Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Homeopathy

What about homeopathy? Every sentence/statement on that article is criticised and no defense is being allowed. In fact, some of the false propoganda/accusations are inflammatory.e.g.calling it pseudoscience, placebo therapy and quackery (scientific studies which prove its' efficacy aren't being allowed a mention on the article and a WHO document stating that licenses and professional qualifications are needed in most countries to practice it, are repeatedly taken out from the Lead, although it remains lower down in the article). A lot of skeptics who've been banned from other alt. med. articles (like Osteopathy, Naturopathy and Chiropractic) are still active on the article on homeopathy. I'm new here (by the number of edits/posts), so I want someone to mediate/arbitrate-in fact I've stopped editing anything on wikipedia in disgust for more than a month now. Please help!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Comment. Who are these editors you claim have been “banned from other alt. med. articles” but still edit the Homoeopathy article?
Another thing… On that article’s talk page, you mention your “patients” benefiting from homoeopathy. That raises a few concerns:
  1. If you’re a “doctor” of homoeopathy, wouldn’t that mean you’re just as guilty of POV as these editors you mention?
  2. (Unrelated to Wikipedia but much more serious) if you’re a “doctor” of homoeopathy and you’re taking “patients”, you very likely may be breaking the law (“practicing medicine without a license”).
As to the questions you raised: Wikipedia isn’t about attack and defence. It’s about the best information from the most reliable sources. I don’t see any propaganda or inflammatory accusations in the article. Quite frankly, homoeopathy is quackery, pseudoscience and placebo therapy, since it has been proved time and again to be no more effective than placebo, and its hypothesized mechanism is complete nonsense. The information about licencing is repeatedly removed from the lede because it doesn’t belong there. The lede is meant to serve as an introduction and a brief summary of the most important information on the topic. — NRen2k5(TALK), 08:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
User:NootherIDAvailable is one of the growing number of sock puppets of Dr.Jhingaadey and has been blocked indefinitely. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy 2

I'd posted this above, but due to low visibility I'm putting it under a new section, I hope someone can reply:-

What about homeopathy? Every sentence/statement on that article is criticised and no defense is being allowed. In fact, some of the false propoganda/accusations are inflammatory.e.g.calling it pseudoscience, placebo therapy and quackery (scientific studies which prove its' efficacy aren't being allowed a mention on the article and a WHO document stating that licenses and professional qualifications are needed in most countries to practice it, are repeatedly taken out from the Lead, although it remains lower down in the article). A lot of skeptics who've been banned from other alt. med. articles (like Osteopathy, Naturopathy and Chiropractic) are still active on the article on homeopathy. I'm new here (by the number of edits/posts), so I want someone to mediate/arbitrate-in fact I've stopped editing anything on wikipedia in disgust for more than a month now. Please help!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
The problem you're running into has less to do with POV and more to do with verifiability and reliable sourcing. The fact that a license to practice quackery is required in most countries doesn't mean it's not quackery and doesn't make it scientific. Academic, peer-reviewed journals dismiss homeopathy as a placebo therapy and a pseudoscience, and like it or not, academic peer-reviewed journals are the gold standard of sourcing for an encyclopedia. Since those are the sources Wikipedia policy dictates, Wikipedia articles about things like homeopathy and magnetic therapy will of necessity take a dim view of their subjects. --GoodDamon 06:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
NootherIDAvailable, at least you are posting to a board rather than edit warring (I hope you aren't). I think it is important that your COI is known:
  • "As a professionally qualified, licensed homeopathic doctor, it was irritating for me when my patients quoted from wikipedia - and when I read the article, I realised that every statement was criticised, unlike osteopathy, chiropractic etc." User:NootherIDAvailable Diff
You need to carefully study WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs or to advocate for homeopathy. The article must include all significant POV without Wikipedia itself promoting one or the other POV. NPOV and our sourcing rules ensure that various POV are presented, including criticisms. Our fringe guidelines require that mainstream RS are given prominence without preventing the fringe homeopathic POV from being described, but the article must not become a sales brochure for homeopathy, which is clearly rejected by mainstream science and medicine.
An especially tragic case where homeopathy has once again failed. Read and weep about this triumph of ignorance and true belief over science and common sense: Parents guilty of manslaughter over daughter's eczema death -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
One case cannot be used to paint all homeopaths 'black sheep'. At the moment, every sentence/statement in the article on homeopathy is criticized and no defense is being allowed. There are innumerable studies which show homeopathy works, but you skeptics who've been banned from other alt. med. articles aren't allowing them to be mentioned. I'm looking for someone to mediate/arbitrate (they can start by adding a POV tag to the article-which isn't being allowed at the moment). I haven't edited the article on homeopathy for more than a month now (I did make a minor edit, just a minute ago, but that probably doesn't count, because I really haven't made anything change yet), so there's no chance of edit warring.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
Which alt. med. articles have skeptics been banned from?
As far as the "innumerable studies which show homeopathy works" are concerned, there are certainly some, but analysis of all the available studies, taking into account study quality, shows an effect that is no better than placebo. The article relies on these peer-reviewed analyses rather than cherry-picked positive studies. Brunton (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To add some context to this discussion, NootherIDAvailable's recent edit to homeopathy was reverted as it introduced bad grammar, and he then went on to make the astounding claim on the talk page here that homeopathy cures cancer. Even homeopathic associations have denounced that quackery, and that is exactly the sort of thing we should keep out of WP. Verbal chat 08:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I did post the studies to show that homeopathy is effective in treating cancer on the Talk Page some months ago. I haven't edited any article on wikipedia for more than a month now, so let's get someone neutral to comment here. Please!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
I've checked each of your edits to the Talk:Homeopathy page, and none of them appears to reference any studies showing that homoeopathy is effective in treating cancer - in fact the only mention of evidence of efficacy you've posted is a link to the BHA website, which doesn't appear to mention cancer (incidentally, it has already been explained to you why the peer-reviewed meta analyses that the article already uses are preferred to an unpublished review which, as far as can be ascertained, does not take study quality into account, and a cherry-picked list of "positive" trials, both of which are on the website of an organisation which states that it "exists to promote homeopathy"). It is possible that I missed the post in question, as you have around 60 edits to that page, but I don't think I have (all the links to your diffs are coming up as if I've followed them).
Possibly you posted them elsewhere. Any chance you could post them again? Brunton (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You seriously, honestly, maintain that homeopathy can cure cancer? I don't think you'll find much support. Verbal chat 09:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think in addition to topic-blocking this editor, Wikipedia administration should contact his local authorities. I’m pretty sure that practising medicine without a licence is a serious crime in most of the English-speaking world. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this editor promoting that homeopathy works since his very first edit. He behaves in a combative way, twisting policies to fit his purpose. For an example, see the WP:POINT that he made when he was told about "writing for the enemy" and then he perverted it by menacing to add a lot of very negative stuff in purpose[1][2]. That was not a good faith attempt to bring NPOV to the article. His first edit to the Talk:Homeopathy was also a WP:POINT[3]. This editor should be topic banned now. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit to following this discussion mostly out of halfhearted curiosity as to whose sockpuppet NootherIDAvailable (talk · contribs) was. Because, let's face it, this is an obvious agenda-driven sock account. It appears that my curiosity has been satisfied, so I don't see much else to do here. MastCell Talk 05:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he's been indef blocked as yet another incarnation of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents-Homeopathy (there are studies which show it works which aren't being allowed a mention on that article by the skeptics) has proven to be as effective as Naturopathy, Osteopathy and Chiropractic, but only the article on homeopathy is an attack piece with every statement being criticized! I wonder if anyone will change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.147.124 (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))


Your 2 cents doesn't belong here. See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The "studies which show it works" are already considered in the article, along with the studies that show it doesn't work, in the form of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all the data. It has been repeatedly explained to you (i.e. 59.92.147.124 AKA NootherIDAvailable etc.) why these peer-reviewed studies are preferred to cherry-picking positive results. Brunton (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Strikeforce

Sea888 (talk · contribs) is insisting that the lead in the Strikeforce article should say "Strikeforce is a world class [...] promotion" (emphasis mine) as opposed to the (IMO) NPOV "an U.S.-based [...] promotion" on the basis that "they have many ranked fighters, and fighters from all over the world" and a press release from Strikeforce. Input appreciated.

There's also another issue in the article related to naming two fighters the concensus two best in the world (see my post at WT:MMA if interested), but let's stick to one issue at the time. Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, the lead says it's based in San Jose California.Sea888 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not about conveing if it's US-based or not. The problem is calling it "world class" which is not consisted with our neutral point of view policy. --aktsu (t / c) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutral to what? It is a world class organization, that is a fact, and does not specifically state that it is the ONLY one. It has highly ranked fighters from all over the world.Sea888 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not a fact -- that is an opinion. I can consider Strikeforce to be an awful promotion (not that I do) and it would be a just as valid opinion. --aktsu (t / c) 22:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
World class as in having highly ranked fighters in MAJORITY of mma rankings consisting of fighters world wide = FACT. Is it the only one, of course not. It doesn't say that.Sea888 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
That they have many fighters in the top-tens is true. But that does not directly translate to the opinion that they are "world class" (which can mean a number of things) being a fact. I have no problem whatsoever with stating this fact in the lead to establish notability for the promotion (as it is a verifiable thruth, though we'd still need a reliable source stating it -- not you and me). See Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves --aktsu (t / c) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) I think any statement put into the article that a promotion (in this case Strikeforce) is "world class" it had better be backed up by "reliable, third-party, published sources" (from WP:RS). The only source for that statement currently is a press release put out jointly by Strikeforce and Showtime; that would not be a third-party source. If User:Sea888 can come up with other sources that prove that claim, then great. If no other sources can be found, then it should be removed and Strikeforce simply be referred to as a "US based promotion" of which there is no doubt. This description would also put it in line with other MMA promotion articles, such as UFC. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if backed by sources it should still not be presented as fact IMO. No matter who many agree with it, it's still an opinion and should be presented as such. In the same way WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselve says the article on Hitler should not start with "Hitler was a bad man", the article on Strikeforce should not start with "Strikeforce is a HYPER-MEGA-AWESOME world class promotion". Even "Strikforce is considered to be one of the top promotions in the US" is not totally OK IMO . We should instead be presenting statements about their attendance, viewership and TV-deals in comparison with other promotions etc. --aktsu (t / c) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
World class as in a CLASS not by itself but among the premier. I've provided third party sources. It should be o.k. Sea888 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cham Albanians

There is a dispute about the neutrality of a section in Cham Albanians article, which recenty became GA. I and User:Factuarius have presented two different paragraphs for Cham_Albanians#Greek-Italian_War_.281940.E2.80.931941.29 section of that page. User:Factuarius refuses to get the point of wiki policies and NPOV issues. SO, I am reporting it here and I am waiting for resposne from admins and editors.

User:Factuarius version (which he has put in the article without consensus) is:

On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep. He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before[76]. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] Rome's propaganda machine hurled fabricated accusations at Athens conserning the “oppression” of Albanian nationals in the Greek Epirus ([4]p.143). According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Fischer, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years. The Italians urgently started organizing several thousands local Albanians volunteers to participate on the "liberation of Chamuria" creating an army equivalent to a full division of 9 battalions.[78]Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.[79] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The Albanian and Chams battalions took part to the invasion attached to the Italian army, united under the “Chameria Army Corps”.[80] On the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and replaced their active service by labour service on the local roads. On the following month, they seized all Albanian males who had not been mobilized and sent them to camps and islands.[19][81] The initial Greco-Italian conflict continued into 1941, when the forces of Nazi Germany invaded Greece. The country was occupied by German Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

My version is

On June 1940 Daut Hoxha a Cham Albanian was found headless in the village of Vrina in Southern Albania. According to British historian Miranda Vickers and to German historian Brendt Ficher, Hoxha was leader of the Cham ressistance during the inter-war years, leading to him branded as a bandit by Greece.[13][75] According to another British historian, Owen Pearson, Hoxha was a notorious bandit killed in fight by two sheperds.[76] Hoxha`s death was used as the final excuse from fascist Italy in order to attack Greece. Italian propaganda officially described him as “an Albanian from Chameria animated by great patriotic spirit” murdered from Greek spies inside Albania, declaring the imminent liberation of Chameria.[77] As the possibility of an Italian attack on Greece drew nearer, Jacomoni began arming Albanian irregular bands to use against Greece.[78] At the same time, on the eve of the Greco-Italian War, Greek authorities disarmed 1800 Cham conscripts and put them to work on local roads.[19] The Greco-Italian War started with the Italian military forces launching an invasion of Greece from Albanian territory. The invasion force included native Albanians, estimated 2,000-3,500 (including some Chams),[79] in blackshirt battalions attached to the Italian army, united later under “Chameria Army Corps”.[citation needed] Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]
In November, as the Greek counter-offensive managed to regain Thesprotia, the Greek authorities seized all Albanian males not called up and deported them to concentration camps or to island exile.[19][80] Until the invasion of Greece by the German army, the Muslim Cham population of the region of Chameria was composed of women, child and the elderly. The Muslim Chams would be restored to their land only after fascist Italy got control of the region. In 1941, Greece was occupied by German, Italian and Bulgarian armies, who divided the country in three distinct occupation zones.

The major problem of this point, is that User:Factuarius refuses to use inlines of Fischer and Vickers putting an one-sided version of the story. My objections are: "Factuarius says "On June 1940 Daut Hoxha was killed in a fight with two shepherds after a quarrel over some sheep.", although Fischer, states that he is possibly killed by Greek police. Factuarius says that "He was in fact a notorious bandit sought by the Greek police for murders that he had committed many years before.", although Vickers and Fischer, state that he was a leader of Chams. Factuarius says that "Many Chams, estimated 2,000-3,500, had secretly crossed the borders in order to compose armed groups.", and cite it with Ruches, although Ruches states that there were 3,500 Albanians not Chams." Also he has removed this sentence "Their performance however was distinctly lackluster, as most Albanians, poorly motivated, either deserted or defected. Indeed, the Italian commanders, including Mussolini, would later use the Albanians as scapegoats for the Italian failure.[78]", which is totally sourced, by saying that he cannot find it online in google books, although I showed to him that it is online and that he may read it.

Factuarius response to this concers is that "Between a "possible" source and a certain source we prefer the certain not the possible", and that because Fischer says that Hoxha was "possibly" killed by Greek police, while Piercon does not say that that is "possible". Also he is misciting Ruches source, as I have explained above.

This dispute has more than a week in here; I have tried to contact with uninvolved editors and admins to intermediate in this dispute; but till now nobody has done that. For me, it is impossible to discuss with User:Factuarius, who again and again answers to those concerns with non-wiki arguments, such as "Although I understand that my oppinion is not the only one, but I prefer that from the others", and other like this. I have reworded that section more than 3 times, reaching this point, which I think is the NPOV-ist, but Factuarius keeps reverting every my edit in that page. (I may say that I have not been as civil as I should, due to the refusal of Factiuarius to get the point, and I have asked him sorry, and that I might have been edit-warrig before three days, when I reverted the page 3 times, but it was not intended to get my POV in it, but to get to the NPOV-ist version as I argued, by rewording the section again and again; on the other hand the same problems are with Factuarius which actually has broked 3RR). I need an opinion from admins and editors, about this dispute, because I am not able to discuss any more with Factuarius. Which is the NPOV-ist version of the above? Thanks in advance, Balkanian`s word (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


What I found in that article is the folowing:

Three cases of falsification of sources.

  • His original source was completely faked since the page 21 was almost empty and said nothing about, which is true.
  • His second offered source was only a sentence said "It was alleged by the Italian-controlled government in Tirana that he had been murdered by Greek secret agents." which is just the sentence explained what the Italians said about, and nothing more, a very well known fact since every author is quoting what the Italian had said about the murder. So the statement "Vickers says..." is a misleading lie.
  • And that his reference of Mazower about the sizing of the male Chams population before the war was also a lie since Mazower saying exactly the opposite in his book, in the very page he noted.

Falsification of source nr.4.

  • What the source says: 1.4.1.1.4 Αναγκαστικός Νόμος 735/1937 σχετικά με την αναγκαστική απαλλοτρίωση των υπολειπομένων αλβανικών περιουσιών, τα οποία βρίσκονται υπό το Δημόσιο ή την Εθνική Τράπεζα, ως διαχειρίστριας της ανταλλαξίμου μουσουλμανικής περιουσίας, και (β) την αποζημίωση των ιδιοκτητών μετά από γνωμοδότηση της Επιτροπής Απαλλοτριώσεως. Σύμφωνα με μία πηγή, οι καθυστερήσεις στην καταβολή των αποζημιώσεων υπήρξαν προκλητικές. So it was about the properties that the Muslims of the area (Chams) had left behind when they resettled to Turkey during the population exchanges of '20. Compensations provided although according to one source were delayed.
  • What was transfering and referenced: "On the core issue of properties, the government led by Metaxas, not only did not compensate the local population for prior confiscations, but adopted a new law, which reduced the properties of Muslim Chams. The final law that nationalized the entire property of Chams and other Albanian nationals in Greece was passed in 1937. This law confiscated all properties of Albanians in Greece, except the primary homes and the small farms inside the villages, while the compensations provided for were delayed, something which was seen as a provocation, by Chams."

Falsification of source nr.5.

  • The sentence in the article: The Greek government saw this as the perfect opportunity to get rid of Muslim Albanians, as Orthodox Chams could be easily assimilated. The reference: Petzopoulos The Balkan Exchange of Minorities and Its Impact on Greece. p.128)
  • What the page says: Nothing about. Has two tables of the Ethnological Composition of the Greece and makes some general annotations about --Factuarius (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Falsification of source nr.6.

  • The sentence in the article: Prior to 1925, historian Miranda Vickers estimates that another 5,000 Chams had been forced to leave their homeland. reference Vickers, Miranda: The Cham Issue - Where to Now?
  • What the source says: "The Turkish goverment agreed to allow the settlement of some 5,000 Chams" and she explain below how the League of Nations intervened and stoped the procedure (p.5&6). Pallis says that only 1,700 resetled to Turkey, the League of Nations 2,993. So firstly Vickers mention only the Greek-Turkish agreement, doesn't makes ANY at all "estimations". And secondly her figure are not for "ANOTHER 5,000" but for the same 1,700 or 2,993 people

This page has a major problem from extented falsification of its sources and I need assistance to double check it all, Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Page is now fully protected for one week. You've both been edit warring for over a day now (and no doubt far longer than that). Sort it out on the talk page, or seek mediation. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your interviniance and the protection. The problem is that we need somebody to become a mediator, because User:Factuarius refuts to get the point, and thus I cannot put arguments in it.
Now, the current issue is about the paragraph, mentioned in the first point. I have explained to User:Factuarius that I will answer to all his questions, after we finish with the first dispute. That dispute is quite obvious to me. Fischer says that "he was killed by unknown assasins, possibly Greek", while Vickers, as you may see in my proposal does not source to who killed Hoxha, but to the fact that "Hoxha was a leader of Chams" and not a "nontiorious bandit", a position taken also by Fischer; While on Piercon says that Hoxha was a bandit. This is a clear case of POV, not forgeting misciting like Manta and Ruches.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As it is now you only protecting the version of article with the falsifications (see above). By protect it in such a condition, we only allowed to continue to mislead the readers of the article for a week more and thus rewarding their "work". As an administrator you are in position to alter that. They avoided any discussion about the falsifications of the references never answer a word about although had been asked. Don't rewarding them by protecting them. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The version of a protected page, is always the wrong version. The problem is that, you are still not answering the issues about the paragraph you inserted. I explained what Vickers and Fischer says; why are you still keeping it POV?Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Three month topic ban to Factuarius

In reviewing this more fully, and in looking over the page history, as well as taking some time to get better informed with the issue being warred over, Factuarius is hereby given a three month topic ban in line with the remedies at WP:ARBMAC. Page protection will be reduced to semi from full protection. Factuarius will be blocked if he continues to edit this article, or the article's talk page for three months. Other involved editors are advised to refrain from engaging in edit wars on this or any other article, and may feel free to report this issue to my talk page directly if further assistance is required. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. This issue relates specifically to WP:NPOV#Article naming and related policies/guidelines. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic sex abuse cases

Over on the article, there is a user Sturunner and an IP (who I suspect of being one and the same) that are repeatedly changing words like "handling" to "concealing" and "actions" to "malfeasance". Frankly, I think words like "malfeasance" leap over the line into the realm of vandalism, but I tried to talk about it on the talk page anyways. I am, however, being ignored. Can I get input from anyone? Like I said, I consider it outright vandalism, but at the least it's gotta be blatantly non npov, right?

P.S. - this is the corret place for this, right? I'm not used to reporting stuff like this.Farsight001 (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine and Duloxetine

The articles stated above seemingly lean towards the disparagement of the two drugs. Though the articles are relatively well cited, they read as if we are taking a position against their use. There have been discussions on the talk pages of both articles noting the immense amount of POV issues with the article. For Paroxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Though some of those concerns were brought up by the now blocked Mwalla, I do believe they serve a point here (to say how unstable the article is). For Duloxetine, here are some examples of other concerned editors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The links, by themselves, are mentioned for two purposes; one to show the history and development of the article, and two, how those edits vibrate to the current article. If possible, I'd like to obtain comments from other editors on the articles and how they feel about wording, citations, criticisms, etc. blurredpeace ☮ 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blurred Peace has made some good points. Whilst Mwalla is a disruptive vandalising sockpuppeteer who has been banned for life for using sockpuppets to distort what refs said and vandalising talk page comments to make them say the opposite there is bias against paroxetine and duloxetine. I have taken onboard blurred Peace's comments and have made a start at adding more of the benefits of paroxetine and duloxetine. These are important evidence based and in some cases life saving therapeutics effective in both the short and long term. The articles should reflect this and follow the peer reviewed evidence base. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Literaturegeek. It's good to know someone else cares about, what I see as, problematic writing. Just reading the lead gives you a strong sense that the articles have a definite bias (I doubt the drugs are that bad if doctors are continuing to prescribe them). –blurpeace (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonestown

Statement by involved editor

For a year now, a certain editor has continued to delete all mention of the classified documents and conspiracy theories about Jonestown. The classified documents and conspiracy theories are widely discussed in the best reliable sources, and even appear in the sources used in the article, but no mention is allowed. Instead, the user has forked out all of the conspiracy content to Jonestown conspiracy theory but there is not a single word in the main article about this content except for a link buried in the {{Peoples Temple}} template footer. Furthermore, there is no mention of the classified documents that are discussed in most reliable sources on the topic and are ironically blamed for giving rise to the conspiracies. A good overview of this topic can be found in a scholarly article here, and is covered by many news articles, such as this one in the San Francisco Chronicle. The number of reliable sources covering this topic is staggering, yet they are not allowed to even be mentioned in the article. What is incredibly strange and peculiar, is that there are literally dozens of sources about the classified documents and conspiracy theories on the "Alternative Considerations of Jonestown and Peoples Temple" website, sponsored by the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University.[4] This website is cited around 70 times in the current article, yet not a single reference appears to these two topics. Could someone help resolve this problem? I have used the talk page to raise this issue, but my questions, proposals, and answers have been ignored. I have added the {{NPOV}} tag, but it continues to get removed. Per NPOV, these significant topics need to be discussed in relation to the topic. Here are some facts that are being deliberately left out of the article:

  • "In 1980, the House Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide. A year earlier, the House Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that Jones ``suffered extreme paranoia. The 782-page report also recommended that more studies be done of cults, but the committee kept more than 5,000 pages secret."(San Francisco Chronicle)
  • The "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened." (Brown 2000, p.8)
  • "conspiracy theorists will continue to spin their tales as long as government documents remain classified." (Brown 2000, p.21)
  • "George Berdes, the chief consultant to the committee at the time, said recently that the papers were classified because ``we had to give assurances of confidentiality to sources. ``This way, we were able to get better and more information, he said. But Berdes said that now, ``after 20 years, I think it should be declassified. A committee staff aide said the question of declassifying the papers is being studied. Mary McCormick Maaga, author of a new book, ``Hearing the Voices of Jonestown, said the government's refusal to release the papers ``feeds this conspiracy theory mentality around Jonestown."(San Francisco Chronicle)
  • "President Bill Clinton signed a bill into law in the 1990s, mandating the expiration of secrecy in documents after 25 years. It has been nearly 30 years since the mysterious mass deaths in Jonestown. The majority of Jonestown documents remain classified, despite Freedom of Information requests from numerous people over the past three decades"
  • "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, led some to suggest CIA involvement. In 1980 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown. Most government documents relating to Jonestown remain classified."

Why are these historical facts prevented from appearing the article? Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Response from uninvolved editors

This NPOV incident was filed here to receive a response from a neutral, uninvolved editor. That is, after all, the point of this noticeboard.

uninvolved comment I see no real NPOV issue here. I slightly expanded the paragraph that links to the conspiracy theory, as it didn't fully reflect what that page suggests as the basis for the contention. --Jaymax (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jaymax

Fair enough - The existence of classified documents is fuel for the conspiracy theorists, if nothing else. Only one of the old links I eventually saw (SFGate) are pertinent for the main article I think - the opinions and research of Richardson et al belong in the conspiracy article. Added four words to the paragraph. --Jaymax (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It is most certainly fuel for the conspiracy theorists, but at the same time, it frustrates scholars and researchers.([5][6] old link to CESNUR) If you could add the information about the classified documents to the aftermath section that would help. The aftermath section should mention that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs classified 5000 documents pages related to Jonestown in 1979 and that in 1980, "the House Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide." Moore has additional commentary about this subject here. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the whole para belongs properly in aftermath - so I'll move it there. Note that reference I've see is to 5000 PAGES, not 5000 documents, but I don't see how the volume of classified material is particularly relevant, but if so that can be explored more on the conspiracy page - likewise frustration of scholars and researchers investigating the possibility of conspiracy. Saying 'scholars and researchers are frustrated by secrecy' seems to me an absurdly general tautology. --Jaymax (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Completely agree with the move to the aftermath section and your statement about the classified material (FYI, most of it is actually not "classified" but being withheld for Privacy Act reasons by the FBI, but that's not really important here). I am glad that you did it, as any such action by me would almost certainly have been reverted by the above user.Mosedschurte (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I requested the change, and if I had performed it myself, you would have reverted it. I had previously requested that you add the classified documents back in, but you refused. Jaymax made the change instead and you suddently found it wonderful. Whatever works. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Response from involved editors

  • Comment: The consensus on the page from three editors is that the fact this material is not included does not amount to a violation of NPOV as this is found in a separate article, Jonestown conspiracy theory. This appears to be a content dispute at this point, and I don't really see where the nominator wants it to be resolved, even though her points have been discussed extensively. There is also an element of wp:wikihounding going on here. The nominator was banned for a period for edit warring on Human rights in the United States at [[7]] by the main contributor to the article, user:Mosedschurte and then appeared with a laundry-list of concerns in an article where he or she had never made a contribution until the other dispute had heated up on June 25, 2009 [[8]]. The nominator has also been engaged in WP:HUSH, leaving numerous warnings on both my talk page, as well as user:Mosedschurte [[9]], and mine at: [[10]], and here: [[11]]. There is definitely Unclean hands in this case.Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no such consensus on the talk page, as my concerns have not been directly addressed by anyone. I posted this query to get a neutral assessment on the matter, an opinion that you cannot provide. You are a tag teaming meatuppet for Mosedchurtre, the editor who refuses to allow a discussion of the classified sources and conspiracy theories in the article, and you are not neutral. You have the same documented NPOV issues as Mosedchurtre. This continuing problem has been discussed extensively on the noticeboard and talk pages, and my attention was drawn to your contributions when I found you both engaging in NPOV violations and plagiarism, which has since been confirmed by the copyright cleanup project. You are welcome at any time to put aside your meatpuppetry role and engage in discussion about the topic. So, why should the existence of classified sources and conspiracy theories not be addressed in the main article? All of the reliable sources on the topic address it, so why not Wikipedia? Please directly answer this question and stop distracting from my query. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Your concerns have been fully addressed on the talk page under the tag "NPOV", and I, in fact, invited you to place this information within the article here: [[12]]. You refused. Add it if you like (I honestly don't care), but the article still meets NPOV requirements without it, as every other editor on the talk page has indicated. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
        • No single concern about the NPOV issues has been addressed on the talk page, even though I continue to ask for input. This noticeboard query is designed to solicit opinions from neutral third-parties, not non-neutral, involved tag team meatpuppets like yourself. Please stop trying to distract this discussion and let the process take its course. You are welcome, of course, to directly address my concerns above at any time. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
          • While comments are supposed to meet the requirements of WP:CIV, and yours certainly do not. Your concerns have been fully addressed, notwithstanding your present contention. The present discussion needs all of the facts, and your own history with the editor(s) involved is relevant for any neutral editors' consideration in assessing your present contention, as is the fact that you were invited to include the disputed material from the editor you are now personally attacking. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
            • It's a documented fact that your only involvement in this article is as a tag teaming, edit warring, meatpuppet of Mosedchurtre, and that you have not addressed any NPOV issues I have raised on the talk page of the article or in this noticeboard report. Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - From the beginning of the involvement of Viriditas on this article, I questioned the ability to neutrally review the article due to the wide range of disputes which I saw have occurred elsewhere and have suggested at least twice that any neutrality/content checking occur by an editor uninvolved with the article or any of the other disputes that have occurred, in order to assure a neutral viewpoint regarding all of this. At least Yachtsman1 agreed with this suggestion but Viriditas argued specifically against that, claiming an ability to do so him/herself. If that is so, then why would it not be true for anyone else? I continue to question how neutrally this editor could possibly evaluate this article, given the assumptions that he/she made regarding Mosedschurte's editing. Mostly my comment was that when one comes into an article new to the editor with preconceived notions, it's highly probable that such notions will be borne out, even if one must reach and reach to support them. The arguments that have ensued only bear this out. For a case in point, this editor has claimed that content from the Time magazine site may have copied text content from Wikipedia and proceeded effectively to demand some sort of proof that it did not. That an article regarding points that occurred well after the events at Jonestown was created as ancillary to the actual article covering the specific Jonestown event does in no way equal NPOV and I find it difficult to accept that viewpoint. Now the NPOV tag has been replaced by a tag challenging the factual accuracy of the article without distinguishing at all what is being challenged as non-factual. This has become beyond ridiculous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The NPOV tag was removed by the tag team meatpuppet team of Mosedchurte/Yachtsman1, and the disputed tag was added in its place because the article is not factually accurate due to deletion of the classified material and the conspiracy theories. This is also a NPOV issue. My concern about the Time magazine material has been solved on the talk page, and more reliable sources have been proposed in its place. The Time magazine material is nothing more than an anonymous photography caption from a website, not a print issue. We generally do not source statements in Wikipedia articles from anonymous photo captions. I know you are very upset at me because I pointed out that your chosen referencing format was unwieldy and inefficient and I recommended the use of shortened footnotes in its place. You then threatened to leave the article if I changed anything. Please actually try to address the NPOV issue under discussion, namely the inclusion of the classified document material and the discussion of the conspiracy theories, both of which were deleted by Mosedchurtre. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No, please do not make assumptions about what I feel, you have no basis for drawing such a conclusion. I am upset with you for your continued attacks upon other editors which do not display any modicum of neutrality and for misrepresenting conversations and ignoring points that are responses to your questions while concentrating on personal attacks. That was the issue I raised when you began picking at the article and you absolutely have not shown any indication that counters that concern. I "threatened to leave" if you changed anything? Please show me where I said that. I removed the article from my watchlist because I expected your involvement on the page to create more stress than I can really endure, and you have not proven that wrong. I am less than pleased with your continued attacks upon other editors, such as calling other editors meatpuppets and your picking and choosing what you consider responses and what you ignore. There is no factual inaccuracy because content was spun into a separate article. That the article at Jonestown concentrates on the events at Jonestown in November 1978 and has spun off conspiracy discussion into its own article does not represent inaccuracy and POV. It is bad faith for you to make that assumption. I am also upset that you refused to accept an alternate person to review the article besides yourself and your refusing to respond to that, which I included above, continues. Your personal disputes with the other two editors on that page and the course of the conversation only substantiates my belief that you cannot discuss this without being aggressive and confrontational. Actually, your response above substantiates it as well. Please show me the policy - specifically - which disallows a caption from Time magazine as a source for a statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please directly address the NPOV incident report, namely 1) Why aren't the classified documents discussed in the current version, and 2) why aren't the conspiracy theories mentioned, with a link to their POV fork, and 3) why was this material deleted from the article? To solve this NPOV incident report, simply state that you have no objection to my restoring of these two related items to the article. Previously, the article stated:
  • "President Bill Clinton signed a bill into law in the 1990s, mandating the expiration of secrecy in documents after 25 years. It has been nearly 30 years since the mysterious mass deaths in Jonestown. The majority of Jonestown documents remain classified, despite Freedom of Information requests from numerous people over the past three decades"
  • "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, led some to suggest CIA involvement. In 1980 the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigated the Jonestown mass suicide and announced that there was no evidence of CIA involvement at Jonestown. Most government documents relating to Jonestown remain classified."
I am open to variations on this theme (and would recommend rewriting and resourcing this material), but the lead should also make mention of the classified documents and the conspiracy theories surrounding the case. As for the rest of your non-incident report related issues, you threatened to leave on the talk page when I asked you questions about your chosen referencing format. You responded with, "I'd rather walk away from the hours I've spent on it than get drawn into what, from what I've seen, has happened across articles" and "I'd rather just walk away from the Jonestown articles and all the work I put in rather than get involved in issues going on from elsewhere." You also said, "I spent hours and hours and hours verifying that the content cited here to pages from the books that I obtained from the library, some from ridiculously complicated interlibrary loan, were accurate for content and page numbering....Have at it....I'm finished with it." So clearly, you are upset, and you have expressed your frustration on the talk page. When I proposed making changes to the format of the references, I explicitly stated, "I think you should reconsider your position about leaving. I have not said that I'm going to implement the referencing proposal without your support, I've merely tried to discuss it with you to find out why you oppose it."
As for the Time magazine discussion, that has since been solved with the presentation of better references. Per WP:RS, "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available," and anonymous photography captions on websites lacking publication info such as author and date, are not more reliable than those that have this information. My concerns with the Time website were clearly expressed on the discussion page. Backwards sourcing due to web scraping is a common phenomenon that appears to be happening more than ever. Since there was no publication or author data available about this photography caption, I questioned whether it was written before the Wikipedia article. As I said in several places, this is no longer an issue, as more reliable sources on the topic have been found. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for copying my comments here, at no time did I ever say I would leave if you changed anything, and I clearly said that my issues were with your involvement because I was concerned that your ongoing disputes from everywhere else would be taken up on that article. See the article talk page for the diffs where I expressed my concern with your involvement. Those concerns have been supported. Because you chose to ignore that I also responded regarding that content being spun off into a conspiracy articles does not negate that either. I'm sorry, Viriditas, but you cannot force your way on issues by running to noticeboards and making personal attacks, especially when good faith suggestions for a third party reviewer to be asked in or dispute resolution sought were made from nearly the beginning of your posts. You've quite clearly stated above that you are intractable regarding this and you've posted a paste of the content without a link for anyone else to examine what you've posted, which does contain some issues regarding wording and weasel content. That you are demanding return of anything as a condition for your to be satisfied is bad faith and in no way reflects that anything must be included or it is POV. How does the inclusion of conspiracy theories that occurred after the events, or the existence of classified documents that were subject to a 1990 law impact on the events that occurred in 1978? How does any of that equal factual inaccuracy as your latest tag suggests? What is inaccurate in the article as it stands at this moment? Mind you, the question is inaccurate, meaning wrong, mistake, erroneous? What facts are wrong? WP:RS does address reliability of academic and peer-reviewd publications, but you have also claimed that Time magazine content is not reliable because you claim they may have copied content from Wikipedia. Unfounded and a serious issue regarding your POV about this article. Because another source exists does not negate your claim about the magazine and it is something that needs to be addressed, even if you do now feel appeased. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I directly answered these questions above, in particular at 01:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[13] To summarize, it is factually inaccurate to avoid discussing or mentioning the 5000 classified documents and the conspiracy theories. It is also a significant NPOV issue, as significant viewpoints on this topic are not allowed in the article, and a POV fork about conspiracies has been created that does not even link back to the article text. I know you are very upset about the concerns I have raised about NPOV in this article, after all, you have, as you have stated above, put many hours into this article, with 95 edits making you third most active contributor to the page. But, perhaps you can directly address the problem of classified documents and conspiracy theories, and their placement in the literature. After all, you did a lot of research on the topic; Remember all that time you spent at the library? Why haven't you added this material back into the article? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a very simple NPOV incident report concerning the removal of the following information: Why did you delete all mention of the 5000 classified documents on Jonestown, documents that scholars have repeatedly asked to be declassified? Why did you delete all information about the House Select Committee on Intelligence meeting in 1980 that determined that the CIA had no involvement with Peoples Temple and had no advance warning of the mass murder-suicide"? Why doesn't the article describe that the "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened"? And why doesn't the article represent the canon of Jonestown literature in regards to conspiracy theories? Why is there a POV fork to a conspiracy article that is not discussed in the main topic page? These are all violations of NPOV. Please directly address these points, and explain why they are not being added back into the article with the reliable, academic, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles that support their inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, please try to grasp that it is not POV to put the content regarding conspiracy theories and later investigations and inquiries into a separate article, which already exists. It does not make the article factually inaccurate for that content to covered in a separate ancillary article instead of the main article that was developed to describe the actual events that occurred in Guyana in 1978. Examples have been given to you regarding subject topics that exist which are covered in more than one Wikipedia article. There is no mandate or policy compelling that every aspect of an event must be covered in one article, especially when it covers many subtopics. See articles covering Apollo 11, a good article with an ancillary article for the hoax conspiracy theories which does not try to explore later controversies or theories in the main article. That article contains a link to the sub-topic. See articles covering John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln, where separate articles were created to cover conspiracies and later investigations into them. That you keep stating it is POV or factual inaccuracy is your interpretation and that does not make it fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie, please read and understand Wikipedia:NPOV#POV_forks. It is the NPOV policy that compels us to treat the discussion of classified documents and conspiracy theories in one article. In fact it states that "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article." The historical fact is that the Jonestown classified documents exist and make it difficult for any scholar to come to any one conclusion about the topic. This is a signficant POV represented by reliable sources on the subject. There is also significant discussion about why the documents were classified, and the efforts of scholars to get them released. The canon of Jonestown literature also includes conspiracy theories, whose proliferation has been encouraged by secret documents. This opinion is repeated by many reliable sources. Per NPOV, these two significant issues must be treated in one article, and the reliable sources on this subject are abundant and plentiful to do so. It is a NPOV violation not to do so, and the article is factually inaccurate as a result. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You have not addressed a single aspect of this NPOV incident. Please explain why you deleted the discussion of classified documents and forked out the conspiracy theories to a separate POV fork, with no discussion of the topic in the main article? Major authors in the field of Jonestown research discuss these two topics in the scholarly literature, and various newspapers and reliable secondary sources widely report on the subject. There is nothing about this that violates notability, fringe, or undue weight, and if there was, you would be able to demonstrate this with evidence. The fact is, the documents were classified, this is covered by every major source on the subject, and the conspiracy literature has been reviewed, discussed, and criticized by the same sources. As Wikipedia editors, are job is to use the best sources to report to assert facts. When we look at what you have been doing, we see that you have been deleting facts and cherry picking opinions from primary sources. You were previously taken to task for this on other articles, including multiple noticeboard complaints and in mediation, so your past history of violating the NPOV policy is a matter of public record. This incident report was filed to get feedback from neutral editors who have expertise on the NPOV policy. Your opinion is already know, and unless you can directly address the questions asked of you, please stop spamming this noticeboard with crud. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(od)There is not "NPOV incident" and, as many editors have explained to you, of course several "major author and scholars" have discussed the existence of the Jonestown conspiracy theory -- no one HAS EVER disputed the existence of the theory. In fact, it has it's own article Jonestown conspiracy theory, which is already linked and discussed in a sentence in the article now, precisely like the far more notable Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories in the Apollo 11 article. As has been explained SEVERAL TIMES, just because "major author and scholars" discuss the Jonestown conspiracy theory, does not mean that it must be discussed at length in the article Jonestown itself when it has its own article. And the false statements you've made about me and other editors are now so commonplace that no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not received a single, neutral response from an uninovled editor. Instead I have received the typical, tag teaming, edit warring from Yachtsman1/Mosedchurtre, and an angry response from Wildhartlivie, a primary contributor to Jonestown (95 edits). Either address the NPOV issues directly, or stop spamming your crud.
Multiple noticeboards document your cherry picking of sources and POV pushing. Here are just four noticeboard reports filed by other editors, all about Mosedchurtre and his POV pushing on Jim Jones/Peoples Temple related topics: [14], [15], [16], [17]. You have a documented POV pushing history in regards to Jim Jones and People's Temple related articles, and it had to go to mediation in the end. We certainly don't need more POV crud here. We need answers. For example, why did you delete all mention of the classified Jonestown documents and the discussion of the canon of conpsiracy theory literature that is sourced to Moore and other scholars? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Every editor has now addressed REPEATEDLY your questions regarding why the Jonestown conspiracy theory article is linked an discussed for one sentence in Jonestown, with the further discussions in the article Jonestown conspiracy theory. Every editor has told you repeatedly that no one disputes the existence of the Jonestown conspiracy theory or that scholars have recognized the existence of the theory, which is one of the reasons that it has its own article. You have ignored EVERY SINGLE attempt to address your point, and just repeatedly asked why further discussions of the Jonestown conspiracy theory and related document classification issues are not elaborately discussed in the Jonestown article -- a question probably answered now no less than 20 times. In addition, your continued false statemments about other edotrs-- including posting complaints INCLUDING YOUR OWN where not a single action was taken against me (in fact, the third one was resolved amicably) -- are so commonplacet hat no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end. And you're not an "uninvoled editor" -- precisely the opposite -- so all such inaccurate labeling of others comments are to be avoided, like the rest of the sections on this noticeboard.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Multiple noticeboards document your cherry picking of sources and POV pushing. Here are just four noticeboard reports filed by other editors, all about Mosedchurtre and his POV pushing on Jim Jones/Peoples Temple related topics: [18], [19], [20], [21]. You have a documented POV pushing history in regards to Jim Jones and People's Temple related articles, and it had to go to mediation in the end. These are the facts. I was not involved in any of those reports or disputes. You've been pushing this People's Temple POV for a long time. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What a joke and the utterly false comment "You have a documented POV pushing history", and a perfect example of how this complaint is really just a continued part of your about to end WP:Wikihounding campaign of me personally, as well as Yachtsman1. NOT A SINGLE NOTICEBOARD ADMIN has ever taken action against me for NPOV, one of those was LAUGHALBY FILED BY YOURSELF (again, no action, of course, as it was baseless), and the mediation was over the NON-inclusion of the PT in another article, not my conduct, we went to mediation and agreed upon a final resolution that included it. This is how WP:Civil editors come to an agreement.
  • The false statements you've made about me and other editors are now so commonplace that no editor even bothers addressing you about them anymore. Much of this is part of the continued WP:Wikihounding campaign that is about to come to an end. Much like your Edit War campaign being blocked from editing for 48 hours and your admonishment for continued deletion of talk page comments. Neither of which are relevant to this thread.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The statements I've made are fully supported by the links to the noticeboard reports concerning the Jim Jones/People's temple topics: [22], [23], [24], [25]. The noticeboard complaints pointed out your incivility, as you called everyone who disagree with you "liars" and you accused them of "lying", much as you still do today. They also described you as a single purpose account and discussed whether you should be indefinitely blocked. In addition to your incivility and POV pushing which is fully documented on the noticeboards, you have also engaged in plagiarism of sources in other articles, and I am currently examining Jonestown for plagiarized material. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The continued repetition of false statements about other editors (anyone reading your links can plainly see that no action was taken against me therein) only further serves to demonstrate that this complaint is pretty openly and brazenly part of your continued WP:Wikihounding campaign, and not focused upon the Jonestown conspiracy theory's lack of more extensive discussion in Jonestown. Every editor has attempted to point out that this was not a POV problem, and you have continually ignored each and every one, engaging instead in combative disruptive commentary.08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The burying of comments under repeated "crud" without actually addressing the topic or saying anything is a common tactic of POV pushers. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have posted minor variations of the same post 3 different times. Each of those posts contains an attack upon the editor and in no way address the content under question. You have grossly lumped all of my postings into a bad faith characterization of "an angry response", blatantly ignored any attempts to respond to you as "crud" and "spamming crud" and engaged in pointy disruption both here and at the article talk page. And now you challenge the opinion of an uninvolved editor who said he didn't see this as an NPOV issue. This has gone on long enough. The bad faith personal attacks have gone on long enough. I'm sorry, you've shot your credibility as far as I'm concerned. You've failed to prove your point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's an interesting fantasy world you live in. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no issue with having my opinion challenged and I've yet to be criticised WRT my edits to this article (and indeed, the initial response point by Viriditas to me about the documents was fair) - and the conspiracy article probably did deserve a bit more weight and a bit more profile (which I think is now sorted, but then, I would since I made the changes). However, the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article.--Jaymax (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
My main concerns have been addressed, so thanks for adding the classified document material back into the article (it had previously been deleted and related material had been buried in the "Survivors/eyewitnesses" section). I required the help of a neutral third party to make these changes, otherwise the same reversions from Yachtsman1/Mosedchurtre would have taken place (as the page history demonstrates). As for the conspiracy article, I'm not sure what content you are talking about, as I never addressed any material that appears in Jonestown conspiracy theory at any time. The core nuggets of my concerns have been addressed by Jaymax and I thank this user for making the changes. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Jaymax added back in the "classified documents" and other material you had originally deleted. Previously, the article said, "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, led some to suggest CIA involvement" and Jaymax changed it to "The sheer scale of the event, as well as Jones' socialist leanings, purported inconsistencies in the reported number of deaths, allegedly poor explanation of events related to deaths at Jonestown, and existence of classified documents led some to suggest CIA involvement". Is there any reason you could not have made that change, Mosedchurtre? Yes, the answer is on the talk page. You refused. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
How truly revealing. After the continued WP:Wikihounding campaing complete with your entire push for an expanded discussion of the Jonestown conspiracy theory was brushed aside, with commentary that "(correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article"" (Jaymax) you are now claiming that the one clasue addition to the EXISTING ONE SENTENCE all three editors ALL ALONG HAD BEEN SAYING WAS SUFFICIENT -- a single clause addition you never raised -- was somehow opposed by the other editors? A complete fiction so ridiculous, it does nothing more than highlight that this dispute is part of a WP:Wikihounding campaign that you have been repeatedly asked to stop.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Try reading my incident report and the entire talk page discussion where I asked repeatedly why you deleted the mention of classified documents and the related material? No matter, Jaymax added it back in, expanded the section, placed the appropriate link to the subarticle in the header and connected the dots in the aftermath section. You could not do this because you refused, repeatedly, on the talk page to even entertain the idea. Now, we see you predictably, taking credit for the very idea. Guffaw. Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, simply unreal and again, how truly telling. No one had ever asked to add a single clause to the EXISTING SENTENCE we had been saying did not need expansion on the Jonestown conspiracy theory. Not one time had you proposed anything REMOTELY like a one clause addition. In fact, Jaymax added a source that was in the article on the documents point about which NO ONE had objected. Again,l this was correct, and let this be a lesson in the future on this issue: "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article"Mosedschurte (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I initially proposed this change at at 21:55, 25 June 2009.[26] I described this problem and the sources that could be used. Instead of addressing the problem, you spent the last few days refusing to deal with it. Jaymax used the source to add the material I proposed and addressed my original concerns you spent the last several days fighting about. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(od)

Please put on your reading comprehension hat: None of the "facts that are being deliberately left out of the article" have anything to do with material in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article. They have to do with comments by scholars and reliable sources about classified documents and how the failure of the government to release these documents has allowed conspiracy theorists to to keep "spinning tales". If the difference between a scholarly commentary about a concept and a "push for an expanded discussion of the Jonestown conspiracy theory" is too subtle for you, then there is nothing I can do. I have not referred to anything in the Jonestown conspiracy theory article, but rather, what scholars and reliable sources say about these theories. Do you understand the difference? If not, feel free to ask any questions. When we write articles on Wikipedia, we write about what reliable sources say about the topic. The fact that reliable sources have discussed the existence of classified documents and the "failure of federal agencies to release classified information on the organization, gave rise to a body of conspiracy theories which provides alternatives to both popular and scholarly explanations of what happened." (Brown 2000, p.8) I hope this is making sense to you. Scholars are saying that the conspiracy theories are a natural result of keeping the documents classified. This says nothing about any Jonestown conspiracy theory at all. It is a discussion about the canon of Jonestown literature, and this observation is also made by religious studies scholar and author Mary McCormick Maaga in Hearing the Voices of Jonestown, and is found in the same San Francisco Chronicle article that Jaymax used. So we have a significant opinion about the relationship between the classfied documents and the conspiracy theories made by two scholars in two different books/articles, covered by secondary sources, none of which have anything to do with the expansion of Jonestown conspiracy theories. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

And why is that link to another language version on this page???? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an interwiki link to this page in another language. Click on the link in the "languages" column directly to the left. It gives this link. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Honduran coup

Various new accounts and IP editors are pushing the golpista line in regards to the 2009 Honduran political crisis, both on that article and on related ones like Manuel Zelaya, Roberto Micheletti, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, Politics of Honduras and especially Honduran constitutional referendum, 2009. Many of them are even insisting that the events cannot be called a coup d'état, even though that's the universal conclusion of everyone from the Wall Street Journal to Obama to the OAS to Fidel Castro. Things will probably stabilize as the single-purpose accounts drop off, but it would be nice to have reasonably neutral articles available while the crisis is still ongoing (especially since Google News indexes us now.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Was just on my way here to mention this. Needs eyes.Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It is getting really out of hand. People still insisting "coup, what coup?," editors collating cherry-picked negative facts from sources to make Zelaya's term look like a series of disasters, etc. I've requested semiprotection to deal with the stream of IPs and anons but yeah, we need lots more eyes. Preferably with NPOV-minded brains behind them ;) <eleland/talkedits> 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Drone attacks on Pakistan by the United States

Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The title of the above article reflects a slanted point of view. The part that I am contending is the preposition "on." Saying attacks "on" Pakistan implies military action against the country of Pakistan, as opposed to rogue al-Qaeda and Taliban targets. The preposition "in" instead of "on" would be accurate. I attempted to move the article to Drone attacks in Pakistan by the United States, but it was moved back, and currently stands as a redirect page. JEN9841 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JEN9841 you made a brief comment to the talk page of this article. Forgive me, I don't think it was a substantive comment. You have asserted the current name lapses from WP:NPOV. You did not address the arguments on the talk page that the name you prefer is a lapse from NPOV.
I'd like to suggest that you consider trying to engage in a civil dialogue with those you disagree with. Who knows, you might be able to mount convincing arguments that would bring those who disagree with you around. Alternatively, perhaps if you enter into a real dialogue you will find yourself brought around to the other side.
FWIW, it seemed you were arguing that your interpretation is obviously the correct one. I wrote an essay on obviousness. No offense, but if you really were claiming "obviousness", may I ask you to reconsider? IMO it is a weak argument. Geo Swan (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has been brought to this Notice Board for the input of editors who have no vested position in the name or re-naming of this article. The talk page has lapsed into two sides digging in their heels, with positions well known. It is in the end better to have editors who are not associated with the article to provide their input on this subject for that reason. My position is that the name of the article violates NPOV, and the reason it does is because the attacks described involve drones operating in Pakistan, who are striking Pakistani targets in the country. The title mis-states the sources by saying these attacks are "on" Pakistan, which is easily misinterpreted as an offensive attack by the United States "on" Pakistan's territory (which is where POV comes into play). The title proposed directly describes the situation (Drones operating from CIA bases "in" Paksiatn, striking targets, Pakistan's govt. objecting that these strikes are "unauthorized", civilians killed), as opposed to the spin provided by the title as it presently exists. I would like to hear comments from uninvolved editors so that this can be fleshed out more fully. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Drone attacks in Pakistan seems, IMO, much more neutral than drone attacks on Pakistan. This is a contentious issue between the USA and Pakistan and I understand the USA position is that they are not attacking Pakistan but rather Taliban who have crossed from Afghanistan and such. I know Pakistan sees this as a violation of sovereignty and thus they may perceive it as attacks on their country. So I certainly agree that contention exists. My suggestion is that in is a slightly better choice in wording.Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
glad you agree that controversy exists and pakistan government and people do regard this as a breach of sovereignty ( unlike other countries like Phillipines etc where US has carriied out attacks with local support). therefore not to acknowledge that these attacks are ON a country against their will is pushing pro American POVWikireader41 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • EDITED: This argument is now moot. An independent administrator changed the title. I just saw it on the move log, and I had nothing to do with this action. Please mark as "resolved". Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved by administrator JEN9841 (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have called on this contributor/administrator to explain their reasoning. If they made this edit while acting as an administrator I find it very troubling that they (1) did not indicate that they regarded their renaming as the action of an administrator; (2) did not explain the reasoning behind their renaming. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that the name was non-neutral. By renaming it into "in Pakistan" resolved that. Period. It does not dispute the fact that the US is acting there and it is not disputing that it happens in Pakistan. What the previous title suggested was that the US is waging a campaign on the state of Pakistan, which is untrue. As for the record, 1) I was unaware of this discussion until it was brought up on my talk page, 2) next time, read the edit comments. --MoRsE (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying whether you renamed the article while acting as an administrator?
You describe it as "pretty obvious" that the name was non-neutral. Forgive me, but I am extremely skeptical of claims of "obviousness". I can't help noticing that you have not addressed the counter-arguments that the name you prefer is the one that lapses from neutrality, by implying that these missile strikes are authorized. I suggest the record is clear that they are not.
Sorry, your explanation stops short of addressing the complicated nature of sovereignty. The USA and Pakistan can be allies, with Pakistan having allowed the USA to base aircraft in Pakistan, with the understanding that those aircraft's mission is to patrol neighbouring regions of Afghanistan. When an American plane launches a missile aimed at a target on Pakistani territory Pakistan can choose to object the USA's unauthorized use of force on Pakistani territory, without going so far as to describe it as "waging a campaign on the state of Pakistan".
No offense, but I suggest that your assertion "POV name changed into more NPOV" in the edit summary fell short of fulfilling your obligation to try to explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think he has explained himself rather fully above, Geoswan. He never said the strikes were authorized or not (that's your own argument in any case), merely that the prior name strayed from neutrality be creating a false impression that this was a United States attack "on" Pakistan, which does not reflect your own soruces in the article. The matter of whether the strikes are authorized or not is best dealt with in the article itself, but the fact that the drones in question are based "in" Pakistan does not change. The name reflects the subject as it is after having been changed. Nor is he the only one who has made this same argument as a quick review of the talk page reveals. I consider this argument closed, as any further commentary would be beating a dead horse. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Geoswan, it seems to me that your connection to this subject is a little bit too emotional. I came to this web page from the RQ-1 Predator entry, and I immediately reacted on the selection of words on the subsection that linked to the page in question. I did not see any controversy in the renaming - on the contrary. And I do not say that I am unbiased, but if you study my contributions, you will see that I have zero (or almost no) history of edits to those kind of articles. I am fairly sure that if this matter was brought up again to some sort of review, the ruling would be exactly the same as the one I did. I was bold and acted independently, but I am also an administrator, and I recognize my responsibility in the work that I do here on the wikipedia. --MoRsE (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Humanism dispute resolution help?

The humanism article needs some attention from some editors with knowledge of Wikipedia's goals and policies. American Heritage Dictionary gives five widely varying definitions of the term (see http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=humanism&search=search ), and for several years, the status of this term on Wikipedia has been:

  • AHD definitions 1, 2, 3 loosely grouped under the "humanism" article
  • AHD definition 4 briefly mentioned under the humanities article
  • AHD definition 5 has its own article at Renaissance humanism and connection to definition 1 mentioned in the humanism article
  • Recently, an editor added a disambiguation page to direct readers to the different types of humanism, and added the appropriate hat-note to the article.

Over the past few years, one particularly tendentious editor attempts every few months to change the primary focus of the article, sometimes in favor of AHD definition 4, sometimes in favor of definition 5. Each time, I attempt to respond by showing the common use in best-selling books, news articles, magazines, web sites, and organizations applying the term to themselves is consistent with definition 1 instead. The tendentious editor has proposed moving the article and was voted down, so now he deletes his 3-revert warnings from his own talk page and attempts to create a consensus on other users' talk pages where his viewpoint will encounter no resistance, rather than on the article's own talk page. In general he seems to bring editors into the article who are abusive, argue by putting words into others' mouths, and recite their opinions over and over without providing evidence of verifiability.

The policies I feel the tendentious editor and those he brings into the discussion are breaking are these:

  • WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. The full articles that the wikipedia's stubs grow into are very different from dictionary articles.
  • Also at WP:DICTIONARY: "The same title for different things (homographs): are found in different articles."
  • WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
  • WP:UNDUE: "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. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
  • WP:Naming conflict: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage: * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In an attempt to show a most common, most popular, and primary usage for the term "humanism," I've posted top lists of search results of best-selling books, web pages, multiple news sites, magazines, and organizations. In response, my repeated requests for evidence that AHD definition 1 is NOT the most popular use of "humanism" have been met only by occasional single web pages or books that were hand-picked specifically for their biased POV, rather than algorithmically selected for their popularity as Google, Amazon, Alexa, and the other sources I've cited.

Could someone who is familiar with the most popular use of the word "humanism" AND mindful of Wikipedia policies provide feedback? The focus of the article and its definitions have been established long before I came around, as evidenced by the contents of Template:Humanism, Outline of humanism, the categories to which the article belongs (Epistemology, Freethought, Humanism, Humanist Associations, Humanists, and Social theories), and the projects to which the article belongs (WikiProject religion, WikiProject atheism, and WikiProject philosophy). The continued attempts to change the focus of the article fit what WP:DISRUPT calls, "their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

Thanks! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chronology of the Tiananmen Square Revolt

Quote: "This day by day remembrance of the Tiananmen Square revolt starting April 8th 1989 is in memory of all those who lost their lives, stood up for the Chinese people’s human rights and exhibited some of the most moving and extraordinary acts of bravery and courage in our history. It was a seven-week fight for democracy where students, worker’s ordinary men and women stood up in a non-violent protest against the Communist Government of China. It also demonstrated the most evil side of men and how far they would go to save their tyrannical rule and system. That same system that rules China today. In honor of all the Chinese heroes and their families that participated, we present this recap of the course of events that happened on each day of those seven weeks." Need I say more? This topic is way outside my domain of editing, so I'm not going to do anything more after bringing it up here. Looie496 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on it.Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Edited up to April 19 and then realized that it was a duplicate of Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 only violating WP:NPOV and without the pictures, layout and erm... editing... of the older article. As this article is a duplicate of an existing article I've flagged it for speedy deletion.Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
An admin user:NawlinWiki IIRC, changed the article to a redirect to Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 case closed for now with thanks ot admin.Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

German Pirate Party

Resolved

Could somebody please have a look and give advice how to continue? I contested a user's additions about child pornography, it seems he does not join the discussion on the talk page. Thanks - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP user has been steadily contesting my reliably sourced additions for several days now and adding less than useful statements by the politician who was busted for buying child pornography for 200 euros in their place. He appears to think that a disgraced politician's complaints about crushing censorship (from a system that would block known child porn domains, and their IP addresses, and report aggregated numbers to the authorities (not personally identifiable information)) are important to mention, but the fact that he left his party in disgrace because of the bust isn't. It sure would be helpful to have input from someone else who doesn't have a conflict of interest in relation to the German Pirate Party. Nevard (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The investigation against Jörg Tauss is clearly notable and should be included in the article. German reliable sources generally mention the investigations against him as well as the statements from him on the issue when reporting on his adherence to the German Pirate Party. Currently, they do neither use wording such as "pedophile" or "alleged pedophile," but simply refer to the investigation or say that he "is under suspicion of illegal possession of child pornographic material." Coverage by reliable sources may change on short notice, of course, if there are new developments. (I don't know about his political ideas other than his widely reported views on internet control or censorship.)  Cs32en  02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. I've seen nothing to indicate that he has interfered with any kids and am vaguely familiar with his campaigns against any form of internet restrictions going back to the Compuserve issues in the late 90s. On the other hand, the fact that he joined the German Pirate Party as their first major representative in politics while under investigation for the child porn he had bought is clearly as important as his protestations that he had made the jump because of his opposition to internet censorship. The GPP's stance that they will get rid of him if he is convicted also seems important, although it has been less widely reported. Nevard (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's excatly that biased representation that I am worried about and which multiple editors have contested. It is one way of saying "busted for buying child pornography for a few Euros" or "Tauss is under investigation over possession of child pornography images, which he said obtained during an investigation into a subculture in line with his official government work". It's part of Jörg Tauss history and covered in his article, why drag the sensitive topic of child pornography to the Pirate Party article? - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the Pirate Party clearly see it as being an issue. Why else would they find it necessary to point out that they will chuck Tauss out should he be criminally convicted over the child pornography he bought from the ring the police were investigating? The news media clearly see it as being an issue. Why else would stories like these on 'Tauss becomes first 'Pirate' in parliament after leaving SPD' start with the paragraph "Currently under investigation for possession of child pornography he parliamentarian said he downloaded as part of his work against the trade in such images."? Nevard (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have already answered you those questions on the talk page (they see "no reason to question Tauss’ innocence and moral integrity"), let's continue there please. - 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A Request for a NPOV

Resolved

The Nikolai Velimirovic article has been tagged as not neutral and factually disputed since March 2008. I came across it, and tried to contribute, both with new material, and with resolution of the disputed items. I consider that there is a single specific disputable section in that article, namely the Nikolai Velimirovic#Controversies section. As I have contributed, and tend to contribute, to the other sections, I feel rather discouraged since the disputed label stays at the top, so all my new contributions are automatically labelled as not neutral... I would highly appreciate if anyone could spare some time see the article, to read through the discussion page (my fist comment is on June 22, 2009) and provide a neutral opinion and assistance in properly placing the disputed tag.

It can be seen, that prior to my involvement in this article, several other people made harsh remarks about the neutrality and quality of that article, and I consider that to be relevant only to the Controversies section, which contains some very serious accusations.

I also consider that the contributor As286 is violating the WP:ORIG policy, but obviously, he doesn't agree. Today he made at least 3 reverts to my edits, and from his comments, one could notice that the neutrality of his standpoint is questionable. A neutral opinion on this matter would also be very valuable.

Beware, the discussion page is (56,673 bytes) heavy...

Thanks a lot. Kpant (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We overcame the misunderstandings. But, if anyone is still interested, we would like to hear a third opinion. Kpant (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister

We are having several edit conflicts due to both the weighting of facts presented in the lede, and the wording used to explain these facts.

The issue involves the recent elections held in the UK where the Labour party suffered what has been widely termed in the media a historic defeat. One particular editor objects to the use of this language, and continually reverts others. While his comments that the use of exaggerated language to describe the elections - such as "worst results ever" is inappropriate, he continually reverts all edits to a sentence along the lines of "poor results", which in the view of some other editors (including myself) is not a helpful description of why such information is in the lede.

I would invite suggestions on Gordon Brown's talk page. Thanks. Beganlocal (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Urban Heat Island Bias

I'm sure there is quite a bit in this article, but, this deals with one specific edit that I attempted to make. As far as I'm concerned, and perhaps I'm wrong, but this issue couldn't be any clearer. I attempted to remove the sentence:

"However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view."

Which referred to the views of anti-AGW advocates, that view (which also needs correction) being, "much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas."

Obviously, even disregarding the science, the "popular literature" jab is obviously POV and an attempt denigrate the views of non-AGW advocates. Even if someone can't agree on that assertion, which is subjective, my main point is completely objective and, according to NASA, unless their research papers are now "popular literature," that assertion is completely false.

My source [27], makes this very clear with several statements:

"Hansen and Imhoff are making a special effort to minimize any distortion of the record caused by urban heat-island effects as they research global warming. It is recognized that recorded temperatures at many weather stations are warmer than they should be because of human developments around the station. Hansen and Imhoff used satellite images of nighttime lights to identify stations where urbanization was most likely to contaminate the weather records."

"We find larger warming at urban stations on average," said Hansen, "so we use the rural stations to adjust the urban records, thus obtaining a better measure of the true climate change."

"Evidence of a slight, local human influence is found even in small towns and it is probably impossible to totally eliminate in the global analyses."

Obviously, NASA has identified the problem of UHI contamination of weather stations - and while they have attempted to correct for it they admit that it still plays a part is altering the records. Again, I don't see how this could be any clearer to any objective person.

On a final note, this exact sentence has come over scrutiny a few times before (for different and similar reasons) [[28]][[29]] - until the usual suspects, pa trolling these types of articles, tire out the less "dedicated" editors until they quit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I could really use some help here - the other parties, with a very bad track record in this field, won't even allow a NPOV tag in the offending section. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can recall, over the last 4 years the dispute between Wikipedia contributors has been over whether to say:
    1. There is a slight (i.e. 0.1 degree Celsius) urban heat island effect, but the scientific consensus is that this has been taken into account or "corrected" - and that it has no bearing on the theory of anthropogenic global warming; or,
    2. In some places the urban heat island effect is as much as 5.0 degrees Celsius, and this distortion to the temperature record has a huge bearing on the theory of anthropogenic global warming;
  • Wikipedia writers seem to be divided on whether to support or oppose the AGW theory, and hardly any of us appear to want to write neutrally. It seems that to be "neutral" is seen as "taking a side"! --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gun violence - removal of data indicating % of all homicides committed with a firearm

The article Gun violence included a table giving one indication of the level of gun violence in a list of countries. The table listed the homicides with a firearm per 100 000 of population. The data is sourced from a United Nations body. Included in the table until recently were statistics giving an indication of how significant gun homicides were in relation to the overall level of homicides in each country. It did this by giving alngside the overall homicide rate (irrespective of whether a firearm was the cause of death). This data was contained in the same source. The percentage of all homicides was also tabluated, which is derived data.

The editor User:Anastrophe has removed 3 related columns of data which showed the reader how significant the level of gun homicides is relative to total homicides in the countries concerned.

His justification for removing each was as follows

  1. % homicides with firearms' (this implies that there's a percentage not committed with firearms, and as has been pointed out, that's irrelevant to a discussion of gun violence)
  2. Non-firearms homicide rate per 100K (same rationale, this article isn't about non-firearm homicides)
  3. overall homicide rate per 100K (same rationale, since all other discussion in the article of general crime, violence, homicide are being scrubbed).

the references to earlier edits are his objections to earlier deletions of POV editing in earlier edits. This earlier discussion began to be discussed here and the disucssion in that section later turned to the deletion of the information in the table.

One other editor has supported the deletion and has reverted attempts to re-insert the deleted data. Three other editors, myself included, have objected. The two editors supporting the deletion are editors who are clearly, from their contributions, in the pro-gun lobby. There is nothing wrong with this of course, provided their edits are such that conform with WP:NPOV or that any POV content is properly contained within the discussion of POVs on the subject.

My position, and it has been expressed also by others, is that it is useful and sensible to see the gun homcide levels contextualized, i.e. seen in the context of the level of all gun homicides.

The removal seems to be POV because the table reveals that gun homicides in the United States account for 67% of all homicides, one of the highest percentages of all the countries listed and the editor removing this data is a pro-gun supporter.--Hauskalainen (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

hey, it's the McCarthy Hearings! am i now supposed to deny that i'm in "the pro-gun lobby", just as american citizens were asked to deny that they had ever been a member of the communist party? and if i don't deny it - well then, i must be? nice smear, hauskalainen. and to think i retracted my personalized characterization of you from the talk page, at your request, just an hour or so ago. nice. but i digress.
the material editor hauskalainen scrubbed from the article was sourced material describing, among other things, that the rate of homicide in the US fell for a decade while it was rising in the UK, and also described how a significant proportion of homicides in the US occurred in just four large cities, each of which had (and still have) virtual prohibitions on guns. the rationale was that those discussions, because they invoked overall homicide rates and not gun homicide rates, was off-topic. if that is the measure of on-topic vs off-topic, it's not without precedent, as many article scrub material that digresses from the exacting topic at hand. i have merely applied this same strict measure to other material in the article, using the same rationale. if discussion of overall homicide rates is to be removed from the article as POV, then certainly - whether reliably sourced or not - a chart of statistics that includes a column on overall homicide rates certainly suffers the same problem, as does including a column displaying the percentage of firearms homicides out of that total - if the topic is gun violence, then the resultant non-gun homicide percentage isn't relevant to a strict interpretation of this topic.
as i've said on the talk page and now say here, you can't have it both ways - claiming that discussion of non-gun violence is off-topic and POV in one instance, than insisting on its inclusion in other instances betrays a POV push in the other direction. eliminating both solves this problem. Anastrophe (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I could respond to this misrepresentation here but I will let my words at the talk page do this for me. It is best that the NPOV reviewer sees things as they really are and not how Anastrophe would wish to protray them.--Hauskalainen (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
nice. okay, i'll go the route you did on the talk page. but i'll do it without all-caps: please withdraw your personalized attack and mischaracterizations that i'm in "the pro-gun lobby". please apologize for making this grossly uncivil and unsupported claim. thanks! Anastrophe (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This data is clearly relevant to the topic, from a WP:RS, and should be included. The edit warring and WP:TE needs to stop. Verbal chat 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. This now seems to have been resolved amicably.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't think it is resolved. The RfC Consensus version agreed to by Hauskalainen was reverted (see talk page for Gun violence). Have put a new RfC tag back onto the the article. Hauskalainen's removal of the RfC tag made in good faith was apparently premature. Yaf (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Last time I checked (6 to 12 months ago), the battle was between statisticians in two opposing camps:
  1. Those who say the statistics show that possessing guns or carrying concealed pistols increases gun crime and/or gun accidents (Handgun Control Incorporated?), and
  2. Those who say the statistics show precisely the opposite. See More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott
It would be nice to have a non-committal article, i.e., one that says what the sides are and what their arguments are - while ducking any conclusions on our own part. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance on CCD Article

Hello, I am having a dispute with a couple of editors on the Colony collapse disorder page. About a week and a half ago I re-added some information on the subject that used to be part of the article relating to GM crops and their possible connection to the CCD phenomenon. These comments were apparently at some point severely reduced and replaced with misleading comments of a non-NPOV bent stating falsely that "No experiments have found evidence of any negative effect whatsoever on honey bee populations" which the link that follows does NOT say and that "Further, CCD cases are known in areas of Europe and Canada where Bt crops are not grown" which is not the case. Additionally there is a dead link [5] and a link that does not go to the purported page [68]. Essentially, the entire paragraph is wrong. I have pointed out these errors in detail and the fact that I am not trying to say that there is a definite link between Bt toxin and CCD but just trying to add some balance since Bt's possible role in CCD has not been ruled out. However these editors refuse to allow the changes, they been repeatedly removed. Additionally one editor has threatened to remove my comments even from the talk page. There seems to be nothing more that I can do. You can see the discussion on the talk page beginning here, it's longish (sorry) but would probably help to understand if you read the whole thing. I asked for one of the disputants to request mediation but in looking over the protocol it looks like this is the first stop I should have requested. Any assistance would be helpful. Thank You. 4.246.200.21 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming to the NPOV noticeboard because other editors won't let you promote your point of view is usually a losing proposition. Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh brother. What's my point of view here? Can you point it out? Can you find anything I've said that I would like included that are not also found within a link, (or in other RS) that the article already cites that show that the issue as far as CCD and Bt toxin are concerned has not been definitvely ruled out? There is a reason that people suspect that there might be a connection, and that is that Bt toxin has been shown to have detrimental effects in other non-target insects as well. I provided links to those studies. I'm only asking to include some additional comments, five words, from that link that say just that, that it's not been ruled out and that there is a need for more study because of the lack of critical data which all sides acknowledge. Why is that so threatening? Why are people seemingly trying so hard to protect an industry?
If there is a link it would be significant because millions of acreas of Bt corn are have been planted. Again notice this comment from one study, "Discussing our findings in the context of current molecular studies, we argue firstly that the evidence for adverse effects in non-target organisms is compelling enough that it would merit more research ... we find that the key experiments explaining the mode of action not only in this particular affected non-target species but also in most other affected non-target species are still missing. Considering the steadily increasing global production area of Bt crops, it seems prudent to thoroughly understand how Bt toxins might affect non-target organisms" Another View on Bt Proteins – How Specific are They and What Else Might They Do?4.246.204.224 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

I bring this article to the attention of this Board over the following change: [30]. The article in question involves controversial subject matter, but it is my position that the edit I and others have placed forward honors NPOV while the change advocated above does not. I do not want to engage in an edit war, so I have brought this matter here. Any comments and assistance would be very appreciated. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight issue at 2009 flu pandemic

If anyone here cares to get involved, please read Talk:2009 flu pandemic#Pandemic table move and 2009 flu pandemic#Data reporting and accuracy. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail

What does one do when they feel that a newspaper's page is being edited, almost censored, politically?

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


Although, most of the content in accurate that is not the real issue. The real issue that the editor only posts anything if it paints the paper in a positive light.

The paper, in it's history, has done a lot of great, but also, questionable things. When trying to write about a few of it's controversies, the author simply deletes, them and sends threatening messages.

As an example, I posted a sourced point about it's many citings by the Press Complaints Commision, for various articles it has posted - that were found to be completely false. Usually along xenophobic grounds Deleted straight away.

On the other hand, the author has posted quotes alluding to the fact that the paper is not in fact xenophobic.

A classic example of only allowing the favourable side to be shown.

Any changes made are met with the same threat - basically claiming that they are liablleous, false, and that he will report you to wikipedia if you continue to persist with the edit.

An example of how threatening and authoritarin this is the fact that I got this message after changing "conservatism with a small c" - totally POV, to simply "conservatism". Apparently this was "liabbleous".

What's more, the article had a full "controversy" section, fully sourced - deleted. The author including in his warning messages that "any creation of controversy section again will result in a reporting and probable ban"

I feel that an article on the paper should cover it's entire history. And an owner deleting and posting the bits of it that HE feels appropriate amounts to censorship.

What's more, threatening every single editor, with reports, is dictatorship

Please advise


Ceej1979 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Above user knew precisely what procedures are on his very first two hours on WP -- despite having zero mainspace edits outside Daily Mail. [31] shows his third ever edit -- and I suggest that it is not a "newbie" in such a case. I found absolutely no indication that Christian1985 sent out any threats or did any improper deletions. The page has, moreover, been under regular IP attacks trying to post the Tory paper as BNP or Nazi <g>. And I find no threats as claimed. His first edit, all of two hours ago was [32] where he deleted a statement sourced to the Guardian without saying anything on the Talk page nor in an edit summary. Somewhere I also hear quacking. Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Collect, I apologise if my warnings appeared somewhat heavy but I was not threatening anyone. I was simply exercising my right to inform administrators of what I believe is vandalism. I have checked your edits also and what I removed was POV comments claiming the DM is 'anti immigration' and 'argues against immigration' these were unsourced POV comments. I did not remove any edits citing Conservative or criticisms. Christian1985 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong (1)

I have previously made several cases [33], [34] [35] [36] questioning the use of the word "persecution" in the article's heading. I feel that the previous discussions with the involved parties produced little result, and would like to see if any third-party editors would be interested in mediating the dispute.

Basically, I feel that naming the ban of Falun Gong "persecution" signifies that Wikipedia endorses the view that the PRC politicians are criminals and that they have been found guilty of the crime. The term "persecution" is largely used by Falun Gong interest groups to describe their ordeal in the PRC eg CIPFG, while in the PRC, the ban is considered legitimate under the law. No third party eg United Nations HRC, Amnesty etc endoersed the term "persecution" or even have a set term on the FLG situation. The Chinese Wikipedia article [37] simply referred the situation as a "ban". Per WP:Naming conventions, article titles should be neutral and should not give bias towards one party.--PCPP (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Persecution" is definitely non-neutral. Sceptre (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I would consider the term The Genocide against Falun Gong in the PRC as a viable alternative because it does fall under it's definition in wikipedia of "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that The Encarta defines the term persecution as "Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." There is nothing inherently POV about the term. All reliable sources we have refer to the human rights crisis in China a large scale persecution.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree - persecution seems the appropriate term here. Contrary to the OP's suggestion, the word 'persecution' says nothing wrt legality or criminality. --Jaymax (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:WTA says to avoid terms that label, which is exactly what using a non-neutral term is trying to accomplish.--PCPP (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Schechter, Ownby, US Congress Resolutions, Amnesty International Reports, HRW Reports, Kilgour Matas all clearly and unequivocally state what is happening in China is a large scale persecution. Just to point out few instances from The Congressional Executive Commission on China, 2008 Annual Report:

The central government intensified its nine-year campaign of persecution against Falun Gong practitioners in the months leading up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games.

Chinese government persecution of Falun Gong practitioners contravenes the standards in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..

Publicly available documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


House Concurrent Resolution 304, House Resolution 530, House Concurrent Resolution 188, House Concurrent Resolution 218 and House Concurrent Resolution 217 all clearly state the crisis is a nationwide persecution of innocents. Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


The "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" (in article 2) defines genocide as:

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So i don't know about the term persecution, but according to the just mentioned definition given by the "U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", it certainly fits in the term genocide - i don't think even The Communist Party can deny that - as a matter of fact they don't even try to as they openly state that they would have to "wipe out Falun Gong". And YES Genocide IS a crime even by chinese law - as China signed the convention. So i guess that covers the term persecution as well. --Hoerth (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed before see here: Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong/Archive_1#Suppression_-.3E_Persecution --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Several references called the ban a crackdown, repression, suppression etc. [38][39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44][45] --PCPP (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to check all your sources, so I only checked the first one http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf and this states:
  • "In the 109th Congress, H.Res. 608, agreed to in the House on June 12, 2006, condemns the “escalating levels of religious persecution” in China, including the “brutal campaign to eradicate Falun Gong.” H.Res. 794, passed by the House on June 12, 2006, calls upon the PRC to end its most egregious human rights abuses, including the persecution of Falun Gong."
  • "For six consecutive years (1999- 2004), the U.S. Department of State has designated China a “country of particular concern” for “particularly severe violations of religious freedom,” including its persecution of Falun Gong. An ongoing ban on the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to China satisfies the requirements of P.L. 105- 292, the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998, which authorizes the President to impose sanctions upon countries that violate religious freedom."
If anyone else have time please check the other sources too. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The same source also states:

  • Since 2003, Falun Gong has been largely suppressed or pushed deep underground in China while it has thrived in overseas Chinese communities and Hong Kong.
  • The official crackdown began on July 21, 1999, when Falun Gong was outlawed and an arrest warrant was issued for Li Hongzhi.

There are also countless references calling it a persecution. We don't call ducks flying feathered animals. Wikipedia doesn't bend over itself for political "sensitivies." What's the problem?--Asdfg12345 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is and Quoting free speech vs. quoting government resolutions. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Boo hoo. And there's several sources calling it law enforcement. Just because you think it's a persecution doesn't make it so. This is about what's the best wording for it on wikipedia, not the real life. As for "sensitivities", wikipedia looks for terms that is neutral to all parties, which is why the Kent State massacre is referred as Kent State shootings on wikipedia.--PCPP (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say shooting instead of massacre, that does tell the story. But when you say ban, instead of genocide, that is hiding what is most essential. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Could everybody please indent for readability, this post is very hard to follow this way. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, could you please say exactly what your concern is in calling a persecution a persecution? Do the namespaces Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of atheists, Religious persecution, Ethnic persecution all bother you? Also could you tell us what exact issues you find with the term - which is defined as :"Determined effort of a government to punish, silence, or bring into obedience, usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions. Minority groups, especially religious ones, are a frequent target of persecution." (Encarta); "unfair or cruel treatment over a long period of time because of race, religion, or political beliefs " ( Cambridge); "persecute • verb 1 subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment... — Derivatives: persecution"(Oxford).

And also your claim in your first note is factually wrong - you may want to correct it in view of the links posted and statements pointed out above. Amnesty, HRW, US Congress, David Ownby, Kilgour Matas all refer to the crisis, unequivocally, as a large scale persecution and major violation of human-rights. Dilip rajeev (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong also fits the dictionary definition of "cult", but we do not label them as such in wikipedia. WP:TITLE "An article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles". WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." By calling it a persecution, you're endorsing the viewpoint that the PRC is committing a crime, however justified.--PCPP (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Under no definition does 'persecution' equate to 'committing a crime' - I have no real interest in this other than semantics, but this argument is nonsense.--Jaymax (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
"Persecution" might not be a neutral word, but, as far as I have seen, it's the term most often used in the RS, so it's the term we should be using. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with others that "persecution" is fine, as the most widely used term in reliable sources. It also has a wider meaning than something like "ban" or "outlawing", allowing us to discuss other alleged incidents of persecution beyond it simply being illegal in China.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So are the terms "suppress", "crackdown", "ban" etc which are used interchangeably by the forementioned sources. WP:WTA clearly states to avoid non-neutral terms that label, which "persecution" is trying to express: an anti-Chinese bias. Furthermore the article was originally named "Suppression of FLG" until it was renamed by the pro-FLG editors following the ban of a FLG critic, whereas the Chinese wikipedia refer the FLG situation as "suppression" And the PRC's description of the anti-FLG campaign is "取缔", which translates to ban/outlaw/suppress, NOT persecute. The term "迫害" which is translated to "persecution" is widely used by FLG and its associated groups. The article should be renamed to Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China to avoid these labelling words.--PCPP (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed above didn't even agree on a single term to describe the ordeal, and it's mainly the FLG camp and their supporters trying to push the the view that the PRC is "persecuting" FLG, establishing several groups such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG. By instating the term "persecution" you're trying to introduce systematic anti-PRC bias into the articles.--PCPP (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So in your opinion there is no genocide going on, that is a "deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."? See Appendix 7. Statements of the Government of China, Appendix 9. Physical Persecution of Falun Gong, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, etc ... --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to push a point. According to the PRC government the ban is perfectly within legal rights [46]. And none of your sources claimed the ordeal of FLG was "genocide"--PCPP (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." [47]. I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. I will insert the word genocide into articles only together with it's source. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's actions is widely acknowledged and studied, which cannot be said about FLG. Hell there are arguments for "genocide" for every political power in historical existance. Wikipedia is not a place to spread things you made up yourself --PCPP (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You said I read quite a few articles, I spoke with enough people, so I know that there is a genocide going on. which is the original research you described. Second of all FLG's situation is still ongoing, and the extent of the ordeal is still disputed, so it's ridiculous to jump to conclusions for the reader, especially the article is written entirely from Western sources while all Chinese sources (which were once in the article but deleted) are systematically dismissed as "propaganda"--PCPP (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you completely missed this part of the user's comment: " I will insert the word genocide into articles only together with it's source." And that is what makes it not OR.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources - HRW, Amnesty, US Congress,( all major Human Rights organizations and governments, according to David Ownby), Kilgour-Matas, Danny Schechter, Ian Johnson all unambiguously state there is a large scale, nationwide persecution going on in China. There is nothing of an OR nature here. You can find a lot of Reliable sources linked to in this discussion as well. Remember, the persecutors' propaganda of disinformation, the curtain under which they manage to commit these most heinous crimes in China, is what you attempt to characterize as "chinese sources." There are several Chinese language sources - including from the Taiwanese Government which strongly criticize ccp's persecution of practitioners of Falun Gong.
Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So? HappyInGeneral said that HE thinks there's a genocide, which is the OR I described, not to mention that few sources support the term, which pushes even more to POV territory than "persecution". Making up your own conclusions based on unsupported arguments also violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The sources you described are simply expressing a view, and the PRC government is also expressing a view. As to your claim of Chinese sources being "persecutors' propaganda of disinformation", I stress again, it's up to the reader to decide what is truth and what is propaganda.--PCPP (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What I think might be WP:POV or WP:OR as you say. However if a source is properly added to what I say then it's WP:RS a valuable edition to Wikipedia. Again, please see WP:NPA and WP:GOODFAITH, simply because you are pushing an agenda against me with half truths. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's laughable that you accuse me of pushing agendas, when your userpage is nothing but blalant FLG promotional material. And WP:RS doesn't mean the sources can be used to draw your own conclusions.--PCPP (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PCPP, although you lambaste another editor in this thread for what you consider Original Research (incorrectly, it seems), you have said that you "feel" that calling this situation "persecution" is equal to finding the PRC "guilty of the crime". Yet the Encarta definition quoted above points out that this is not always the case ("usually in violation of normal moral and legal restrictions"). If you are making that leap, is it not you who is making the OR presumption that this situation is a crime on the part of the PRC? You persist in noting that the Chinese language Wikipedia doesn't call it persecution, with no sense of irony. It seems par for the course that the entity participating in or codifying or condoning a policy of persecution is not going to admit it to be such while it is ongoing. Yet that doesn't mean that objective observers free from propagandizing one way or the other have to remain in similar denial about what is going on. The article for Waterboarding begins "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." Despite what one (or more?) U.S. administrations have to say about it, or neglect to say about it, or merely say about it, that does not change the definition throughout history, in textbooks, or here at Wikipedia. Will anybody be "found guilty of the crime" of waterboarding? That should be irrelevant to a clear-eyed and honest presentation of the subject here as multiply supported by notable, reliable sources. Such a word as torture shouldn't be construed as anti-American any more than this word persecution should be construed as anti-Chinese. Definitions are not indictments. (Would that it were so.) Only a legal system can indict someone for "the crime". Abrazame (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? And the Nuremberg Principles state that "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:... (c)Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. "

First of all, I'm within my right to call out WP:OR to an activist user trying to change the phrase to "genocide", a term not used by any of the mentioned sources. Secondly, the Chinese wikipedia is largely blocked within mainland China, and most of its editors and from Taiwan/HK. Within Wikipedia, the term "persecution" indeed carry a negative tone, and has no place in articles already having a large number of disputes. As I said before, the phrase "persecution" is largely used by FLG and its supporters in the West, by their sub-organizations such as the Coalition Investigating the Persecution of FLG and World Organization Investigating the Persecution of FLG etc. Persecution is no way a neutral word, and the sources I mentioned above all carried "persecution", "suppression", "crackdown" pretty much interchangedly, whereas FLG sources pretty much use "persecution" exclusively. The term "persecution" can be right by dictionary definitions and still violates WP:NPOV, just as FLG could be labelled a "cult" based on dictionary definitions, yet referring to them as such at WP would violate WP:NPOV. To label the articles "persecution" is endorsing FLG's viewpoints, however justified. Per WP:NCON, "A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject."--PCPP (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I 100% concur. Persecution is most certainly not a neutral word. Nor is it necessarily an accurate one to describe the position of FLG within China. As a counter example [48] uses words including words beginning with "persecu" a total of 0 times. Considering that in both cases you have an alternative religious group who have come into legal conflict with the state in which they originated, leading to a disputed series of events, I believe the comparisson is apt. Frankly the FLG has been very successful at spreading propaghanda and misinformation in north america and europe by enflaming anti-communist sentiments with claims of unverifiable "attrocities". I think that a neutral approach to this group is fundamental. Considering FLG activism it will also be difficult to achieve.Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Having reviewed it I have to say that the FLG material on wikipedia is, in general, some of the least neutral in the entire project. Can we please get some more eyes on this and get it cleaned up once and for all?Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Propaganda? You call this [49] propaganda? You call this unverifiable claims? On what ground? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Teachings of Falun Gong

More fun from the Falun Gong... this time on the Teachings of Falun Gong page.

A quote of some of Li Hongzhi's more controversial statements keeps getting deleted. The editor doing the deletion claims that the quotes the New York Times provided of Li Hongzhi on April 30, 2000 constitute a fringe position not confirmed by academic sources. As they are direct quotes of man who founded the Falun Gong speaking to Falun Gong members about the Falun Gong they are most certainly not. I have already reverted twice. As I'm reaching the 3R limit and am about be be embroiled in an edit war over a valid reference I thought I'd best draw attention to it. This needs eyes.Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

'Update' Unless either I give or the FLG POV warriors do this is now a revert war... I'll notify the 3R noticeboard myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not direct quotes, they are belied as inaccurate with a simple search of the actual material. The grounds for inclusion here would be as the journalist's interpretation/opinion, not as statement of teachings. Then it's disputed whether the source (an opinion piece, isn't it?) qualifies or not, and another editor has provided some quotes of relevant policy items about that. I only revert once per day, so there's no danger of 3RR here. What I'd suggest is hashing this out further on the talk page--as in, please respond to the arguments that have been raised rather than simply crying foul--and together coming up with some simple and neutral langauge which narrates this dynamic, then adding it to the page. --Asdfg12345 23:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardles of the above user's accusations they are, in fact, direct quotes. The author of the article puts the information in quotation marks and states that Li Hongzhi says this. The above editor is misrepresenting the source material to support his pro-FLG POV.Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive pro-flg edits, including ad-hominim disputations of quoted material from FLG sources continue. This needs additional scrutiny desperately.Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have put up a request for comments on this issue. Please see the talk page for details.Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To clear things up copy paste from here: "This particular dispute, actually, has very little to do with the overall controversies surrounding the topic as a whole. It's a technical issue that needs to be resolved: when two sources say different things, can they both be referenced? Or: when a secondary source (apparently) misquotes a primary source, what do you do? The response by user:Blueboar was either leave out the apparently incorrect part of the secondary source (I tried that) or yes, simply present both sources, neither as correct. That's also what I did, but it was constantly reverted without explanation, and Simonm223 dismissed the third party view as "highly irrelevant." There's also a clear sentence in the reliable source policy saying that both sources should be presented. " --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

There is some debate about whether the recent events in Honduras should be described as 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Could neutral observers please pitch in at Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis#The title itself is NPOV? Disembrangler (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The article is correctly named coup d'état, however, if the background section grows too large, you could split it out to constitutional crisis. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Dispute ongoing, certain POV warriors keep pushing for title change despite being repeatedly successfully challenged.Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Boys homoerotic stuff

  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
The Hardy Boys has people arguing on the talk page constantly, on whether the work of one scholarly writer who claims that the Hardy Boys are homoerotic, should be included. Is this a neutral point of view, or is it giving undue weight to a ridiculous conspiracy theory, simple because it was published in one book? Dream Focus 11:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous conspiracy theory, unless it's been treated by more than one scholarly writer.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because A is important in the context of B, it does not follow that B is important in the context of A. If this author is notable, the material arguably belongs in their article. It should not be included in the Hardy Boys article unless the opinion is, frankly, a lot more popular than "one writer". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know much about the Hardy Boys. I think it is not only about whether this is the view of "one writer", but also whether there is evidence that the view gained much attention. If the literary world was overwhlemed with comment and controversy, then that may be noteworthy. Conversely, the claim may have been quickly debunked by other writers. It should be kept in mind that there are probably not that many books about the Hardy Boys series, so something may be perfectly noteworthy even though it comes from a single source, I would suggest. --FormerIP (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, but add that those arguing for inclusion of the material need not only to provide the source of the author making the claim, but also need to demonstrate with citations that the author's view gained widespread attention, not a passing blip. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dim Mak

Some PoV issues. Namely the fact that the entire article is predicated upon the notion that Dim Mak is a real thing. Article needs extensive work.Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Things like this are more commonly posted on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, WP:FTN. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought it straddled the line so I actually put it on both noticeboards.Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost dispute - proposed changes

There's been a long-running neutrality dispute over at DreamHost. One of the editors has proposed tightening the wording of one of the sections. I support the change, but wanted to get some more opinions in case the other side objected. Discussion is here. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Is it neutral to state an opinion as an "is" statement? For example, in Waterboarding, the practice is described as "torture," despite the fact that this definition is disputed by many reliable sources including Webster's Dictionary. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Webster's isn't disputing anything, only providing a brief definition of the word. Britannica covers the subject in more detail. It's listed under "Waterboarding (torture technique)". Given the range of sources cited in support of "waterboarding = torture", I think you will have to find a much better source than one primary source that requires interpretation in order to support the point you want to make. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The point is that it is disputed and should not be stated as an "is" statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The more reliable secondary sources you find that dispute it, the more luck you will have getting rid of "is". You may also be able to get rid of "is" by finding reliable secondary sources that express no opinion, but nevertheless point out that the matter is disputed.
It appears to me that if someone being waterboarded believes that the experience may be fatal, then it's much more likely to qualify as "torture" compared to the situation where the person knows in advance that it will not be fatal. But I'm not an expert. I use other methods.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Cherrypicking sources does not help to support claims of supporting neutrality. Waterboarding is widely accepted as a form of torture. Furthermore the source in question does not refute the fact that waterboarding is torture. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Many sources will abide by Webster's definition. I have also seen many neutral articles that refrain from using the word torture to describe the practice. For example, NPR explains in this piece why it will not label waterboarding as torture. Reuters and the AP describe the technique as "harsh interrogation." --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Webster's is no stranger to using the term torture, as seen in the definition of iron maiden. [50] --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture is disputed by some within the US[sources]. Characterise the debate, rather than engaging in it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Acceptable as long as "waterboarding is torture" remains in the lede. After all, what definitions the USA chooses to debate does not influence reality - particularly for those of us who don't reside in the USA.Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering that the United States is a strong force in world affairs and that most readers of this encyclopedia are American, simply discounting the dispute because it is an American debate is invalid.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The international US viewpoint is that waterboarding is torture due to many treaties we are part in. Saying there is a worldwide controversy about waterboarding when America's international position is quite well know is unfounded. The position is limited to a wp:fringe within the united states, thankfully. RTRimmel (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Precisely RTRimmel. The debate in the USA is an internal debate - primarily forwarded by certain people on the far right, the so-called "culture warriors" and I don't think it even constitutes a mainstream view there. With that said, in other important English speaking countries (such as Canada, the UK and Australia) there is no debate. Waterboarding is torture.Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You can qualify it all you want, but the fact remains that it is disputed, and the sources prove that. You're simply ignoring facts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to this talk but I have to agree with Simon223 on this point that Waterboarding is a form of torture because: Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

— UN Convention Against Torture[1]
--HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what the United Nations says, the definition is under dispute and therefore it is POV to use an "is" statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The disputed definition is in disagreement with all other reliable sources so its a WP:Fringe definition. The definition is still only in dispute domestically in the US, our treaties spell out that its torture pretty obviously. Further, the definition does not refute waterboarding is torture, it simply calls it interrogation which is a common use for torture. Finally, the definition does not include several other critical aspects of waterboarding and therefore is of questionable use anyway. Defining baseball as a game where people hit balls and run around bases is accurate and totally inadequate for an encyclopedia. For Example, Webster's calls an Iron Maiden " a supposed medieval torture device." so it may not be the best source for technical definitions. RTRimmel (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence this is a fringe view? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE Applies because the opinion that waterboarding is torture is held by the vast preponderance of experts in the field (in addition to laymen). A single, inexpert, source that claims it is not (eg: a dictionary) does not constitute a conflicting theory, it constitutes a fringe position.Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:fringe applies here. Most people will agree that waterboarding is a form of torture given the definition of torture and the actions performed during a waterboarding session.--LexCorp (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I requested evidence. A simple claim is of no use. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The function of this page is to resolve problem regarding NPOV by requesting opinions from unbiased editors and editor knowledgeable about Wikipedia NPOV policies. You requested these opinions. No evidence is necessary here. As per WP:fringe and WP:Undue weight it is clear that the article is ok by stating that waterboarding is torture. If you are not satisfy by the opinions of other editors you can always demand a more formal dispute resolution. See WP:DISPUTE--LexCorp (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
So in other words, your opinion has no merit because you cannot back up your claim. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what is my claim? I am giving an opinion. How can you proof something falls into WP:Undue weight short of polling every human being on earth?. Maybe with a bit of common sense. Anyway I gave my opinion it is up to you what you do with it.--LexCorp (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You claim it is a fringe view. Unless you have something to back that up, it's a useless opinion. And if it's nothing more than opinion, wikipedia should err on the side of neutrality, and not use "is" statements to describe disputed definitions as shown in the above sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Self contained argument right here. Its fringe so there aren't enough sources to support it, yet you are requesting sources be provided to prove it anyway. Fortunately, policy is written the opposite way. You need to provide reliable 3rd party sources that clearly refute that waterboarding is torture. Calling it harsh interrogation does not refute that waterboarding is torture. Dick Cheney said it, for example, though he's not a 3rd party source. Webster's calls it interrogation, but in its limited definition does not refute it as torture. As for examples, read the article, there are numerous sources indicating that it is torture and even a section explaining the not torture side that devotes considerably more WP:Weight to the debate that it actually deserves. In short, calling waterboarding harsh interrogation does not refute it as being torture. Calling waterboarding interrogation does not refute it as being torture. You have not provided any sources that say that waterboarding is not torture so you need to find some to refute all of the sources that exist in the article that do. Simple as that. And I did look, every viewpoint that does clearly state waterboarding is not torture is from a far right op ed pieces, and that's the only place there seems to be any of them which is the whole purpose of the WP:Fringe policy. Using hammer as an example, hammer doesn't start off with a hamer is used to drive nails... it starts out with a hammer is a tool. Waterboarding is torture, so waterboarding starts out the same way. And if you are going to keep this up, Iron Maiden (torture device) should be also be called into question because Websters says its a supposed torture device and we treat it as fact that it was, mainly because a giant iron cage full of nails is of limited utility. RTRimmel (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The sources I provided state that it is an interrogation technique. That is what the article should state. I'm not arguing that the article should state that it is not torture, I am simply saying that the article should not say that it "is" torture since that definition is disputed. All agree that it is an interrogation technique, not all agree that it is torture. To claim this is a fringe view is simply ignorant, especially when you can't find a source that supports this claim, and when I have found many sources that state it "is" an interrogation technique. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
So 99.9%+ of sources call it torture. A tiny sliver of a percentage call it interrogation. Due to WP:Weight and WP:Fringe we should call it interrogation? A tiny sliver of a percentage call 9/11 a conspiracy, should we change that page too? A tiny sliver of a percentage believe the holocaust is a hoax, should we change that page too? Webesters calls the iron maiden a supposed torture device, should we change that page too? The overwhelming majority of sources describe it as torture, calling it interrogation places WP:Undue on a, at best, minority viewpoint. Finding a source to call something Fringe is rather difficult because, since nobody believes the viewpoint except for a vocal minority and actually engaging them in conversation adds credibility to their viewpoint, so nothing is out there. Again, none of your sources refute that waterboarding is torture so its just plain ignorance on your part to assume anything. Further, I've found a significant number of op-ed far right wing pieces that support waterboarding is something other than torture... but we can't use any of them because they are just that op-ed pieces from a fringe minority. RTRimmel (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"99.9%+ of sources call it torture" Where is your evidence for this claim? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, please, just stop.Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a useful arugment. You think that saying "just stop" will convince me to agree that this is a fringe view when I know that it is not and have demonstrated with sources that it is not? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, conservapedia tends to welcome fringe opinions derived from far-right op-ed statements. You should try there instead.Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise, but I already have a pretty firm standing here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Even Bush administration memo[51] acknowledges it is torture. This manufactured controversy is not dissimilar to the Teach the controversy of the creationist groups. Any unbiased editor will clearly see this false controversy for what it really is. Articles in Wikipedia should not fall prey to such blatant manipulation of facts. If you have nothing more to add to this discussion apart from the fact that you are not satisfied by the multiple opinions as to why your suggestion can be considered to be relevant to WP:Weight, WP:Fringe or WP:Undue then I will respectfully ask you to seek a more formal form of resolution, See WP:DISPUTE, and stop this discussions as I am afraid it has exhausted its value as a resolution source.--LexCorp (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That is because editors are simply ignoring the facts I have provided, and are misrepresenting my view. I am simply stating that the agreed view should be shown, as demonstrated by Webster's and use the same rationale as the NPR piece. I am also stating that no "is" statement should be used, especially when a little later on in the lead the word "considered" is used. "Considered" is all that is necessary, because that is basic, true fact. Many claims have been made, stating this is simply a "fringe view," but these claims have no basis in fact, and have not been demonstrated. The most egregious part, is that editors refuse to find evidence to support their claims and resort to calls for the discussion to stop or for established editors to leave the project and go to conservapedia. This is not helpful. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Again if you are not satisfied then seek a more formal type of resolution , See WP:DISPUTE. This page has its function. This function has been exhausted in regard to this particular request. You stating that you believe you are right in your opinion ad nauseam will not make the edit you seek more likely. Only by seeking consensus or a more formal dispute resolution route will do that. So there is not point in continuing the discussion here. Seek consensus in the Waterboarding talk page or seek another resolution route.--LexCorp (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting that the editors on this page, support their views with evidence. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, stop for a moment, cool down and realize that your behavior is verging on been obstructive.--LexCorp (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You have never provided one whit of evidence that any neutral source sees waterboarding as not-torture. The absence of a statement does not equate to its opposite. Why should we be required to prove this to you when you are the one calling for the changing of the article away from the current status and towards a fringe opinion held by a small population of a single country?Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have provided sources above that state it is "interrogation." I don't have to provide sources that state it is not torture because that is not what the article should state. If the view that torture is "interrogation" is a fringe view, why is it so difficult to prove this? "your behavior is verging on been obstructive" Ridiculous. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody disputes that waterboarding is a form of torture which has been used for interrogation. You are saying that it is disputed whether Waterboarding is torture. The onus falls on you to PROVE that there is a valid, non-fringe, argument against waterboarding being torture.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want the article to say that it is "not" torture. I want for it to reflect the sources I provided, which state that it is an interrogation technique. No neutral source will come out and say it is not torture, but you must look at the words that are used to describe it. For example, the NPR piece shows why they do not label the practice as torture for neutrality reasons. If it was such a fringe view on the level of conspiracy theorists, why would there even be a discussion? If reliable publications linked above do not use the word "torture" to describe the practice out of neutrality, why should wikipedia? Are the many print and electronic sources that use the same terminology part of a fringe movement? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You said " No neutral source will come out and say it is not torture" so why do you want to remove "Waterboarding is torture" from the lede?Simonm223 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Because no neutral source would say that it "is" as well. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the NPR piece is great. The second piece explaining the first piece is even better. The salon article explaining that its full of crap is even funnier. If you dig around you can find more artices explalining how hypocritical the whole piece is compared to the NPR's mission statement, now that's a controvertial piece. Better still, read the thousands of comments, the first piece had to disable them. I was laughing and laughing at how innept that argument was. It was classic. Terrifically funny. We should definatly use that as the basis for an article explaing the controversy on the waterboarding is torture debate, though if we are serious about it we might want to get something that retains a shread of credibity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
On this we disagree William S. Saturn. I believe that it is fully possible for a neutral account to call waterboarding torture. As somebody who has never been tortured and does not live in a country that engages in torture I am myself relatively neutral as to what constitutes torture. And yet I feel this to be torture.Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
William, your argument is that it depends on what your definition of "is" is?? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about usage of the {{criticism-article}} tag

On Chiropractic controversy and criticism, I have been reverted for placing this tag which, IMHO, appropriately describes this article. The tag reads as such:

This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to use a different term which offers a broader perspective.

This article uses both words (controversy and criticism) in its title. Thus this article may not present a NPOV of the subject. And, per a recent AfD, some other editors agree that a term which offers a broader perspective may be better for this article's title.

WP:NPOV tells us:

A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Perhaps a more neutral title should be found for this article.

So my question is this: Is the usage of the {{criticism-article}} tag justified while this article still maintains its current title? Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I respectfully suggest that you raise this issue on the article's talk page instead of starting out by defacing the article with a tag that might sit there for a long time? (This is not meant as an attack, but there is hardly any editing practice I hate so much as putting these kinds of tags on articles.) Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I would answer that the tag could well be appropriate, as long as the above-mentioned discussion is underway. But it would not be appropriate, for example, if a discussion determined that the above was an acceptably neutral title and the tag was removed, to unilaterally reinstate it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, looking at the talk page I see that the editor has already done that, and gotten into a one-versus-many dispute theyare losing; somehow they neglected to mention that factor. So what we really have here is bogus tagging followed by forum shopping. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perhaps Levine's post should be reported here for failing to meet NPOV! I jest. But if you are interested, please take a look at the talkpage discussion I started about this tag on Chiropractic controversy and criticism. Note that the article passed an AfD recently, and that no justification for the tag other than the technical wording of the tag itself was used to justify its placing. My answer to Levine's question is the tag is only justified if there is ongoing discussion about the title or if the title is not found in WP:RS, however in this case both terms are found in RS. Also, the tag should probably be reworded. If the article has survived an AfD then that would suggest the name is ok, and discussion is he only way to resolve this. The wikilawyer-like justification in this case is really no justification at all, and strongly suggests that the tag itself should be reworded and has NPOV issues when used this way. Edit warring a tag in or out is also disruptive and never helpful, and a failure to assume good faith with accusations of tag teaming etc is not a good first step at WP:DR. (this was the second reply to Levine's post, but for some reason it disappeared into the ether and I only just noticed.)Verbal chat 20:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If you actually read the AfD, you will see that there was "no consensus". However, the majority of editors agreed that either the article is a POV fork and should thus be deleted/merged, or that the article should be renamed to a more neutral title. Does anyone disagree with that reading of the AfD? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
i dont disagree with your reading of the afd and i agree that a discussion should be held about the name of the article... as such the tag should stay 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Verbal's interpretation of policy should be reported here as imaginative fiction! I jest. However, I think whether the title is WP:RS has nothing to do with whether the tag is justified. I don't think anyone disagrees with Levine's interpretation of the Afd. It is there in black and white. The AFD established that the majority of people thought the article was, as Levine pointed out, either a POV fork, or should be gone over to make it more NPOV. --stmrlbs|talk 23:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a better title that only includes one of the words: Chiropractic's controversial history. Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing controversy such as the libel case. This is current so the title Chiropractic's controversial history would be inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
BullRangifer's suggestion is better than the current title, but only in the way that a massive earthquake is better than the sun going supernova. It's still problematic and - much like the article itself - violated NPOV. This article is really just a hatchet job and has become the dumping ground for only negative POVs of the subject. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I explained there is an onging controversy. This is recent. This is more than a controversial history. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This thread is about a template that is only for use for a Criticism or Controversy section. It is not about the title of an article. The template is soley about the article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in a section title. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. I started this thread and named what I've now reverted your vandalism back from. As you can see from these reverts ([52][53][54][55][56]) this discussion is about "criticism-article" which deals with an article title in it's entirity. Other than by you right here today, "criticism-section" has never been a part of this discussion. Please cease and desist your vandalistic changing of this thread's title. Feel free to start a new thread if you wish to discuss something else. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

{{criticism-section}} template is about a Criticism or Controversy section

The template states This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to use a different term which offers a broader perspective.

The template is about the use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in a section of the article. It is not about the article's title. Therefore, the template should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty disingenuous of you considering you just changed the title of this conversation to be about {{criticism-section}} rather than {{criticism-article}}, which it was when I started. I will revert back. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You alleged I was being disingenuous so therefore you have been reverted. See WP:AGF. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, I started this thread. This thread is about the "criticism-article" template. If you'd like to make a subthread about the "criticism-section" template, that's fine but that has nothing to do with this particular discussion. "I feel like I am taking crazy pills." - Jacobim Mugatu. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This thread is about a template that is for a Criticism or Controversy section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "criticism-section" is about an article section. True enough. But no one ever added or removed that from the article we are discussing. It has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. "criticism-article" on the other hand is about an article's title and was added and reverted no less than five times (([57][58][59][60][61]) in the past day or so, hence this discussion. Please stay on topic. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 23:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken at face value the {{criticism-article}} tag seems to fit this article well. The only problem I see is if there is consensus within the Wikipedia community for the validity of this tag given that it was created on the 15 March 2009 and that only 4 articles make use of it. Furthermore the template tag directs the users to "Wikipedia:Criticism sections" which clearly does not deal with article titles. Seems to me the tag was created to attach a policy on criticisms sections to article titles without fully developing a Wikipedia policy specifically for article titles. --LexCorp (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV#Article_naming (which the "criticism-article" template also links to) itself tells us that "article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree but if the article is about "Chiropractic controversy and criticism" then the title with the highest degree of neutrality is precisely "Chiropractic controversy and criticism" as opposed say to "Somewhat misleading chiropractic controversy and criticism" or "overly nitpicking and banal chiropractic controversy and criticism". I think that what you really object to is as to the article content itself and not its title.--LexCorp (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
True enough (the title is a symptom of the troubled article), but until the article's NPOV issues can be resolved, do you think some kind of tagging would be nice (if not necessary) "'Somewhat misleading chiropractic controversy and criticism' or 'overly nitpicking and banal chiropractic controversy and criticism'". :-) I agree. That does seem to be the case! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the underlying question here is if the article Chiropractic controversy and criticism is either a WP:CFORK, WP:POVFORK or a legitimate fork of the Chiropractic article?. Upon reading the Chiropractic article my view is that it is a legitimate fork but the way it is implemented in the Chiropractic article is a bit messy. I would create a specifically sub-section for "controversy and criticism" in the Chiropractic article and then summarize the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article content in there. That way most NPOV issues will be removed. As to tagging I haven't really look too deeply into the articles and I certainly know very little about Chiropractic to judge as to the neutrality of either article. If you feel that there is POV issues then try to use and justify a more relevant tag than the {{criticism-article}} tag. --LexCorp (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, I appreciate your input. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 01:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No specific objection to a sub-section "controversy and criticism" in the Chiropractic article was made so I started the section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
the problem with this idea is that it has been suggested many times... and consensus has ruled against it many times... why?? because the criticism is already in the article but in each section instead of confined to one section... if there is going to be such a section in the article, all criticism that is currently in the article should be moved to that section... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
But there is a whole different aspect to this subject that's not dealt with in the main chiropractic article, and the new article deals with it. Since this discussion is now repeating the endless circular arguments we've heard from Levine2112 and 70.71.22.45 before, this should continue in the appropriate section on the chiropractic article talk page. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a legitimate argument for deleting something. Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I created a new talk-page section Talk:Chiropractic #900-word insertion without consensus or adequate discussion that discusses the section recently-added to Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I have nominated Chiropractic controversy and criticism to be checked for it's neutrality. If you're up for the challenge (and I know you are!), please consider reviewing comments as they are added to this section of the talk page. Would love some neutral outside opinions here. Merci. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 03:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AnarchistAssassin

User:AnarchistAssassin seems to have some personal complaints about some domain name registrar companies and is putting very POV language (like "illegal", "has considered itself above the law in this matter" and etc.) as well as WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on some unreliable sources, etc. I tried a 3O one one article, but I think this person is just not getting how we work at Wikipedia at all. Some of the things he is adding are probably libelous against the companies he's accusing of breaking the law. DreamGuy (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AnarchistAssassin is in the wrong here. His citation [62] does not support his edit.--LexCorp (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please provide some pointer to the edits in question or at least to the articles? Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Page is Go Daddy. Edit I believe is [63]--LexCorp (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
His recent contribution history July 11th onwards is nothing but POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems he is on a crusade. Lets hope he vents his frustration quickly without doing too much harm to Wikipedia.--LexCorp (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Young America Corporation (rebate clearinghouse) and removal of negative content

User with a likely COI is persistently removing any information from Young America Corporation that is negative, despite being fairly well-sourced. Recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. I've warned the user, warned them for RR previously, tried to reach out with a personal comment, and began templating them again today with a level 4 NPOV- they repeated the edit after that L4. Can someone help out? tedder (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment Welvas (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA - no question to me that the user is cleansing the article of negative content.--Jaymax (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

POV in Reference Titles

In a peer review of Christian Conventions, Jesse Lackman (who has stated that he is a member of the group in question) notes that many of the references cited have provocative titles.

I suppose an objective reader looking through the references will see the obvious personal opinion/interpretations with loaded words and phrases like "cult", "Delusions", "Reinventing the Truth", "Churches That Abuse", "A Search for the Truth: The Workers' Words Exposed", "Heresies Exposed" "Christian Truth and Religious Delusions", "Sex, Lies and Sanctity: Religion and Deviance in Contemporary North America", etcetera. A title like "Worker's words exposed" clearly implies the worker's words have hidden meanings which [he] will expose.

See his comments here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Christian_Conventions/archive1. JesseLackman says that the article appears objectively to reflect the sources, and he doesn't really argue that the text of the article is POV -- only that the BOOK TITLES in the reference section do reflect POV.

I had not considered the matter from this viewpoint until he raised the issue, but I must say: it's both true and hard to deal with. Has this sort of matter ever reached the NPOV Noticeboard before? --Nemonoman (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also be interested in knowing if some groundrules have been set. Though in this case, an anti PoV is being detected in the titles, I would think that this would also apply equally to pro PoV inferences which may be drawn by readers (e.g., there are around a billion people in China which would see PoV in the glowing terms in the Dalai Lama article's reference titles). Book titles, even unimpeachible scholarly book titles, often have provocative titles. Is an average reader being served a PoV, based soley upon titles found in the references? Or is it PoV in the body of the article itself which is of concern? It is a good question.
In the example The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which you gave on the other board, I personally think PoV would depend on what the article stated about Robert Ford, not the title in the reference list. If the article was promoting a PoV that Robert Ford was a coward, then it might be seen as reinforcing that. But as a reference, it would be fine if actual information was being cited therein (not merely referenced because "coward" was stamped on the cover). • Astynax talk 19:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin pushing POV...

User YellowMonkey has been removing the entire Indian section from the State-sponsored terrorism page on the excuse of UNDUE weight... He is clearly pushing POV since all the text is referenced and brief... How can a report of foreign Policy magazine and the statement of Richard Holbrooke be UNDUE... Here is the edit...[64]... Adil your (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment After browsing through the artice before and after the admin edit, I would agree with a prior assessment of WP:UNDUE. Many of the state entries have their own articles - Libya and India do not, and yet India had much more coverage, and particularly coverage of 'allegations' and 'implications' that do not belong in this article. India might be a bit light now - there could be value in recovering two or three lines that summarize the removed content, and utilise some of the removed references, but that'd be about the extent of it. --Jaymax (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
No, This article really is all about allegations, even though none of the allegations have been proved in most cases... The reason being that every country would deny involvement in any terrorist activity... But the problem lies in the manner YellowMonkey deleted the entire content just because HE thinks its undue... There was no consensus on it, there are discussions going on, And without ever taking part in it he comes along and removes the entire section.... And if that is the way to do it then why is the Pakistan section so long, Almost all the references are not from the state itself, but rather from India (which BTW is considered an enemy when speaking of military issues), shouldn't they also be considered biased and WP:UNDUE... Adil your (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
That India government is involved in terrorism is a fringe theory. more people probably believe holocaust never happened. as such any mention is Undue weight. that Pakistan government ( specifically ISI) was deeply involved in terrorism and nurtured Taliban and provided a safe haven to Al-Qaeda is a well accepted fact world over. that is why the section on Pakistan is longer. Adil Your you are the POV pusher here my friend. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So we are to believe that it is a fringe theory just because you say so.....Ok.....and you mean to say that Holbrooke and "Foreign Policy Magazine" and "Asian tribune" are all Liars....hmmmmm which by the way are all neutral sources and WP:RS compared to the Pakistan section where Indian Express is being quoted.....alright......If quoting a WP:RS instead of a biased one is POV then yes, I am a POV pusher...But wasn't it the other way around...??? Adil your (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
And just to top it off, Have a look at some of the edits YellowMonkey has been doing on SSP Page... here , here, here, and here as well..... Can somebody please tell me how can he do that without ever participating on the talk Page...??? And here he even breaks the 3RR on 23 February, when Deavenger wasn't even a Block evading User... If this is not POV Pushing then I don't know what is... And every time he reverted, he didn't merely changed minor things but actually removed the entire Indian Section... One can clearly see whats happening on that page when informed about his nationality, which is Indian ofcourse.... But this is an encyclopedia and not a place where you show your Patriotism.... Adil your (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
it would be good if you followed your own advice. India is one of the worlds largest democracy and not a 'Failed State"[65] like Pakistan which is well known for exporting terrorism as its main enterprise. Holbrooke has rightly considered AFPAK ( Afghanistan = Pakistan = failed states) as the biggest headache facing humanity today and you are a SPA which seriously needs to be blocked for POV pushingWikireader41 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if Indians tried to eradicate poverty from there festered land rather than support terror groups in Pakistan [66] the worlds biggest headache is poverty and India is getting poorer by the day no wonder separatism is a new fashion in Hindustan [67] no sane person would want to fester in Vedic and Sanskrit trash as long as the Vedic Hindu caste system is alive and kicking in the world (and India) there will be problems no wonder there are mass conversions of Hindus to Buddhism [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6695695.stm] and Islam [68] escaping oppression. Also seems to me like Indian troops have a habit of fiddling with girls they have no shame it seems that’s why Kashmir is crying out "Hindustan Murdabad" again in Indian occupied Kashmir [69] LOL if your so patriotic about India why hide in Chicago India cannot feed you it seems why not lobby congress for food aid? NRI nationalists are the worst most coward nationalists of all cannot say anything face to face but bark behind computer screens living in there mothers home awww :-) 86.153.128.250 (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thats exactly my point, that when the world's "so called" largest democracy sponsors BLA and Taliban in Pakistan, then it is at least worth mentioning in the article, especially when you have 26 refs from WP:RS to back it up.... Now why are you calling Pakistan a failed state, it has nothing to do with India sponsoring terrorism, Are you too showing signs of POV.... BTW American Inteligence chief said that "The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there." [70] So if Pakistan is a failed state, it is because India is nurturing Taliban to destabilize it... And calling Pakistan a headache is clearly POV pushing, so kindly refrain from doing so and stop threatening me from block..... Adil your (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Adil you are arguing with a nationalis vandal [71] he has been blocked before for his pov pushing ignore the idiot 86.153.128.250 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
One more thing Monkey and wikivandal41 have been discussing you before hand so it seems they have been planning things against you for a long time now I suggest you stop now Adil or the monkey will block you for revealing his POV and label you as a "Pakistani trouble maker" like before [72] this dif should show the monkey for what he is a POV pusher of the nth degree who also supports Hkelkar 86.153.128.250 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Adil your, this fellow you're talking to is banned user Nangparbat. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana Meth Project

This might be more of a WP:COI issue, but it definitely has NPOV implications. The Montana Meth Project has been heavily edited by people involved with the campaign, who have been taking out information unfavorable to the project (IPs registered to the company that created it, for example). However, I'm concerned that the other side might be taking out too much information regarding the effectiveness of the program. If someone could poke their head in and help evaluate the dueling citations, I'd be much obliged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i read the lead. the lead is biased on the side of the project. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is an article lead being slanted in a way that suggests that people should go to jail?

The article on waterboarding begins by saying point-blank that waterboarding is torture, which of course would make it criminal. The following balancing material has been deleted from the lead:

"It is considered a form of torture in common parlance, although not always considered torture according to all proposed legal definitions in all circumstances."[1][2][3]

[1]Lewis, Michael. “The Jaundiced Eye of the Beholder: The Case For An Objective Definition of Torture,” Journal of Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Forthcoming. Lewis writes: "Any stressor or form of physical treatment that a nation uses in a non-punitive manner on its own trainees would presumptively not be considered torture when used on a detainee."
[2]Goldberg, Elizabeth. Beyond Terror: Gender, Narrative, Human Rights, page 213 (Rutgers University Press 2007): “the U.S. government has, since 9/11, repeatedly sought to redefine torture so as to exclude acts once accepted as torture, such as waterboarding.”
[3]McCarthy, Andy. "On Torture, Holder Undoes Holder," National Review (2009-05-19). Quoting Attorney General Eric Holder as saying that waterboarding trainees is not torture "in the legal sense."

Ordinarily, I would not bring this to a noticeboard or pursue dispute resolution. However, living people are in jeopardy of going to jail about this matter, so I think we have a special responsibility to be neutral, and not pretend that Wikipedia is a court of law. It may be more appropriate to bring this to the BLP Noticeboard, but I'll start here. Please keep in mind that I'm not taking any position, but simply trying to describe existing positions out there in the real world. Also, please note that this article went to ArbCom back in January and February.[73]Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Earth is round yet there is a number of people that consider it to be flat. Intelligent design is not science yet there is a number of people that consider it to be science. Waterboarding is torture yet there is a number of people that consider it not to be torture. Thus Wikipedia policies such as WP:fringe and WP:Undue. Wikipedia is not a legal treatise. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia as thus the legal status of waterboarding as torture in some limited cases does not have any relevance to the definition of waterboarding as torture. Furthermore this is a manufactured controversy created by interested groups within the U.S. political sphere in order to protect certain parties and government establishments from their legal responsibilities. On a side note it is ridiculous to state that people are at risk of going to jail because Wikipedia defines waterboarding as torture.--LexCorp (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If a criminal is on trial, Wikipedia does not accept as fact the prosecutor's case, no matter how popular it is. The situation here is similar. And characterizing the footnoted views of both the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration as "fringe" is absurd.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not taking sides by stating that Waterboarding is a form of torture. It is just giving an encyclopedic definition of Waterboarding. Past and current US Administrations are bias actors and their position is clearly explained in the article. Their bias views should not be used to justify the inclusion of a WP:fringe and WP:Undue and WP:POV edit into the article. This discussion is absurd. Waterboarding has been considered a form of torture since the middle ages and its status as torture has been challenged every time by interested parties when said parties made use of it.--LexCorp (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Only one of the three cited sources is the past administration. Please stop saying that everyone you disagree with is biased or fringe. There are biased people on both sides.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am explaining myself wrongly here due to my English. There are two issues here. Waterboarding and the current legal status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A. I understand that for some people they are the same thing but they are not. Remove yourself from the current times and involved parties. Imaging yourself as a historian that did not know anything of the past 100 years. It will be clear to you that Waterboarding is a form of torture. Now lets go back to the present. Any normal editor that is witnessing the current dispute of the legal status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A. have a understandably desire to reflect that into the waterboarding article. The point here is that it should not be done by changing the definition of a long time established concept. It should be done by introducing a section that explains in a NPOV way the current dispute of the legal status. The article already has this section and thus the edit change been disputed here on the leading part of the article falls within WP:fringe and WP:Undue.--LexCorp (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Your English is fine; it's your logic that maybe could use a little bit of improvement. With the material I inserted taken out, the lead says unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and then goes on to say that it is considered a form of torture even by legal experts. Zippo information is provided that, hey, it ain't always so according to several notable authorities. We cannot just say that we think the interrogators are criminals, which is what we're now saying. We should wait for conviction (or acquittal). Let's not make history before it happens.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please also see the same topic debated above in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Neutral. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That involved Webster's Dictionary, rather than any of the sources now at issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, making charges of criminal activity is not something in the purview of Wikipedia. As living people are mentioned by name, BLP strictures also arise. Collect (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The article does not make any charge of criminal activity. It just states that Waterboarding is torture. In regard to NPOV, it has a section that cover the current legal status controversy of Waterboarding.--LexCorp (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In which case, such language should be in the lede -- making it clear that it is not "criminal" per se. Right? Collect (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The leading of the article does not mention anything as to the criminality of waterboarding. In fact the word criminal is not there at all.--LexCorp (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Saying it is torture, without any further explanation, is the same as saying it's criminal. Everyone knows that torture is a crime. And anyway, the lead says explicitly: "it is considered a form of torture by legal experts." Those legal experts may be correct, but they are not the only legal experts that have spoken on the issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Torture=illegal, therefore the article states that those who waterboard (including military trainers) are guilty of torture. And what about the image in the lead showing the protesters, are they committing torture as well? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:SYN. We are not responsible for your errors of deduction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Answer the question. Is the protester committing torture? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Or what? You're gonna waterboard me? The protester is re-enacting an act of torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No, he "is" waterboarding his fellow protester. Therefore he is torturing him, unless waterboarding is not torture in this case, which hurts the argument that waterboarding "is" torture.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
TO William S. Saturn. If I am a citizen of lalaland and I am reading the leading of the waterboarding article here in Wikipedia and in lalaland torture is not considered a illegal. Then I would not summarize as you seem to do that the article is accusing anybody of any criminal activity. You are clearly bias stating otherwise. --LexCorp (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that made no sense. I ask for somebody to answer my question. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor from a country where torture is nor a criminal act will not conclude as you do that the article is accusing anybody of a criminal act. You by making that conclusion are proyecting your bias views into the article and thus see a POV problem where there is none. I really cannot explained more simply. What question? --LexCorp (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here arises from the fact that there are two definitions being applied, and they should be kept separate:

  1. Encyclopedic - All reliable sources agree that waterboarding is a torture technique. If used for demonstrative purposes (such as by protesters or journalists who voluntarily endure it under controlled conditions) or training (such as in the SERE program) the person using the technique can't be said to be engaging in torture, but it's still a torture technique.
  2. Political/legal - This is where the problem lies. It is undeniably torture to have waterboarding inflicted on you unwillingly -- only a few fringe groups say otherwise -- but there are ongoing, and largely political, arguments over whether it is legally torture.

The first definition is the purview of an encyclopedia, and should be in the lede, as the lede is where the term is defined. The second is more fluid and subject to the vagaries of politics, and should be discussed in the body, but not in the lede. The political definition of the word does not belong there. --GoodDamon 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I try to explain above and for some reason fail to do so.--LexCorp (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If a journalist performs waterboarding, he is not committing torture? But I thought waterboarding "is" torture. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You're being intentionally obtuse. It's a torture technique, and you know it. Let's use an analogy that will be unmistakable for you: Punching people. Punching is a violent act, right? It's a violence technique. Sometimes, it's even used during torture. Yet somehow, boxers don't typically go to jail for it, and they punch people all the time. That is because boxers use this violence technique in a different context, one in which all participants agree to punch and be punched. Waterboarding is a form of torture. That doesn't mean you can't willingly endure it for non-torture reasons. Now cut it out. --GoodDamon 23:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
To William S. Saturn. Editor Stephan Schulz already answered you. The journalist clearly is re-enacting an act of torture. I guess went you see an actor in a film shooting down another actor for no reason at all, he is not really killing him thus by your strange reasoning we should change the definition of Homicide and state that it is not the act of killing another human being.--LexCorp (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No you're wrong, it's a demonstration, the REAL THING, not a movie. And to Damon, your explanation clearly states why the punching article doesn't state in its lead "punching is a form of torture." --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I said "punching people." I don't think we have an article on that. Just the act of punching? You can do that to the air. It's just a rapid motion of your fist. Perhaps I should be more clear to get around your continued hair-splitting: Punching other people is an act of violence. People go to jail for it. Boxers do not. Because both people involved have agreed to it. Still with me? Waterboarding the unwilling is an act of torture. People go to jail for it. SERE trainers do not. Because both people involved have agreed to it.
Look... Feel free to make your word-mangling argument on whatever lunatic fringe forums you prefer. I hear Free Republic is popular. But this is an encyclopedia. This isn't the place for it. --GoodDamon 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If "Waterboarding the unwilling is an act of torture" then waterboarding the willing is not torture, and that makes sense. But that is not what it states in the lead of the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the difference? A waterboarding session performed by a willing journalist is not the real thing no matter how the media terms it. Wikipedia doesn't explicitly have to say "unwilling" more likely it is the media that should not term a simulated waterboarding session as the real thing. Waterboarding is always understood as being unwilling and if the media wants to sensationalize an article by stating that one of their journalist did a waterboarding session when in fact only simulated one. It is their problem not Wikipedias'.You haven't proof anything with this aside discussion. Your discussion method is a bit strange too. You rise questions and arguments but fail to counter those given to you by other editors. You have not addressed the encyclopedia/current political dispute argument nor the torture=crime POV implication.--LexCorp (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Good Damon, if you'd like to remove the legal/political definitions from the lead, then fine. Remove from the lead that "it is considered a form of torture by legal experts." And insert into the lead that it is commonly considered torture regardless of legal definitions.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't assume that things are understood. If something is one way, it should state it in the wikipedia article that way. "Unwilling" is not part of the definition of waterboarding (unsimulated), if it was then your argument would make sense. Please discuss the issue at hand, this isn't a debate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If we started to add the obvious to all Wikipedia articles them the encyclopedia will triple in volume. Those arguments raised by me and other editors are part of the discussion at hand. I fail to understand you.--LexCorp (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
(Replying to Ferrylodge) Legal experts do consider it torture. That doesn't mean the government considers it torture (it does now, but that's a different issue). The legal experts cited are lawyers and judges, but that doesn't mean the Justice Department couldn't come out with a statement tomorrow that it won't prosecute waterboarding as torture. --GoodDamon 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have requested page protection as a preventative measure to ensure no one gets caught up in an edit war. Let's sort this out, then make changes if any are needed. --GoodDamon 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: Good Damon, if you'd like to remove the legal/political definitions from the lead, then fine. Remove from the lead that "it is considered a form of torture by legal experts." And insert into the lead that it is commonly considered torture regardless of what the legal definitions may be.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
See my reply above. The legal experts cited aren't the ones who decide whether something actually matches the legal definition of torture. --GoodDamon 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You said above that the political/legal aspects "should be discussed in the body, but not in the lede." Please make up your mind. Do you want it in the lead or not? If you want it in the lead, then we can discuss how it should be treated. It is presently in the lead and mistreated, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Stating that "legal experts" believe it to be torture is not the same thing as saying the law considers it to be torture. Look... There is near-universal consensus, except among a relatively small fringe, that forcing someone to inhale water against his will -- i.e., waterboarding -- is a torture technique. That consensus should be in the lede. However, the previous administration created some legal arguments to the contrary of that consensus, and no judge has ruled on that yet. So you have a situation where the mainstream view is at odds with the view once held by the government during the previous administration. That view is from a notable enough source -- the previous administration -- that it deserves to be in the article. But it does not deserve to be in the lede, where the term is initially defined. That would be giving it undue weight, since it's an extreme minority view. --GoodDamon 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You say that the Bush administration and the CIA are fringe. Let's suppose for argument's sake that they are (which seems like kind of an absurd and POV assumption). We still should not say in the lede of an article that something is a crime when prosecutors are in the process of considering indictments; maybe it is a crime and maybe it isn't, but we don't declare guilt here (do we?), even if the defendant is a fringe character. Waterboarding has been used in U.S. training since the Korean War, and it has been used far more more often on trainess than on detainees. Is it a fringe view that waterboarding is usually an interrogation technique used in soldier training programs, in which case it is not torture? No, that is not a fringe view, it is the majority view. The lede of the present article deliberately cites accusers, while censoring out the accused. That's not NPOV, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this edit in the lead solve all POV/inclusion/exclusion problems as well as been more in line with Wikipedia Policy, particularly WP:Lead, WP:SUMMARY, WP:Undue:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[2] By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensation of drowning.[3] Waterboarding use is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[8][9] intelligence officials,[10] military judges,[11] and human rights organizations.[12][13]
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[14] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[8]
In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[15][16] a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal. Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[17][18] Acording to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed allowed the U.S. government to stop a 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles.[19] This recent events have prompted a political dispute within the U.S.A. as to the legal status of waterboarding as a form of torture.
In January 2009 United States President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the United States Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes.[19] According to officials such as Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Daniel Baumgartner Jr., the waterboard can be used for training without becoming a torture device.[20]
my suggested edit in bold.--LexCorp (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that this solves anything. The first sentence of the lead says unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and torture of course is illegal in countries like the United States. Therefore, this reads like a sentence of "guilty" on interrogators who have used this technique. They may indeed be guilty, but no court has decided that yet, AFAIK.
The lead later explicitly cites "legal experts" for the same proposition. I suggest that we either remove the legal analysis from the lead, or else make it more accurate.
We can make it more accurate by recognizing that most waterboarding is done on trainees rather than detainees, and there is no legal consensus that it is torture when done to trainees. Additionally, at least when it is done to detainees in exactly the same way it is done to trainees, there are legal arguments that it should not be considered "torture," and the US Government has repeatedly asserted during the past eight years that waterboarding is not necessarily "torture."
Once a court of law says that waterboarding is invariably torture, then we can restore the first sentence of the article to the way it is now.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Wikipedia is universal (even the English version) so your point about the legal status of waterboarding as torture is the United States is muted. More so if you consider that there is a section in the article specifically for it and that my suggested edit explicitly summarizes it. That it reads as a "guilty" sentence is really a synthesis you form in your mind (and a United States mind at that). I already gave examples above as to what an editor from a country where torture is not a criminal act will make of such interpretation. Again I fail to see the relevance of having the procedure simulated for trainees being equated to the real thing. Trainees know it is a controlled train exercise and summit willingly to it. Tortured people have absolutely no control about anything. The US Government is a biased party with huge problems both internally and externally due to its ambiguities and practices regarding waterboaring and the facts are discussed in a section specifically for it. There is no universal court of law and thus no amount of ruling will change the universal definition of waterboarding and even if a US court rules it is not torture then an edit reflecting the fact should have to be included in the future but the general definition as to waterboaring being torture will certainly stand with a section as to countries whose legal systems do not consider waterboarding as torture included in the article.--LexCorp (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Adendum. Furthermore I resent you accusation of me trying to censor anything. My suggested edit is a good compromise. Why a petty internal political dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding in the U.S.A. has to be featured in the lead of an article about waterboarding in general is beyond me. Why the definition of waterboarding hinges in any way upon said dispute is beyond me. Any WP:NPOV issues are addressed by having within the article a specific section regarding the U.S.A. In fact any unbiased editor would (I think) agree that it is your proposed edit that gives undue weight to a minority view in a current politically motivated dispute in the U.S.A. (as per WP:GEVAL) and not only that but it also fundamentally changes the definition of waterboarding by not stating specifically that waterboarding is torture (thus certainly WP:POV). (note: this Adendum is done after the accusation by Ferrylodge of me trying to censor the article sank in and thus its objectivity I fully disclose is suspect)--LexCorp (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment This discussion essentially duplicates a discussion on the article talk page Talk:Waterboarding and should be continued there. The purpose of the notice board has, I believe, been fully served and editors who are concerned about any NPOV issues raised are welcome to join the discussion on the article talk page. See Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. --agr (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. In fact this is a repeat of the section above title Neutral[74]. I did try to explain there the function of this page and stated that this function has been exhausted in relation to this topic and that concerned editors should seek consensus in the article's talk page or seek a more formal WP:dispute resolution. I have come to the conclusion that the editors raising the objection of POV either do not understand fully the WP:NPOV policy or are stuck in a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT mode or basically do not perceive the difference between waterboarding and the current dispute regarding the legal status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A. Anyway that one of the editors accused me of trying to censor the article just after I proposed an edit that addressed his POV concerns and their unwillingness to seek a more formal dispute resolution speaks volumes to me.--LexCorp (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree: Virtually every time a matter comes here, it has been discussed at an article talk page, and that does not make it forum shopping by any stretch of the imagination. I stated at the article talk page that I was coming here. I have not ruled out more formal dispute resolution; where do you get these accusations, from your fortuneteller? We should take one step at a time.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Per the scope of this noticeboard, the issue here is whether the content/decription of/in that article follows NPOV. The BLP issue for the definition is a red herring; the topic is not a LP so just follow the sources while respecting NPOV. The BLP issue for any LP mentioned in the article is similar; follow the sources meticulously with no compromise to reliable sourcing. But conflating the definition itself with living persons issues is, with due respect, silly. I am somewhat surprised there was this much discussion about it. While WP is not a court of law, it is no more an advocate for any prosecutorial or defensive legal position. Sources, sources, sources. From a legal perspective, we want articles to be as fair and accurate as possible; if this is meant to be an analog of the Rohde case, it is a terrible one. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not fair or accurate to only include the prosecutor's position in the lead, and not the defense. Also, I don't know anything about Rohde.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't take any position but that of the sources. If an agent of a legitimate legal system (as specifically opposed to the kidnappers of a journalist) find a well written summary of their totality either useful or damning, so be it. We do not attempt for that to happen, but sometimes it may. Our job is to write good articles. The point is follow the pillars and let's avoid saying we need to be careful because otherwise someone could go to jail. Note that I am not either condoning or condemning the article as stands, but I will point out there has been lots of discussion on the original content point. Consensus may change, but please let's not use the fallacious going-to-jail argument in that process. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, United Nations, 10 December 1984.
  2. ^ Safire, William. Safire's Political Dictionary, page 795 (Oxford University Press 2008): “Waterboarding. A form of torture in which the captive is made to believe he is suffocating to death under water.”
  3. ^ White, Josh (November 8, 2007). "Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2007.
  4. ^ a b "Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales". Human Rights Watch. April 5, 2006. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  5. ^ Davis, Benjamin (October 8, 2007). "Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff". JURIST. Retrieved December 18, 2007.
  6. ^ "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War". Democracy Now!. November 5, 2007. Retrieved December 18, 2007.
  7. ^ McCain, John (November 21, 2005). "Torture's Terrible Toll". Newsweek. Retrieved April 17, 2009. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.
  8. ^ a b Mayer, Jane (February 14, 2005). "Outsourcing Torture". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  9. ^ "Former member of UN Committee Against Torture: 'Yes, waterboarding is torture'" (Press release). International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims. February 12, 2008. Retrieved April 21, 2009.
  10. ^ Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost plane: the true story of the CIA torture program. New York City: St. Martin's Press. p. 226. ISBN 0-312-36023-1. OCLC 70335397. As one former CIA official, once a senior official for the directorate of operations, told me: 'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.' Another, also a former higher-up in the directorate of operations, told me: 'Yes, it's torture…'
  11. ^ Bell, Nicole (November 2, 2007). "Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: 'Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.'". Crooks and Liars. Retrieved 17 April 2009.
  12. ^ "CIA Whitewashing Torture". Human Rights Watch. November 21, 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  13. ^ "Amnesty International Response to Cheney's 'No-Brainer' Comment" (Press release). Amnesty International. October 26, 2006. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  14. ^ Ross, Brian (November 18, 2007). "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described". ABC News. Retrieved April 17, 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding". World News with Charles Gibson. ABC News. November 29, 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  16. ^ "Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations". The New York Times. October 4, 2007. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  17. ^ Price, Caitlin (February 5, 2008). "CIA chief confirms use of waterboarding on 3 terror detainees". JURIST. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  18. ^ Tran, Mark (February 5, 2008). "CIA admit 'waterboarding' al-Qaida suspects". The Guardian. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  19. ^ a b Lucas, Fred (April 22, 2009). "Obama Bans Waterboarding Terrorists, But Pentagon Won't Say If It Still Waterboards Military Trainees". Cybercast News Service. Retrieved April 29, 2009.
  20. ^ Finn, Peter and Warrick, Joby. “In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture,'” Washington Post(2009-04-25): "obviously the United States government does not torture its own people."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_6&oldid=1142591225"