatible with NPOV to simply present that assertion as a fact ('By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.') Unless, that is, we are to declare that dispute by the Discovery Institute does not constitute serious dispute; but given that this group includes all the leading proponents of Intelligent Design, to declare this would seem to remove the point in having an article at all (it could just be reduced to 'Intelligent Design is nonsense' given that the views of all its proponents would have been declared of no interest). TSP (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would point out that the DI claim was already in the article (and still is there) as: "Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[186] including in its list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[187] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[188]" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• So, the same Discovery Institute article is already cited and given as a reference. This is purely an argument about positioning of the information. As I stated at the outset of discussion, the phrasing Petrafan tried to insert and edit-warred to keep gives undue weight to discredited claims which fail to stand up to examination, in court or elsewhere. The addition is unnecessary, and if it is to be cited it needs to be presented without giving "equal validity" to this pseudoscientific claim. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that 'despite', 'insist' and 'point out', as used in the current presentation of the DI's position, are all words to avoid. I really don't think that the proposed version came anywhere close to giving undue weight or equal validity (given that it contrasted the DI's view with a contradictory position stated as objective fact); but you're right that the current presentation is in absolutely no danger of giving the DI's views undue weight. TSP (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• What I see here is a WP:BATTLE problem, not a conflict of substance. It is unseemly when a small group of editors jump from a minor disagreement over phrasing directly into an escalating revert war. That isn't what this project is for. --FOo (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When to ascribe an opinion to a source (from talk page)

We are having a dispute over whether to ascribe opinions to sources or not. Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is arguing on the talk page and through reversions that if an opinion is in a reliable source then you can assert the opinion without using "X claims that Y". He says you can just "that Y". I argued on the talk quoting wikipedia policy that it is necessary to identify the year and person making the claim, especially when it is an opinion. It might be different if the claim is backed by experimental evidence and is well accepted fact.

Here are some examples of reverted diffs subject to dispute:[3][4][5] - My self-revert pending comment from third party: [6]

Notice that each time where I've tried to ascribe a POV to a source it has been reverted. Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) says that that "X claims/states/asserts Y" is a weasel phrase. I believe it is necessary to characterize competing perspectives within NPOV.

I'll give a specific example of when I think it is necessary to qualify an assertion -- when it is an opinion. In the introduction to the current article, it says "[NLP] continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology, and only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling". This is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy. First it asserts an opinion as fact. I checked Heap's paper from 1988, actually says "informal soundings amongst academic psychologists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of NLP"see page 9 for quote in context. Heap explicitly is using personal experience as evidence (opinions of his academic psychology colleagues). This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. He did not conduct a survey or whatever. He was simply using his personal judgment which is fallible. It must be presented as opinion and nothing more. Second this information is twenty years old and written in present-continuous tense. If we are to paraphrase Heap about the awareness of NLP in 1988 it must be clear we're talking about that timeframe. The current statement implies that we're talking about the present state of affairs which may or may not be true. There are similar examples in the "NLP and science" section that need similar treatment. This is directly related to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

• Current POV statement: "It [NLP] continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology, and only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling".
• Proposed alternative: "Heap (1998) claimed that it continued to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology, and only limited impact on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling"

---

Action potential ^{t c} 11:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A third party review would of course be useful. However there is a degree of partial reporting in the above. My comment on weasel words relating to the insertion of qualifications in a section titled "Criticisms". It is also the case that it is very difficult to prove a negative. I would argue that since 1998 NLP has received little attention and the onus is to provide reputable references to prove the positive. This content issue is only a day or so old as well by the way --Snowded TALK 11:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, Thanks for the clarification but I am a little confused now. You reverted me on numerous occasions when I was trying to ascribe to a source what I thought were straight forward opinions that were asserted as fact and not ascribed to a source. Have you changed your mind or do you want to wait for a comment from a third party? ----Action potential ^{t c} 11:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind, and I do think you are trying to soften any criticism of NLP. I do think that (i) you are not taking sufficient account of context and (ii) its a bit premature to come here in the early stages of a discussion. However I have no objections to a review. --Snowded TALK 11:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary ascribing views often strengthens the criticism because the reader knows who has made the claim and what type of evidence is supporting it. To address your first point (i), with reference to the specific example of Heap I gave above, there was insufficient context for the reader in what I considered to be the POV version. My proposed alternative added necessary contextual information (date, name of person making the claim and past-tense). I agree with your second point (ii). Hopefully we can get this resolved quickly and move on with improving the article. I thought it might help to get some eye balls on the scene. ----Action potential ^{t c} 12:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I welcome this as an important test case, which has caused a problem in citation of other sources such as Quackwatch. Given that scientific research tends to ignore blatant pseudoscience almost completely, it is often hard to locate RS on such subjects. For example, it is hard if not impossible to locate RS on the view that the earth is flat, without resorting to original research such as picture and photographs, or synthesis such as 'the earth was proved non-flat in 1453, and it is unlikely to have changed shape greatly in 500 years', which violates WP:SYNTH. It is also very hard to get RS for statements like 'there are no RS that mention X'. This is why advocates for scientific consensus views have to rely on sources like Quackwatch, or (in the present case) of a review by a scientist like Michael Heap, who is undoubtedly a RS, but who has relatively few citations. Pseudoscientific proponents have shown great skill in subverting Wikipedia policy in this area. I would welcome the introduction of a policy to deal with this. There should be an explicit 'burden of proof' rule that says, if there are any genuinely authoritative and independent sources that suggest X is a pseudoscience, or junk, or nonsense, then Wikipedia can cite these, and the burden of proof is on the advocates of X to find equally reliable sources to the contrary. Thus, I welcome this. Peter Damian (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Also strongly disagree with the statement "it is necessary to characterize competing perspectives within NPOV." It is not necessary to characterise the view that the earth is flat as competing with the view that it is not. We can of course mention the flat-earth theory as an interesting and notable phenomenon. We do not have to characterise it in any way that suggests or implies it may be true. Peter Damian (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that the issue under consideration is mainly a factual one (frequency with which scientific articles support/reject/ignore NLP, etc), not one of opinion (underlying value of NLP). While it is possible that the cited author may be subject to some degree of confirmation bias (or similar), I think it presents prima facie evidence, and should be accepted at face value as fact (and thus not requiring attribution), unless and until reliable countervailing evidence is produced. I would further point out that "claim" is a WP:WTA. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The crux of the revert war seems to be over inclusion of the term (bolded), "According to psychologist Grant Devilly (2005), at the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough..." The proposed inclusion would add nothing new, as the previous (lead) paragraph and later in that same paragraph, it is already established that the founders of the discipline promoted it as a psychological "cure-all" and a miracle breakthrough, which claims subsequently came under question. Having already been established that such claims were promotional hype in nature, it is not necessary to beat that horse more. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are competing perspectives that need to be covered here under NPOV. Devilly is a skeptic and only makes that passing comment about NLP. There is countervailing evidence contrary to his view. The more general question is, how should the views of skeptics be presented? When does the POV of a skeptic need to be ascribed to a source? How much weight can be given to sources that simply make passing comments about a topic? ----Action potential ^{t c} 01:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a long disputed question, but it only makes sense that when an opinion has significant controversy in the context of the article or subject material, we use attribution. Else, why would we ever use attribution? If a source is strong, attribution will strengthen its claim. If a source is weak, it is proper that its claim be weakened. You can never really go wrong with attribution. The only reason not to use it is if it harms the flow of the text, and that is fine when there is no significant controversy in the context. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to make a claim, whether negative or positive. If you are adding a negative or counter-claim, you have to source it, and you should attribute if it is controversial. If your source is any good, you can't lose [7].

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[8] There are no exceptions. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Southern Michigan Railroad Society

I'm trying to deal with another editor who continues to insert non-neutral POV. I've tried twice to rewrite while capturing the core of that person's arguments in a neutral POV. He always reasserts the non-neutral POV. He's persistent - I see no value in a revert war. Someone other than me needs to explain NPOV to him. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.115 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell - should be an easy one to clear up

We're having trouble with this article with an editor ((83.67.217.135 (talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". [9] Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.

It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles ([10] [11]) blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis (WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.

It seems to me that the only reason to include information on a share price relating a claim made on a website for a campaign that the subject of the article is not particularly closely linked with, is to push the POV that the boycott was a success.

As can be seen from the history of the article, 83.67.217.135 considers himself the "owner" of the article, reverting others' changes whenever he disagrees with them, sometimes with an edit summary such as "what the fuck is wrong with you?". From the talk page you can see that he will not listen to other editors, considering himself to be the ultimate authority on what changes are allowed to be made. He has had to be warned about civility on several occasions (indeed, he has recently called me a liar, ignoring me when I show that what I have said is true).

Frustratingly, this debate would probably not be occurring if 83.67.217.135 would declare the WP:COI that he seems to have. He refuses to confirm his identity, or rule anything out. He has almost certainly used at least one sockpuppet on the talk page. With deference to WP:OUTING, examining his contributions reveal that he is almost entirely concerned with mentions of the name 'Stuart Campbell' on wikipedia. His writing style and way of treating people is recognisable from other websites. Yet this article cannot currently be changed without his say-so, as he will just revert the change.

All we really need is a few more than the 3 or 4 editors we currently have to come along and chat for a few minutes. Maybe you will all agree with him, but at least the debate will be resolved. Please do help - it could all be resolved so easily and quickly! Thank you. Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Armed Forces - Personnel and ranks

I would like an opinion on this part of the article on the Swedish Armed Forces: [12]

The paragraph is based on a debate article (which of course is biased), but the results is refered to as if it was more or less an absolute truth. In my opinion sentences like "The Defense force is preoccupied with providing its officers with high titles, building a nice façade and in changing logotypes" is not neutral. It is clerarly pointed criticism and should be refered to as such.

The paragraph starting "How do we compare ranks ..." seem to be a personal reflection by the editor. Is that NPOV?

/B****n (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Toni Preckwinkle: Weight of Chicago's 2006 "big-box living wage" ordinance

I please request advice on dealing with an WP:UNDUE issue with respect to certain content in an article on a Chicago alderman WP:BLP. Paragraph at issue begins "In 1998 and 2002 Preckwinkle ... " in the Alderman section. About one sentence mentioning the subject's vote and for clarity the subsequent veto would be the appropriate weight for this ordinance in this article. More than one sentence, if they belong in this subject's article, they belongs in 35 others as well, who also voted in favor. No reliable source supports a role for the subject of this article in this ordinance beyond the vote in favor. This subject's article has more background on the ordinance than the ordinance's sponsor's article. The current text suggest more of a role for the subject of this article in this ordinance than is supported by reliable sources and so may represent an attempt at WP:OR. At least 3 rounds of reverts have been exchanged, although not within the same day, and the text has evolved somewhat with successive reverts. Extensive discussion on talk page completed without resolution at Talk:Toni Preckwinkle: Level of detail of background information on big box ordinance, please see. A round of WP:3 completed without resolution. Separate article established at 2006_Chicago_Big_Box_Ordinance without resolution. Assistance requested on the project page without response (other editor is project Manager/Director). Please edit the article or suggest approaches here or on the article talk page. Thank you.Hugh (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomb Raider: Underworld

Hi.

I read a newspaper article on Tomb Raider: Underworld and so I attempted to add material from that article to the Wikipedia article on the game. The Wikipedia article does not appear to be written overly neutral, and given that some of the concerns in the article were that Eidos had attempted to manage the reception the game received, and given that Eidos have openly admitted this, and given that there are a large number of anonymous editors editing the article, I would appreciate it if experienced, neutral Wikipedians could review the article and the situation and offer a way forwards. I had thought there would be a more collegiate atmosphere, but I can't find any reason for my changes being removed from the article. Page differences follow: [13], [14], [15] and [16]. If my amendments were also not neutral, I am happy to discuss ways to make the article more compliant with WP:NPOV, and how better to collaborate to achieve such a goal. Someplace else (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please can you consider also this edit: [17], because while editors here write that the game recieved positive reviews, The Guardian, a reliable source which can be verified and which we should use to ground opinion according to policies and guidance such as using weasel words and peacock terms, describes the game as recieving "mixed reviews". Someplace else (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus myth hypothesis, reliable source conflict

The Jesus myth hypothesis article is having an issue regarding how the term is even defined as the terms Jesus myth and Christ myth are used interchangeably in the literature. The problem is different reliable sources with clearly contradictory definitions.

You have reliable references like Farmer, ("A Fresh Approach to Q," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, eds. Jacob Neusner, Morton Smith (Brill, 1975), p. 43), Jones, (Independence and Exegesis: The Study of Early Christianity in the Work of Alfred Loisy, Charles Guignebert, and Maurice Goguel (Mohr Siebeck, 1983), p. 47), and Horbury ("The New Testament," A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford 2003) p. 55) all staying that 'Christ-myth' theory is that Jesus NEVER existed but this would by very definition excludes theorists like Mead and Ellegard who hold the Jesus DID exist abet in a different century as people who hold Robin Hood existed have put put forth people like Sire Johannes d'Eyvile who lived during Henry III's reign a full century after Robin Hood supposedly lived. Never means NEVER ie Jesus not existing AT ALL, not in the 1st century CE or 1st BCE or any other century for that matter. A few editors don't understand this simple matter of logic and support the Farmer/Neusner/Smith definition definition while also supporting the idea Mead and Ellegard are "Christ Mythers"

On other end you have reliable references have "Alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17) and Remsburg The Christ both of whom define "Christ Myth theory" and "Christ Myth" as including the idea that there is a possible historical person behind it all. Worse, Dodd doesn't give a time period to his "obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" statement so there is no way to say if he is talking about the position of Mead and Ellegard or something similar to the position Wells puts for in The Jesus Myth (1999) and better explains in Can We Trust the New Testament? (2003) pg 43: "This Galilean Jesus was not crucified and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ — devoid of time and place - of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin." Related you have Price's position of "My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." Christ a Fiction (1997)

The definition of what "Jesus myth hypothesis"/"Christ Myth"/"Jesus Myth" even is should not be a game of pick that reference but that is a big part of this article's NPOV problems. What do you do when reliable sources are in conflict over something so simple as a definition and some editors favor certain definitions (I favor the Remsburg/Dodd definition as it is the most encompassing) over others which appear to put a POV slant on what the article even covers?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article about Plasma Cosmology

Hello, I am not experienced at this, but I try to correct something I perceive as unfair hampering, and biased editing of the article about Plasma Cosmology. It started with a search for "Electric Universe" which turned up an article about a band, and after a while I discovered an almost hidden line that linked to "Plasma Cosmology" - which as I understand it is not a 100% correct pointer. Then when reading about P.C. I saw a definitive bias in the article not exactly in favour of it, and also links the size of a billboard to the Big Bang etc. - which is *not* the subject for that article. I was stunned by this and it looked like someone has been wingclipping the article.

I then started a long read in the discussion page, and made a few discoveries. One person in particular seems to have hijacked the whole thing, made ad hominem attacks, made accusations about "fringe science", "rubbish" (or similar wording), and came across as biased to the degree of being a "crusader on a mission". This person made claims that he rarely supported, but demanded support for any claims from the opponents. he even threatened to report someone for disagreeing with him. I the discovered a link to the former article in it's full length, and this wasn't just a wingclipping, it was in my view vandalism - where lots of relevant information was just removed, even making remarks in the article leading to the BB theory wasn't enough it seems. even though, again, this was about P.C. and related, not Big Bang. Does the articles about Big Bang (and related) link to it's "opponents" - like the P.C. consept?

The discussion led me to the page about "gaming" - where rules are (ab)used to crush opponents, I find that this whole affair reeks of "gaming". Anyone reading the discussion will see who I have in mind, also the edit statistics will show this. I would like Wiki to be neutral and fair and educational, not biased and preconceived.

The discussion arguments, if applied to the BB theory articles (and related) would largely do the same to those, as if one scientist mentions G-d or something religious at any time, or goes to church, or f.ex. at any time talks to a member of the Flat Earth Society or have a beer with Mr. Sitchin he is automatically discredited, and his experiments and theories along with him. Anyone can see that this is rubbish.

This "slaughter" of an article stops it from developing, and as it seems, noone dares or bothers to contribute to it anymore. Oh. and I must add, that the basis for P.C. is founded in well researched and proven science, and derivates are as relevant as any speculation from the so-called "Big-Bangers" (reffering here to highly unproven "facts" that may come across as mere speculations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenzofeis (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Kenzofeis (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has along and contentious history. You are welcome to help improve it, but you would do well to take it slow. Some of your statements I don't understand.

• Are you proposing that Electric Universe (Cosmology) should have its own article?
• Do you feel that the {{cosmology}} box is inapproriate in the section where PC is compared to mainstream cosmology?
• I suppose your criticism of a certain editor refers to ScienceApologist. I think it would be more helpful to mention him by name.
• I am aware that an earlier version of the article was very different. The (uneasy) consensus of the editors was that the ideas of Hannes Alfven were more notable and significant in the history of cosmology than those of Eric Lerner. If you choose to challenge that decision, you will need to directly refute the arguments that led to it.
• Regardless of your view of the evidence for or against the Big Bang or plasma cosmology, that fact is that the Big Bang is accepted by mainstream cosmologists and plasma cosmology is rejected or ignored. Wikipedia needs to reflect that, so there is no reason to expect the links from BB to PC to be symmetrical to those from PC to BB.

I'm afraid I will have to engage you over your proposed changes to the content of the plasma cosmology page directly. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone has. Kenzofeis (talk · contribs) clearly has a lot to learn about what Wikipedia is and how to write a good article. Kenzofeis, please read WP:RS for instance, and WP:OR. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cuba -- Republic of Cuba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba

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

This article is poorly written, not in compliance with quality standards, lacks flow and difficult to navigate. It needs improvement to grammar, style, cohesion, "tone" and spelling. These are some of the problems when accuracy and neutrality should be the norm.

The article appears to have been developed under a "one sided" point of view and "biased" within the following areas,

Demographics Emigration Economy Culture Religion Batista's control ends with democratic rule From Batista to Castro Cuba following revolution Cuba during the Cold War Post Cold War Cuba Transfer of presidency from Fidel to Raúl Castro Military Latin America

I respectfully request permission to edit and/or prepare an article covering the above topics with verifiable, authoritative references and backup information.

Al (padwriter)