Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Lyndon LaRouche

Two editors have launched a massive POV re-write of Lyndon LaRouche, involving well over 100 edits between them over the past week. The effect of their editing has been to take a stable, neutral BLP well into attack-article territory. The main emphasis has been the deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche ([1][2]) while giving undue weight to obscure critics ([3][4][5][6].) The NPOV tag that I placed was also reverted [7]. I would appreciate some intervention from non-involved editors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"A massive POV rewrite"? Is that a neutral account of the dispute? The subject has received a lot of attention in the past month due to his "Obama=Hitler" campaign against health care reform, which caused a spike in readership of the article, and in turn to uninvolved editors who've posted to the talk page their views that the article is too long. Over the past year a lot of trivial press mentions have been put in that don't add to readers' knowledge of the subject. So there is some long-overdue revising going on. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to read the article and see what they think needs fixing. Will Beback talk 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching the article. Will try to gague nature of conflict before speaking further on it.Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more complete set of diffs, specifically from User:SlimVirgin. Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The edits are so numerous that it is difficult to unravel the overarching trend. However, the examples below are characteristic. SlimVirgin has a technique of mixing controversial with non-controversial edits and then assigning a vague or misleading edit summary, so that when she is deleting favorable or adding negative commentary, she will often use a summary like "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[8] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
[9] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
[10] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
[11] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[12] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[13] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[14] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[15] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[16] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[17] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[18] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[19] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
[20]Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
[21] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics

Van Jones

User:Dewen12 and I have a disagreement about whether or not a paragraph he wrote should be part of Van Jones. It is my opinion that the paragraph is negatively biased and sourced by non-reliable sources. It is his opinion that, since I am a Democrat, I am inherently inclined to remove unflattering information, and so his paragraph should remain, exactly as he wrote it. Rather than enter into a pointless edit-war, I'd appreciate some assistance in looking at Dewen12's desired contribution and helping decide what the most neutral version might be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

New User: I think that, if your friend can find valid sources to cite, the article should be allowed. Just because information is unflattering doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted. And to be clear, I'd say the same about Bush or any republican; I support people's rights to write an article about how Bush's war policy was viewed, as long as they have reliable sources as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.39.20 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Deedat

I'd like opinions on an ongoing dispute at Ahmed Deedat. Just as background, Ahmed Deedat was what might be called a Muslim missionary, or at least a Muslim missionary writer. He worked in the area which (depending on your POV) either attacked Christianity or defended Islam against Christian attacks. The problem with a Wikipedia article on someone like that is you tend to only get two types of editors: those Muslims who are admirers of his work, and those Christians who are very critical of his work. (I admit I am in the latter group). I have tried to insert a link to a page of writings critical of Deedat's work, by a Christian author named John Gilchrist, and a number of Muslim editors continually revert it. (Of course, from their POV, a Christian is trying to disrupt the article and only gets support from another Christian). Debate on the issue on the talk page (Talk:Ahmed Deedat) almost invariably falls along Christian/Muslim lines. So I am looking for some new editors - preferably without strong opinions on Deedat - to take a look at the issue.

To me it's a pretty clear case. Deedat wrote against Christianity, so a Christian response is notable if it's by a notable enough writer. I detail my reasons that Gilchrist is notable at Talk:Ahmed Deedat#Should we link to the anti-Deedat material at Answering-Islam.org?; but briefly I offer 3 strong sources backing up Gilchrist's writings: (1) Christianity Today, probably the leading evangelical Christian magazine in the world (CT page here[22] references Gilchrist's "The Christian Witness to the Muslim", which is partly a response to Deedat's writings); (2) two of his books were endorsed by leading Christian writer Ravi Zacharias in 1995[23]; and (3) Gilchrist co-authored a book with Josh McDowell (probably the leading Christian apologist, at least at the popular level in the 1970s/early 80s) in 1981 (book is here [24] an 8 MB downlaod; Amazon page is here [25]).

It has been objected that these are Christian sources and so are inherently biased, but that misses the point. In the field of Muslim-Christian debate, there are really only two sides - the Muslim side (which Christian consider flawed) and the Christian side (which Muslims consider flawed). Note WP:NPOV says: "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly... Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

A second objection has been that it's POV to put a link to a Christian critique unless we first explain Deedat's arguments so the reader knows what Gilchrist is arguing about. To me that objection is nonsense - we link to Deedat's anti-Christian writings (about 12 times in the article) so there's plenty of context for a single link to a notable Christian response. After a back and forth with a single editor over this, with neither of us backing down, I've decided to call for other opinions. Our debate is in the last part of Talk:Ahmed Deedat#Should we link to the anti-Deedat material at Answering-Islam.org?, beginning at 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Anyway, what do people think? I think it's a clear example of a notable critique of Deedat, which is on-topic, and not POV to insert, in view of the large number of pro-Deedat links the article already contains. But I'd like some more opinions... Peter Ballard (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the source you are using is all that encyclopedic. While notable opinions are welcomed and should be cited in an article, it isn't clear to me that you have made a good case for Gilchrist's prominence as a generator of opinions about Ahmed Deedat. If Ahmed Deedat has explicitly acknowledged Gilchrist, then that might be a good argument for the prominence of Gilchrist's commentary (and offer an opportunity to address the debate objectively -- remember it is better to assert facts rather than cite opinions in controversial articles). I notice, for example, that Deedat's debate with Anis Shorrosh and Jimmy Swaggart are noted directly in the article. This seems reasonable to me because Deedat by agreeing to debate them has made their commentary of special interest to his biography. But if Gilchrist's commentary is to be notable, it should probably rise to a similar level or, at the very least, third-party independent observers should have noticed his commentary directly when writing about Deedat. If you can find a mainstream, secular, neutral, or even pro-Deedat sources that mention Gilchrist's website or arguments, that might be a better way to approach inclusion of whatever material may be of relevance to the article. But we should not be in the business of referencing attack pages that float below the radar screen. It is up to you as the person who proposes the source as a balance to show why this particular source has the prominence with respect to the subject to warrant inclusion. Arguments that Gilchrist is associated with Christianity Today, endorsements and co-authorships with other Christian writers go towards establishing his relevance to those people and subjects not towards establishing Gilchrist's relevance to Ahmed Deedat. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some more facts which were in the long argument at the talk page, but not in the abbreviated argument above: Gilchrist debated Deedat in 1975, and continues to debate Deedat's successors as recently as 2009 (it's disappeared from http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/ but you can see a snippet of the debate publicity poster here [26]). The book co-authored by Josh McDowell and Gilchrist was a direct follow-up to a McDowell-Deedat debate in 1981, and includes the entire transcript of the McDowell-Deedat debate (in addition to extra material by McDowell and Gilchrist). The McDowell/Gilchrist book is (IMHO) clearly notable, but it is only available as an 8 MB download,[27] so it seems to me that the similar material expanded and more accessible format should also be notable (i.e. this page http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/index.html ).

As for whether Deedat mentioned Gilchrist's arguments: he wrote the book "The God that never was" as a direct response to Gilchrist. The blurb (at this link [28] ) says in part, "There has appeared a man in Benoni. He is not qualified in theology, but is fondly cherishing the self-delusion that he is an apostle of Christ, appointed by God to convert Muslims to Christianity. Because he is a lawyer by profession, he is adept at juggling with words and quoting the Holy Qur'an totally out of context without knowing a word of Arabic." He is talking about Gilchrist, who is a lawyer. I hope that gives a bit more context to Gilchrist's notability. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

p.s. the reference for Gilchrist having debated Deedat in 1975 is page 10 of the 8 MB book above. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article right now states, "Deedat's first well-known debate occurred in August 1981 when he debated well-known Christian apologist Josh McDowell in Durban, South Africa." but the reference right now does not indicate that this really was the first "well-known" debate. That needs to be addressed first because obviously, in your opinion, the first well-known debate was earlier than that. Of course, your opinion or the opinion of any Wikipedian is irrelevant. What we need to do is to find a third party source which discuss the impact and prominence of the various debates. An example: [29]. Here it is stated:

In the 1980s and 1990s Deedat debated in several countries with religious opponents, who in most cases were representatives of evangelical or fundamentalist forms of Christianity. For example, he debated with the American TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, the Palestinian Christian Anis Shorrosh, and the Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Stanley Sjoberg.

Those are the only debates deemed notable to this particular third-party reviewer. Of course, there may be other sources out there. Newspaper articles, commentary from outsiders, etc. would all be really good to find to get better sourcing. I suggested starting here and working your way through the journal articles. If you cannot get access to them, go to your local university or college library, or you can message me and I can send you quotations. Alternatively, you can look for sources from news outlets like these which can also establish external notability. Unfortunately, looking for both John Gilchrist and Ahmed Deedat yielded almost nothing. If the book you mention is clearly notable, we're going to need to find some external third-party reviews of it, some indication of its popularity, or, even better, some criticism.

Your final point is perhaps the most interesting, but this is how I would handle it. If you can find a third-party source which indicates that this particular source is somehow a notable Deedat book, then I think it should find its way into Ahmed_Deedat#His Writings and Speeches. Looking at that location right now I see some real problems. Which writings are most famous and what is the standard for including them? That needs to be worked out first. I found a third party source which states,

Deedat’s key mode of argument, manifest in his most famous works, Is the Bible God’s Word? and Crucifixion or Crucifiction? is to critique Christianity through close biblical hermeneutics.

which indicates that Deedat's most famout two works do not include the one you reference. Once you and the rest of the editors can agree on an objective standard for deciding which of Deedat's writings to have prose in our article, then if Deedat's book "The God that never was" makes the cut it clearly makes Gilchrist a notable character.

However, I suggest the following tactic. This source actually discusses both Deedat and Gilchrist in the larger context of South African religious identities. In particular, with respect to Gilchrist,

Naude and Greyling's academic and mission work was complemented by those of Gilchrist and Nehls; the latter worked in the Western Cape while the former worked in the Transvaal where he had established his "Jesus to the Muslims" organization. In 1977 Gilchrist, a lawyer, produced his work The Challenge of Islam in South Africa, in which he provided an overview of the position of Islam and Muslims with the aim of arming his "Jesus to Muslims" society and others regarding Muslim beliefs and practices.... Gilchrist saw the web as another avenue to make his ideas and writings known to a wider audience.... Gilchrist has since the 1970s spent a great deal of time studying sources of Islam and produced his extensive work Jam' al-Qur'ān — The Codification of the Qur'ān Text. This text's main objective was to undermine the Muslim interpretation and acceptance of the Qur'ān's authoritative and divine nature. In addition to these, he brought out "The Qur'ān and the Bible Series" and the "Christianity and Islam Series."

The author remarks that what distinguishes the form and content of both Gilchrist and Deedat's activities was their "exlusivist" outlook towards their religions informed by missionary or reactionary impulses in some cases mirrored in the activities of the Anglican and NGK churches. The author then lists Deedat, Vanker, and Laher as Muslim exclusivists with Pypers, Nehls, and Gilchrist as Christian exclusivists. However, apparently the popularity of exclusivist approaches waned through the 1980s and 1990s in favor of pluralism, thus casting both Deedat and Gilchrist as anachronisms. This is perhaps a way Gilchrist can be addressed in this article as it is a fairly good quality source. This isn't exactly an argument to include his website, but in the larger context of this discussion Gilchrist's reliance on web-based technologies is a unique identifying feature. I must warn you, the connection here is very tenuous and is shared amongst four other people as well, so we're looking at something that will not be weighted very highly. It may mean that Gilchrist's actual commentary gets excluded from the article simply by virtue of the fact that it seems to lack sufficient prominence, especially in comparison to other aspects of Deedat's life works.

So this is the type of scholarship we need to be engaged in if we are going to do a good job of writing this encyclopedia. This is the tack you should be taking.

ScienceApologist (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There were earlier "well-known debates" in which Deedat participated. A highly regarded orbituary on Deedat states:

"Deedat was undeterred and debated the likes of A.W. Hamilton of Kimberley (1961); Cyril Simkins, a Professor of New Testament Exegesis from Tennessee (1963); and prominent Seventh Day Adventist David Lukhele (1966)."

Clearly, the earliest "well-known debates were earlier than the 1980s.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good third-party source to me. I note, however, that this obit does not mention either Gilchrist or McDowell. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems here. First, I cannot access either of the scholarly articles you reference, so this creates practical problems (even if you help me this once, there are long term maintenance problems). Second, and more importantly, I think you are focusing too much on scholarly rather than popular publications. I've seen enough scholarly articles (both theological, and in my professional field) to know that their quality varies enormously. The first one you reference - this one [30] - does not mention Deedat's debate with Josh McDowell (a major Christian author, and the most famous Christian Deedat debated except for Jimmy Swaggart). but mentions debates with the far less well known Anis Shorrosh and Stanley Sjoberg. I think I can guess why - Muslim bookstores sell videos of the Shorrosh[31] and Sjoberg[32] debates, but not the McDowell debate. And the article author didn't look any further (either due to lazy research, or simply because he had enough examples for his purposes). So I wouldn't use that article as the sole gauge of the importance of Deedat debates.

On the other hand, I think you are being a bit too dismissive of the popular level Christian sources. In the field of inter-religious debate, I don't see why widely read Christian sources lack weight as a measure of Christian opinion. I think it is fair to say that Christian-Muslim dialogue is generally of little interest to the "mainstream secular neutral" media, but this dialogue is still of interest to a large portion of the human population, so I believe it is notable even if the mainstream media laregly ignores it. For instance, to take the most extreme example, if the Pope had written a response to Deedat then it would be notable - as a measure of the Roman Catholic position - whether or not it was covered by the "mainstream secular neutral" sources. Now Josh McDowell is not quite (or even nearly) the evangelical pope, but he's such a popular evangelical Christian writer means that his anti-Deedat book is a notable evangelical response to Deedat whether or not it is covered in the mainstream secular media. Would you at least agree with that - that even if Gilchrist's books don't make the grade, surely McDowell's does, by virtue of McDowell's standing?

As for Gilchrist... since Christianity Today, Ravi Zacharias amd McDowell are very widely read and respected (amongst evangelicals), surely their endorsements indicate that Gilchrist is a "generator of opinions about Ahmed Deedat", to use your words. And Deedat's own response - something you requested - adds more. It doesn't really matter whether ""The God that never was" (the anti-Gilchrist book) is one of Deedat's best-sellers. What it does indicate is that Deedat took Deedat seriously enough that he wrote a response. I think these sources are all more weighty than the journal article you mention. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to flatly disagree with your approach and reasoning here. The scholarly papers I spent about 1/2 and hour last night reading were at a much higher level of discourse and much closer to reliable sources than almost everything that's currently in the article right now or the sources you are proposing. WP:BATTLEGROUND is of relevance here. The advantage of the scholarly sources is that they really do not care about who is right and who is wrong in these "debates", they instead look at them through the lens of religious studies, cultural studies, or history. That's the NPOV way to deal with these topics. I think that the Christian sources are valuable primary source documents, but we have a rule for primary sources: WP:PSTS. What we should rather be looking for are secondary and maybe even tertiary sources which discuss this particular person and his context. To that end, I can see how Gilchrist fits in to the topic. He appears to be a minor player that nipped at the heals of Deedat. Remember, the subject of this article is not "inter-religious debate". The subject is Ahmed Deedat. To that end, it is our duty as encyclopedists to gather all the best sources on the subject and use them as guides. WP:RS is very clear that scholarly, peer-reviewed articles are of far better quality than self-published websites. Disparaging them as you are doing here is not in-line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices. If you disagree, I think you ought to ask at WP:RSN whether anyone there thinks answering-islam.com is a better source than, say, the three scholarly articles I reference. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just returning to this... Gilchrist's material is not self-published. It is previously published material which is reprinted on Answering-Islam.org . Peter Ballard (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I go further, might I ask your opinion on linking to McDowell's book? (Because if I can't convince you on linking to McDowell, there's little point arguing over Gilchrist). Recapitulating: McDowell is a major Christian author (certainly better known than Deedat at the time of the 1981 debate, and possibly still today), and I'd propose saying something like "McDowell, who debated Deedat in 1981, published a book in 1983, in which he criticised Deedat's writings at a number of points from a Christian POV, as well as including a transcript of the debate". (with a link to the 8 MB pdf book). Bear in mind I am not proposing any analysis of McDowell (or Gilchrist), simply a mention and a link. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, if there is third-party independent acknowledgement of McDowell's book being relevant to Deedat, then I think inclusion is good. If that's the case, though, I think that we may want to look at WP:BK. Would it be reasonable for Wikipedia to have an article on his book? You'll need to find some external reviews or some rationale for why that book deserves coverage. I don't think that just because someone wrote a book as a counter to Deedat's claims, that necessarily makes the book worthy of inclusion. Third-party independent sources need to acknowledge the prominence of the work first. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoah. Now you are practically saying that any book used as a reference must be significant enough to have its own Wikipedia article. That's setting the standard far too high.

Josh McDowell isn't just "someone". This is a person who debated Deedat. I said before the McDowell was a major writer... it turns out his book "Evidence which demands a verdict" was ranked by Christianity Today as the 13th most influential post-war evangelical book[33] (and the 3rd amongst apologetic books), making him a once-in-every-couple-of-years author. Plus Deedat devoted space in one of his major works - "Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction" - countering arguments in the book in question (McDowell's "The Islam Debate").[34] I think that automatically makes his book of interest. I didn't find a lot of other notable references to it - I found a book review[35] and a seminary syllabus [36] - but I think that's largely attributable to the book coming out a long time ago. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite setting the standard that high. I do think, though, from what I understand of how you are proposing to use this source, that evaluating the notability of this particular book is an appropriate way to determine how or whether it should be used as a reference. What I think is missing here is context. To wit, why is Josh McDowell's book important in the biography of Ahmed Deedat? To answer this question I think we need some third-party independent sources establishing the book's prominence relative to Ahmed Deedat. I see no problem with using this book as a source if it is agreed by the consensus of editors that a sentence such as, "Certain Evangelical Christians have written entire books to dispute Deedat", but if the goal is to say something like, "Josh McDowell wrote a book from an evangelical Christian perspective that attacks Deedat" then you have to establish that the book is somehow prominent enough with respect to the subject for inclusion as a singular reference. See what I'm saying? It's about specificity. I get the impression that your goal is to provide a "counter" to the "pro-Deedat" sources that are currently being referenced in the article (in a sort of tit-for-tat model of editing). I'm trying to persuade you that the NPOV approach to this particular article is to use independent sources which establish a perspective that is one-step removed from the debate (as, for example, WP:PSTS recommends). Your ASA source is a start, but doesn't really establish the prominence of the book. In fact, the review explicitly says that the book is really only worth the transcript of the debate. If this is truly the case, then linking to the book for any other reason than to reference the actual content of the debate should be avoided per WP:SOAP, and this editorial perspective, to me, is made all the more forcefully because the ASA is a Christian organization. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that the notability is self-evident. Deedat criticised Christianity. McDowell is (arguably) the best known living writer of Christian apologetics. Furthermore McDowell debated Deedat personally and so has a very good knowledge of his writings. It is hard to imagine anyone more qualified to critique Deedat.

As a roughly equivalent example, consider the article on C. S. Lewis, the most well known Christian apologist of an earlier generation. There is some direct critique of his writings. Look at references 30, 31 and 32 (in this version [37] in case it changes). Who says that John Beversluis, John Hick and N. T. Wright are qualified to critique Lewis? I've never heard of Beversluis, but he got a book published on Lewis (as McDowell did on Deedat) so I've no objection; the other two are eminent enough that their criticism is appropriate. We don't need a reference in the mainstream press to establish that Hick or Wright are qualified to critique Lewis. They are eminent theologians, they are experts in the area Lewis wrote about - that is enough.

I admit that I would like to see a link to writings critical of Deedat. But I also believe it enhances the article. Links to positive and negative evaluations for further reading are common in Wikipedia, and quite appropriate. The C.S.Lewis article above is one example (see the "References" section). Others examples are Richard Dawkins, Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam. I would also appeal to WP:IAR - doesn't the inclusion of links to Deedat's writings, and to notable critiques of them, enhance the encyclopedia?

Anyway, I'd like to see other opinions. I came to a wider forum to get other opinions, not just one. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should also address your point about the (partly) lukewarm review by ASA. We're establishing notability, not quality. Anyway, as I pointed out when I started, Ravi Zacharias is full of praise for Gilchrist's work,[38] which has a lot of the same material (remember Gilchrist is co-author of the McDowell book). And it's not as if Zacharias had to praise it - he only recommends two publications on Islam, and the other is his own! Peter Ballard (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you would like a third opinion, might I suggest WP:3O? I'm sorry that no one else is engaging you on this matter. Just let it be known that I think the best way to handle this situation is to get third-party sources rather than relying on the say-so of Gilchrist, McDowell, an co. All the sources you mention that recommend these authors are not exactly independent. The closest thing you have to a mainstream source is Christianity Today, and I wouldn't exactly call that a source of ecumenical dialogue - their agenda is fairly plain and seems to be in line with the sources you want to see included in the article. In my opinion, appropriate scholarship demands a bit more independence from these bible-thumpers and Qu'ran-thumpers. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

One last thing before I cast the net wider: any thoughts on this source from Google News: [39]- a book review from The Miami Herald, December 31 1983, by Religion writer Adon Taft. I paid the $2.95 for the article and don't want to violate the terms of use - suffice to say it was a very positive review of it ("The Islam Debate" by McDowell and Gilchrist) as a resource on Christian/Islam differences. However it doesn't contain the magic phrase "Josh McDowell is an expert on Ahmed Deedat" :) Peter Ballard (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<- (outdent) I'd use it as a source for the Josh McDowell article, certainly. Not sure if it is the best for the Ahmed Deedat article for the reason you outline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. To new readers, I'll just say that it seems to me that SA is applying one standard very strictly (the need for third party sources), but I believe this is more than offset by the points I am raising in its favour. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution and POV forks

The article Prostitution has had several sections broken out of it and moved to larger article, often without any notice on Talk:Prostitution and without any linking or announcement to appropriate WikiProject. The articles in question are Feminist views on prostitution, Prostitution (criminology), and Legality of prostitution (specifically, the "Debate_over_legalization" section). These forks are quite blatantly one-sided, presenting an anti-prostitution/"prostitution abolitionist" position as basically the sole political and academic view on the subject. These articles are now severely unbalanced and in violation of WP:NPOV and represent POV forks.

The thing is, some of these subjects are large enough topics to break out into their own articles. However, it seems that in practice, the purpose of breaking these sections out into independent articles was to create editorializing articles away from watchful eyes in the original article.

I am requesting more eyes on these articles and suggestion on how to reintegrate the articles, clean up content forking, and turn these forks back into simple content breakouts.

Also, how does one deal with articles like the above where undue weight is a significant problem, that is, where editors have made extensive, referenced contributions, but are entirely one-sided? Bringing the article back to WP:NPOV seems to require either of two problematic alternatives: 1) add content until the article is balanced, which may take a long time in articles where previous editors have flooded the article with content from one perspective, or 2) delete excess content so that the article may be more easily balanced, but in the process take out referenced content and risk charges that content is being deleted for POV reasons. I'm really not sure how to deal with this dilemma. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to note that this seems to have blown up into a full-blown NPOV dispute. An editor who has edited several of the above-mentioned articles holds that there is an "academic consensus" against the idea of consensual prostitution and that views opposing this are of a "small minority". Naturally, I disagree with this and see editing prostitution-related articles toward this point of view as POV-pushing. I would like to get third-party opinions on this dispute and hopefully head off a full-scale edit war over several articles. Discussion is at Talk:Prostitution #POV_Forks. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

Two editors have launched a massive POV re-write of Lyndon LaRouche, involving well over 100 edits between them over the past week. The effect of their editing has been to take a stable, neutral BLP well into attack-article territory. The main emphasis has been the deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche ([40][41]) while giving undue weight to obscure critics ([42][43][44][45].) The NPOV tag that I placed was also reverted [46]. I would appreciate some intervention from non-involved editors. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"A massive POV rewrite"? Is that a neutral account of the dispute? The subject has received a lot of attention in the past month due to his "Obama=Hitler" campaign against health care reform, which caused a spike in readership of the article, and in turn to uninvolved editors who've posted to the talk page their views that the article is too long. Over the past year a lot of trivial press mentions have been put in that don't add to readers' knowledge of the subject. So there is some long-overdue revising going on. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to read the article and see what they think needs fixing. Will Beback talk 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching the article. Will try to gague nature of conflict before speaking further on it.Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a more complete set of diffs, specifically from User:SlimVirgin. Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The edits are so numerous that it is difficult to unravel the overarching trend. However, the examples below are characteristic. SlimVirgin has a technique of mixing controversial with non-controversial edits and then assigning a vague or misleading edit summary, so that when she is deleting favorable or adding negative commentary, she will often use a summary like "tidying." --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[47] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
[48] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
[49] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
[50] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[51] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[52] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[53] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[54] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[55] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[56] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[57] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
[58] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
[59]Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
[60] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics

Urantia Book and False prophet

I refer to these recent edits of the article False prophet: [61] and [62]. In my opinion those edits violate neutrality of the article. They have been discussed in the talk page. No consensus has been reached. Uikku (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that isn't NPoV territory exactly although it could constitute a violation of WP:DUE Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section title to be more informative to attract more editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That inclusion is quite the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight violation. WP:ONEWAY suggests that it would be appropriate to discuss this at The Urantia Book or one of its subarticles, but not at False prophet. At a glance, that article does need more attention to religions other than Christianity, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

KAL 007 conspiracy theories

user:Jack Upland is taking issue over the introductory paragraph of the Korean Air Lines Flight 007#Alternative theories section, which he says is POV because he believes it is exclusively critical of US government. Would appreciate a second pair of eyes on this wording as I can't see any NPOV issue (both the US and Soviets had conspiracy theories and propaganda campaigns). More details of the discussion are on the article's talk page. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary and Jesus = NPOV or POV?

I am engaged in a dispute with some users. I am trying to improve neutrality of the articles Mary (mother of Jesus) and Jesus, but they oppose it. I am sure every administrator is tired of problems such as this one, but your hep would really be appreciated. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Surtsicna is claiming that Muslims call Mary "Umm Isa", although he's not providing a source for that, I don't think, which might be the reason those reverting him are calling it "vandalism". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has raised that issue, Baseball Bugs. The fact that she is called Umm Isa has been part of the article Mary in Islam for a long time. The users who are reverting me are also reverting my attempts to improve grammar and they call that vandalism too. Please see the Jesus article as well; while I am trying to achieve neutrality by either mentioning both Christian and Islamic views or removing both, other users want to keep Christian view only. I can understand one's religious passion as long as it is not part of an encyclopaedia. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. As an uninvolved editor I just went through the revision history to take a look. Surtsicna, don't distort what is happening when any editor can read the revision history. The "grammatical" edits always included the "Umm Isa" change, and that has been why the edits have been reverted. Frankly, giving deadlines for discussion and edit warring while a discussion is taking place is hardly conducive to convince people you are not a POV pusher. You should really take another look at WP:NPOV. For example, just because someone isn't a Saint in one religion shouldn't mean information about that person's sainthood should be removed. That is POV. Similarly, disputing a person's death by saying one religion still believes he is alive in heaven is POV. Singularity42 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

{EC}Admittedly, I'm unfamiliar with the "saint" infobox, but deleting it without ~~explanation~~ discussion probably wasn't the wisest thing to do. Also, you should cite at least one WP:RS to support that Mary is called "Umm Isa" in Islam. The fact that other articles fail to do so doesn't justify failing to cite a WP:RS in this article, too. See WP:OSE. BTW, I did a Google search to find a WP:RS and didn't find any. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure what Surtsicna means by "trying to improve neutrality". The article already has a section "Mary in the Qur'an" along with a link to a wikipedia article "Islamic view of Mary" and this seems to adequately provide the muslim view. Personally, I am non-religious so mine is a neutral view. Also, from looking at the history Surtsicna's edits do not seem to be proper in themselves. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Singularity, please don't distort my intentions. Grammatical edits always included punction marks as well; if other users weren't so passionate about reverting each of my edits, they would've kept the punctation marks. You can see that I have started a discussion at each talkpage; however, the POV-pushers revert edits much faster than they respond to arguments. Regarding Mary's sainthood, you should read my arguments on Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus). Infobox Saint should be presented in the article Blessed Virgin Mary, as all parameters of the infobox (veneration, shrine, feast, and patronage) are meant to describe Christian view of Mary. Similarly, disputing a person's death by saying one religion still believes he is alive in heaven is POV. That's true, but I have never replaced Christian POV with Islamic POV. I proposed having either none of them or both of them. The article currently claims he died on a cross just because one religion believes he did; isn't that also a POV? Shouldn't we try to achieve NPOV by presenting all points of view (like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view suggests)? Regarding Umm Isa, the fact that it was uncited was never brought as an issue by those removed it - it was removed on the basis of not being neutral (?!). BashBrannigan, trying to improve neutrality means presenting either all points of view or none. I have only tried to improve neutrality of the lead sections (the infoboxes, to be precise). For example, the lead section in the article Jesus says that Christians believe he was crucified and that Muslims believe he was not crucified, yet the infobox simply lists his cause of death as crucifixion. I would also like you to explain your last sentence; all my edits were explained and it's clear that their purpose was achieving NPOV. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For fairness and neutrality, then, maybe the articles about Islam should include what Christians truly believe about Islam. One of the kinder things I've heard is that it's an "artificial" religion. Maybe that should be in there, just to keep it neutral. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be there for the sake of neutrality. That's why we have articles such as Christianity and Islam, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of religion, etc. Wikipedia is not censored; it shouldn't be biased either. I fail to see how your argument is related to the issue of neutrality of the article about Jesus. We have articles about Jesus, Christian views of Jesus and Jesus in Islam, which is why the lead section of the article Jesus shouldn't be concentrated on Christian view of Jesus. Nobody has answered my question even though I repeated it several times: what's wrong with having both points of view presented in the infobox? That's what NPOV means - having either all points of view or none at all. Surtsicna (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, by that argument, the lead on Muhammad shouldn't be concentrated on the Muslim view of Muhammad? Also, you are misunderstanding what NPOV means. It doesn't mean "equal time". Jesus and Mary are central figures to Christianity. Are you arguing that they are also central figures to Islam? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the situation. Jesus and Muhammad are both considered prophets in Islam; Mary is the most honoured woman in Islam. Muhammad is not honoured by Christianity, just like Jesus is not honoured in Judaism; all prophets until Jesus are equally important to the three Abrahamic religions, Jesus is important to Christianity and Islam, and Muhammad is only important to Islam (since Islam is the youngest monoteistic religion). It is undisputable that Jesus is considered more important by Christians, since they worship him as god. However, we do have articles such as Christian views of Jesus, which is why it is not OK for the article Jesus to simply say that he was crucified as if it were undisputable. A number of editors have worked hard to make the article about Jesus as neutral as possible. One detail in the infobox shouldn't ruin it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As a devout follower of Lactuosity, I am appalled as well. According to our faith, we believe that Jesus was wrapped into a big cheese-ball before being transported into the Universe to align a vast number of stars which have henceforth become known as the Milky Way. And I want that in the infobox. Seb az86556 (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My own personal belief, which is true and therefore should be in the article, is that Jesus outsourced the crucifixion to an intern, and that Jesus Himself lived out His days in a home for retired carpenters, where He put Himself to good use by fixing things in record time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And you capitalize the pronoun for... a carpenter? Seb az86556 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And my belief is that Jesus was some dude who probably didn't exist at all but if he did he was a minor figure in the occasional rebellions of the Hebrews against the Roman occupiers who may have been influenced by the influx of Buddhism in the formation of an apocalyptic theology. Put that in the info-box too. Oh, and the Bahai opinion on Jesus being a reincarnation of Maitreya or whatever it is. Point being let's keep this on topic, it's an infobox people.Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, did I forget to put the TradeMark symbol next to the pronouns? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not following. What is the point of your arguments, Seb and BaseballBugs? Can you get serious? Do you have to insult to prove that you're right? Even some forms of Christianity do not believe Jesus was crucified - Docetism for example. We have two religions: one usually teaches that Jesus was crucified (though some forms of it teach that he wasn't) and the other one always teaches that Jesus was not crucified. Wikipedia cannot decide which religion is right. Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the one that teaches he was wrapped into a cheese-ball, and the one that believes he hired an intern. That makes it five if you include the alien-abduction-theory. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Then I guess you would agree with removing the claim that he was crucified from the inobox? Given how many religions have different views on his death (including your religion), only one POV is not a solution. Since having all points of view (including your religion's point of view) in the infobox is not practical, it would be best to have no POV at all, right? Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Got that right. No POV and no religious beliefs. Seb az86556 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that we're done with sarcasm and frivolousness, is there anyone with whom one can discuss this issue? Can anyone answer my questions? I'll repeat this once more, hoping that my arguments will attract serious editors who are willing to achieve a consensus: We have two religions: one usually teaches that Jesus was crucified (though some forms of it teach that he wasn't) and the other one always teaches that Jesus was not crucified. Wikipedia cannot decide which religion is right. The article currently claims he died on a cross just because most (but not all) forms of one religion teach he did. Shouldn't we try to achieve NPOV by presenting all points of view (like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view suggests) or by discussing various points of view in the article rather than describing this important and disputed part of Jesus's life by one word and one POV? Surtsicna (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Very obviously, it is a breach of NPOV to present a religious viewpoint as if it were fact. That Jesus was crucified is a religious viewpoint, because the source is scripture and because particular theological viewpoints depend on it. It might be taken to imply that the Bible is correct whereas the Koran is not, or that the Resurrection story must be true. --FormerIP (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, FormerIP. Thank you for explaining it! The article about Jesus is surprisingly neutral, considering how delicate it is, but the issue of his death cannot be described by one word. When it comes to the infobox, I propose replacing [[Crucifixion]] with [[Crucifixion of Jesus|Christian view of Jesus' death]] and [[Islamic view of Jesus' death]]. An alternative would be not discussing his cause of death in the infobox, as it's too complicated to be mentioned in an infobox. If you have another alternative, I'll be happy to consider it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those many instances where an infobox causes more problems than it's worth. If oversimplifying the death issue into one word in the infobox is causing problems, just leave |death_cause= blank. There's nothing in that infobox that isn't in the intro or the first section of the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you too, especially with your opinion that the infobox causes more problems than it's worth. I have tried leaving |death_cause= blank, but that was reverted and hence this discussion (+ some irrelevant comments by Seb and BaseballBugs). Your last sentence is also right; however, there are important points of view that are in the intro but not in the infobox. Besides, having the Infobox Person in the article about Jesus is also an Islamic POV, for Jesus is usually considered to be more than a person in Christianity. Perhaps having no infobox is the best solution. Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine as long as you don't object to Christians and Jews similarly butchering the articles about Islam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is clear that Surtsicna is a muslim, so your prejudice may be misplaced, Bugs. --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what he is, I just know he's trying to weasel some Islamic POV into the articles. A lot of folks regard Muhammad as the incarnation of Satan. Should we add that to the Muhammad article? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This kind of personal attack is outrageous. Any discussion with you is pointless. I cannot believe that someone can see a conspiracy theory in attempts to achieve NPOV. I am grossed out. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this kind of comment neccessary? What makes you think that I want to butcher an article? What makes you think that I am anti-Christian? Why do you have to insult me whenever it's possible? Anyway, the answer to your question would be a question: why would I object to improving neutrality of any article? FormerIP, on Wikipedia every prejudice is misplaced. One should address other person's arguments, not other person's beliefs. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Surtsinca, apologies if my comment gave a different impression. I think what I was trying to express is that some users may be under the belief that you are trying to give undue weight to an Islamic point of view because you are a muslim, whereas this is actually not clear and your religious beliefs don't, as you say, have a direct bearing on the value of your edits in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that out. I am glad that there are users are not fond of prejudice and calumny. I do not understand how one can think that I am trying to give undue weight to an Islamic point of view considering that I have never proposed replacing Christian POV with Islamic POV or anything like that. You agree with me, so why doesn't BaseballBugs accuse you of trying to weasel some Islamic POV into the articles? Rjanag agrees with me, so why doesn't BaseballBugs accuse him of trying to weasel some Islamic POV into the articles? Most important of all, why does BaseballBugs accuse anyone of trying to weasel some Islamic POV into the articles? Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to ignore Baseball bugs silly arguments as unproductive and distracts from what I think are the real issues. I think there are still some problems with your proposal. First, is that you'll still need a reference to "Umm Isa". Second, from reading the discussion page "Umm Isa" is not a different name but merely the exact translation of the name from English. In that case, I'm not convinced of the significance of adding it. Finally, I'm still unconvinced that the article does not sufficiently present the Islamic view of Mary. There is an entire section and also a complete separate Wikipedia article. To me, the article seems balanced now. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will not insist on including "Umm Isa"; it is not notable enough and Mary seems to be given more frequent honorifics by Islam (such as Devout Servant and Sister of Aaron). The article itself sufficiently presents the Islamic view of Mary, but I am not convinced that the infobox is needed. The infobox is more useful in the article about general Christian views on and veneration of the Virgin Mary (since the article Blessed Virgin Mary contains detailed information about Marian titles, feasts, Assumption, and shrines, which is what the infobox is about). BashBrannigan, what is your opinion about the Jesus article problem? Should Wikipedia decide which religion is right? Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism

Albanian nationalism is an article full of highly biased claims like "These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents that are not only nationalists but criminals[9] and terrorists[10] involved[11] in drug trafficking ,Human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit [12].". It is completely fallacious to identify an entire nation as criminals and terrorist. It is also misleading to cite Us Gov. listing KLA as a terrorist organisation. What their website actually says about KLA is this: "They established a parallel government funded mainly by the Albanian diaspora. When this movement failed to yield results, an armed resistance emerged in 1997 in the form of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The KLA's main goal was to secure the independence of Kosovo." (state.gov). There is also a different, more neutral POV in Greek nationalism, Serbian nationalism and other Balkan states nationalisms that should be also present in Albanian nationalism. AnnaFabiano (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

How to have neutrality warning removed after rewrite???

Resolved

I did not write the original article for Bosphorus Cymbals, but have just rewritten much of it to remove the promotional language. What is the process for having the arning removed?

just remove it. there's no formal process. if others disagree they can just re-add it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre

Experienced NPOV review is needed at this article, including (but not only)this edit.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread on ANI, I'd just been looking at two other socks editing similar articles, one of whom had added this as a see also. I count 4 socks so far among several related articles. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Torchrunner again.

Torchrunner (talk · contribs) keeps running into WP:SOAP and WP:SYNTH issues with his edits with regard to 19th century northern European Christian Mystics. There have been repeated attempts to direct him to the appropriate topics but he seems not to be listening. I am on the verge of taking it to WP:ANI but before I did I thought I'd get an outside opinion as I am struggling to remain civil throughout this debate as-is.Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some attempts to explain things to Torchrunner, such as here. So far it hasn't seem to have worked, but I just took his most recent edit, and broke it down to explain how it was contrary to WP:SYNTH. We'll see if that works. It appears to be a situation where the editor ~~means well~~ has a POV that could be managed, but is too involved in the topic to understand the big picture of Wikipedia. He may need some mentoring if anyone is up for that.... Singularity42 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have put it up at WP:ANI although I may have some bias because of my own issues with his POV, which I admit, I believe a firm, good faith, effort has been made by 3 different editors (including you and I) to guide him as to the issues his POV is causing with his edits. Despite this he persists in constantly inserting POV edits. I've felt like I had to camp out in these articles just to keep them from being taken over by one editor's POV and I do have other things I'd rather be doing. If I get an opportunity I think I might request a topic ban for a month or something like that to give Torchrunner some time to reflect on how to go about editing Wikipedia appropriately.Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the ANI dropped into the archives without substantial discussion and Torchrunner continues to try and post fringe evangelical positions on these pages. I sort of don't know what the next step should be.Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Without checking this particular issue, you can: gather a consensus of involved editors at the appropriate talk pages, citing WP:TE and WP:EW if they refuse to discuss; request additional input at WP:WikiProject Christianity; or call a Request for comment on either the editor or a specific issue. Sorry, I wish I knew an easier way to discover and enforce appropriate weighting. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Torchrunner seems to be winding down a bit but if there is another issue that gives me avenues to approach.Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regia Anglorum

This page is still reading like an advert. Very little Encyclopedic information, all just comment and possibly original research. The primary source is their own webpage. Can someone with some authority have a look please. Noble demetia (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tamar.com - self promotion only

I did not want to do anything to this entyr, but it appears to be blatant self promotion. An seo compnay that prides itself on inbound links putting it's own links on Wikipedia - there is not benefit to this company being listed. Any company of a reasonable size could find a few flowery press articles. The whole entry is designed to game the search engines - not inform the user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insuranceuk2009 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Steven Cohen (soccer)

The article regarding Steven Cohen (soccer) does not seem to be neutral particularly in the Controversy section. The reason why I believe this is because of the selective citing which paints a skewed picture towards an anti-Cohen belief. The page cites a number of anti-Cohen and boycotting websites that have valid points, but fails to use sources that are more neutral. Unfortunately the article is locked so I personally can't do anything. There are articles that are more neutral from the LA Daily News and the Examiner.

http://www.examiner.com/x-4128-Boston-Pro-Soccer-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Steven-Cohen-talks-about-threats-boycott-of-WSD-and-Fox-Football-FoneIn-sponsors-new-radio-show
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_13204726

Thank you for any help fixing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oar39 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

Amongst academics and practitioners, a large majority believe that conversion therapy (or reparative therapy) should be avoided, and that there is potential for harm. Because of the emphasis on self-control in many religions and particularly Christianity, elements exist who claim benefit for therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation. On the page given over to represent this debate, some are resisting the inclusion of material that represents the minority view, calling it fringe. Wikipedia policy seems to suggest that all views should be described, and that appropriate weight should be given to them based on their acceptance by their prominence. It also says "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space." How should the article reflect this? How can we break the deadlock? Hyper3 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with including material that represents the minority view; I do have a problem with including this material in a misleading way or in parts of the article where it does not belong. It would help to realise that the Conversion therapy article is in no sense about the minority view of conversion therapy; it is about conversion therapy as such, and it needs to reflect the mainstream view. The title of the article isn't, "Views supportive of conversion therapy", after all. Born Gay (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but it should represent both views in favour and views against, without undue weight. Currently, it doesn't, and attempts to introduce such material is removed. What you have said shows that you do not understand that both views need to be represented. Thanks for putting it so clearly, so others can see the problem.. Hyper3 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits at that article appear to be crossing the line into vandalism, notably the removal of material on ex-gay ministries. If wasn't deliberate vandalism, it was very, very bad editing. Yet you complain of my removing material? Born Gay (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "conversion therapy" nonsense doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia at all. A better place to discuss this would be the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Because "conversion therapy" is about as fringy as it gets. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I just referred them here from RS/N, but you may be right that the Fringe theories noticeboard would be better. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There may be "fringe" issues but there are also serious NPOV issues. Born Gay (talk · contribs) is making edits that use judgemental terms outside of direct quotation, and then cries "vandalism!" when the edits are reverted -- that isn't acceptable. It would be impossible for this article to be useful without describing both competing points of view, but any statement that expresses a point of view needs to be attributed directly in the article text to a specific source. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Be specific in your accusations. Don't make vague claims. Specifically what am I doing that you object to, which terms? If the reliable sources use them, we can use them. The vandalism I was referring to was the attempt by Hyper3 to totally remove all criticism of ex-gay treatment, for instance here [63] and here [64], an outrageous and unacceptable form of behavior. If isn't vandalism, it is POV pushing of a particularly crass and obvious kind; the material may need to be reworded, but removing it is illegitimate. Hyper3 seems to have no understanding of NPOV whatever. Born Gay (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights

NPOV review is requested on this article; also have concerns about WP:UNDUE with the insertion of massive quotes like here. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Amygdalin

This article does not seem to be particularly neutral, and in fact seems biased against the substane Laetrile as an anti-cancer treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.219.98 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be because Laetrile is not considered a viable cancer treatment. There should be in that article a number of high-quality review articles discussing this - are they omitted? Neutral point of view requires us to reflect the totality of sources accurately and weighted according to their reliability. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A recent Cochrane review and a white paper from the National Cancer Institute are both cited. Under the guideline Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), that is pretty much the last word barring some very exciting new research. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-citizens (Latvia)

I question neutrality of expression "With regard to international law, non-citizens are not considered stateless." (section "Non-citizens (Latvia)#Status", below). This statement is currently being presented as truth.

However, the source directly given to it (6th footnote) is not online and even not about international law - according to the citation given it says "in Latvia, non-citizens under the 1995 Law on Status of citizens of the former USSR who are not citizens of Latvia or any other country are neither citizens, nor foreigners, nor stateless persons". I admit, however, that there is one more source for this point of view in the article, by Latvian court "15. [..] Latvian non-citizens cannot be compared with any other status of a physical entity, which has been determined in international legal acts [..] Latvian non-citizens can be regarded neither as citizens, nor aliens or stateless persons" (11th footnote), and this POV, of course, deserves the mentioning it has.

Still, there is a contrary and significant POV, also already present in the article (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th footnotes). In these sources, Amnesty International (Amnesty International Report on Latvia) and then-UN Special Rapporteur on racism Doudou Diene (Report on mission to Latvia (2008) see Para. 30 and 88 are directly speaking of Latvian "non-citizens (in Latvian, nepilsoņi)" as of statelesss persons, and OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (see para. 16 of the Resolution on national minorities) and Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights("No one should have to be stateless in today’s Europe") speak about problem of statelessness in Latvia - it's difficult to believe that they mean some hundreds of Latvia-admitted stateless persons (in Latvian, bezvalstnieki), not about hundreds of thousands of "non-citizens".

So I proposed to rewrite the phrase in question in order not to present one POV as fact. Quoting WP:NPOV section 1.1.: NPOV requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.

The contrary opinion was held by User:Vecrumba, asking "Please don't indicate Amnesty International declarations et al. are authoritative with regard to the legal status of nepilsoni are concerned". An attempt to seek WP:3O hadn't been successful (see Talk:Non-citizens (Latvia)#Major Copy Edit). Fuseau (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I understand the question. If the article is describing how the Latvian state defines a non-citizen, this is the only thing that should be discussed, and should be phrased as "with regard to Latvian law...". International law is irrelevent to how Latvia defines a citizen or a non-citizen, since UN law does not over ride the laws of individual member states. A "Non-citizen" in Latvian law is a permanent resident of Latvia who has limited rights, and cannot vote. It appears that they are not considered stateless in international law because Latvia is considered their state, whereas stateless people actually lack a state (like Palestinians). That is the technical explanation for it. The Amnesty International view is that these people are stateless because they do not have citizenship of any state. However, the legal classification of "Non-citizen" is not equal to "Not a part of the Latvian state". Arguably, they have more "rights" than citizens of the Soviet Union did, or that citizens of many authoritarian countries have today, but they do not have equal rights to Latvian citizens. This is probably more akin to the situation of Kurds in Turkey, who are Kurdish to each other and around the world, but Turkish in the eyes of their state. A Kurd does not have equal rights to a Turk, but a Kurd is not stateless. Likewise, citizens of countries with stratified rights are not considered stateless if they lack equal rights to the highest strata. Take women who live in countries that do not have universal suffrage, for example. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article is describing how the Latvian state defines a non-citizen, this is the only thing that should be discussed It is not only on how the Latvian state defines a non-citizen - it is on the group of people whom Latvian state describes so. It is significant for this group of people, if they are stateless under international law. If they fall under definition of stateless persons given in some UN conventions ratified by Latvia, then Latvia has to respect certain their rights foreseen in these conventions. And, as you see above, for example, UN Special Rapporteur connects situation of non-citizens with obligations of Latvia concerning stateless persons, disagreeing with Latvian Constitutional court. So there are different significant opinions. Eventually, a dispute on whether certain group are stateless under the definition of UN 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons can be resolved by International Court of Justice according to convention's Article 34, but as of now, no member state of this convention has raised the question before the court.

P.S. A country may call a certain group to be "stateless persons" or "citizens" or somehow else in its own laws, but it doesn't free the country from obligation to respect rights of citizens or stateless persons found in the international treaties (if ratified). And a country may not say unilaterally "We don't call the group X citizens (or stateless) in our law, therefore we aren't obliged to grant to them rights provided by some treaties for citizens/stateless" - it has to abide ratified treaties and give rights provided by them to those who fall under treaties' definitions of citizens/stateless, not some own arbitrary definitions. Fuseau (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a fine ideal. However, that is far from a reality. Let us be straight about this... You are talking about Russians, on behalf of Russia. Russia is a terrible place, full of autocrats who abuse their own people for personal gain. Disgusting. Latvia and Estonia have some equally repugnant laws regarding citizenship. I'm an American, and I can also tell you that the United States is the most free country in history, yet even the US has restrictive laws and policies that target specific groups (gays, for example, or Indian reservations). Rights are not an international norm. Most of the world is far from free. Most humans are a pathetic lot who have failed to reign in their own autocratic governments (see Russians and Chinese). The Baltic articles all reflect this opression of the human will... as do the Russian, Soviet, Chinese, Saudi, Syrian, Burma, Congo, etc.. articles. Much of this planet is poppulated by cowed, overwhelmed people who's governments disrespect rights and human diginity on a daily basis. The day these monsters take a bullet to the head will be the day we have an objective encyclopedia. Until then, we are at the mercy of ignorant morons. C'est le vie. Wikipedia is the encylopedia anyone can edit... this is particularly exciting to the most disgusting nationalistic racists we can find. Wikipedia is a strange mix of well-intentioned geeks, and vile racist asswipes. We can't make personal attacks. We also can't keep the vomitously racist ignorants off the website. Go figure. Wikipedia's fatal flaw is that innocent and objective minded people come here looking for unbiased information, and they walk away disgusted because they find the horrid detritus of 19th century eugenics have contaminated the entire project. So... I ask, what do you intend to do here? Hiberniantears (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about Russians As one can see at Non-citizens (Latvia)#Demography, non-citizens are not only Russians - more than one third of them are Ukrainians, Belorussians and others. on behalf of Russia. Russia is a terrible place [..] Latvia and Estonia have some equally repugnant laws [..] the US has restrictive laws and policies that target specific groups I see no connection of Russian, Estonian or US laws with the subject of this article, and no "behalf of Russia". what do you intend to do here? I wish to get community opinion on the question which was debated on the talk page - is the phrase I've mentioned in the very first message neutral? If not - how to rewrite it.Fuseau (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"With regard to international law, non-citizens are not considered stateless." is probably not acceptable. If there are significant reliable sources like Amnesty saying that these "non-citizens" are in fact "stateless" under standard interpretations of international law, then we clearly can not present it as a fact, which on wikipedia is something about which there is no serious disupute, as there seems to be here. The citation for this statement does not seem entirely clear to me either. The Latvian government's view that these people are not stateless should be presented too of course, but not as the sole one or even the dominant one without careful exploration of the reliable sources on the matter. Of course the Latvian government is authoritative for the Latvian view of the matter, but that is not in question here.John Z (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Palm oil

The Palm oil entry is spun in such a way as to de-emphasise the negative aspects of palm oil, particularly health issues.

The oil's less unsaturated nature is presented primarily as an advantage since "it can withstand extreme deepfry heat and is resistant to oxidation"
The Social section reads like propaganda
The Blood cholesterol controversy section quotes studies including a WHO report in the first paragraph, then dedicates three paragraphs to an alternate viewpoint from sources such as the Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council

The page is already semi-protected, but should at least have a notice at the top about the unbalanced view it presents.

—60.242.143.81 (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting some academic refs. Give me a day or two to get my ducks in a row and I'll come lend a hand.Simonm223 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Think there really should be some mention of the threat posed by palm oil production to the orangutan. This is noteworthy enough for there to have been a UN report on it [65]. --FormerIP (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Yeago

Yeago (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing [66][67][68] any analysis of health care and illegal immigration from Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. In particular, Yeago is deleting analysis from Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck [69] and PolitiFact.com, which is published by the St. Petersburg Times.[70] The findings of FactCheck and PolitiFact regarding Obama's speech and Joe Wilson's reaction have been covered by many reliable sources. For example, staff writer John Ward of The Washington Times covered the FactCheck report on Obama's speech[71] and staff writer Ben Szobody of The_Greenville_News discussed PolitiFact's analysis. Those are only two examples of secondary source coverage. Nevertheless, Yeago justifies deleting this material because "the content represents a non-neutral dissection and gives undue weight to the illegal immigrant aspect of the healthcare debate".[72] However, the topic of illegal immigration and health care was part of Obama's speech, and Google's news archive shows that it has been discussed in every major reliable source that reported on the speech. A general overview of the topic in relation to the speech can be found in The New York Times by David M. Herszenhorn.[73] According to Herszenhorn:

The question of how illegal immigrants would fare under a proposed overhaul of the health care system came into sharp focus on Wednesday during President Obama’s speech to Congress. Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of SouthCarolina, shouted “You lie!” when Mr. Obama insisted that his health care overhaul would not insure illegal immigrants.

Yeago maintains that it is NPOV violation to include any material on the subject, while my position is that it is a NPOV violation to exclude it. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Any material would be fine, however, the sources in question are used to corral the reader into immediate disagreement with the outburst. I am attempting to bring this article into synchronization with the Joe Wilson article, which is also plagued with politically motivated edits. These articles are not forums for healthcare debate analysis. Sources should deal and elaborate upon the phrase in question: "You Lie!". There is no evidence that the sources which the complaining editor is arguing for have anything to do with Wilson's motivations for the outburst. It is synthesis to present them in the manner they have been.Yeago (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not being used to "corral the reader" into any disagreement, and one of the sources that you removed, (NPR) provided a competing POV that supported the Republican opinion that Obama's health care proposal provided coverage for illegal aliens. The article on the speech does not have to be "synchronized" with the Joe Wilson article, nor does it have to conform with your unique POV. Your use of the word "plague" to describe POV that differs from your own personal, political beliefs, tells me you don't understand how Wikipedia works. There is no "synthesis" being presented here at all, and as the sources above demonstrate, the topic has been discussed widely in the media. I appreciate that you have self-appointed yourself as the defender of Joe Wilson (U.S. politician), but Wikipedia isn't a battleground or a place for you to promote the interests of political figures. This is an encyclopedia where we cover notable topics that are sourced to reliable sources. Many sources on the topic of Obama's speech analyze the immigration coverage question, which only received the amount of coverage that it did because Joe Wilson called Obama a liar during the speech over his disagreement with the President's position. This is relevant and topical to the article, and the sources make that clear. Contrary to what you claim, the article is not about Wilson, or the motivation for Wilson's outburst. I think you are confused about the purpose of Wikipedia and what the terms "non-neutral", "undue weight", and "synthesis" mean. Unless you can demonstrate that there is actual synthesis taking place here, I must continue to believe that you are POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagreed, per above.Yeago (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Show me the synthesis, the non-neutrality, and the undue weight. Otherwise, I will conclude that it does not exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Already have. This is a noticeboard and we have both weighed in. Please allow the normal mechanism of oversight to join in without further regurgitations and repetitions.Yeago (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't shown anything. You just made assertions without evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, whatever you say.Yeago (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You said, "the sources in question are used to corral the reader into immediate disagreement with the outburst". I said and showed that the sources and statements from FactCheck and PolitiFact were represented by secondary sources, and I showed that you removed a source from NPR supporting Joe Wilson's position. So, your statement in defense of your edits is not only false, but a violation of NPOV. How do you respond to that? Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shhhh already. We get it. You disagree. You've explained yourself. Gotchacool.Yeago (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you Americans please just get yourselves a public option for health care and stop making it into WWIII that the scary Centrist-Capitalist President wants to give poor people a chance not to die young of preventable illness? Seriously it's getting boring.Simonm223 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Canadian. :-) Have you spent much time in South Carolina, Simonm223? Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but I must certainly agree. The horror!Yeago (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted the current private insurance system allows illegal aliens to purchase insurance. The change under a public option would be the exclusion of illegal aliens from the public system. (The ref for this is in the NYT blog post). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted as an opinion, attributed per NPOV to a reliable source, in direct relationship to the speech. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Shinwar Shooting or Shinwar Massacre

This article is factually incorrect, defamatory, and libelous to the Marines of MarSOC-Fox company who were exonerated at a Court of Inquiry which found the Marines “acted appropriately and in accordance with the rules of engagement and tactics, techniques and procedures in place at the time in response to a complex attack.”

The Court of Inquiry concluded that there was no evidence to suggest the level of force was unjustified and recommended everyone in the March 4, 2007 convoy be awarded the Combat Action Ribbon and that a sergeant injured during the blast receive the Purple Heart. Following are references:

I have tried twice to correct this, but it reverts back to the original libelous copy, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I see in history several others have attempted to correct the article:

(cur) (prev) 18:22, 18 May 2009 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) m (9,032 bytes) (moved Shinwar Massacre to March 4, 2007 Shooting in Shinwar, Afghanistan: NPOV -- not ruled to be a massacre) (undo) cur) (prev) 02:56, 6 July 2008 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) (6,014 bytes) (rv -- I did read it -- a "war crime" has to be intentional; I don't see a prosecution under the War Crimes Act) (undo) (cur) (prev) 10:18, 12 May 2009 64.39.139.181 (talk) (9,043 bytes) (This so-called "massacre" was undisputably an accident. Does the author want to suggest that Marines are murderers? I changed the opening sentence; the entire article is hardly useful. Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 02:20, 9 November 2008 Randy2063 (talk | contribs) (6,101 bytes) (rv no legitimate legal body has yet ruled that this was either a deliberate killing of civilians or a technically war crime) (undo)

I ask that this article be deleted. (Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Note: The attack took place in Bati Kot, Nangahar, Afghanistan. Shinwar refers to a tribe and an area 20 miles from where this attack on the MarSOC Marines t took place. --Emckenny7 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emckenny7 (talk • contribs)

The article in question is 2007 Shinwar shooting, for anybody who wants to find it -- also I've moved your talk page section to the bottom of the page, because people will have trouble finding it at the top. Thanks for bringing this issue here, that's the right approach. Let's now give people a day or so to look this over and check the sources etc, okay? There has been some edit warring in the article, and continuing that won't be productive -- let's try to find a consensus on the talk page, if possible. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at addressing the issues here. It wouldn't hurt to have more eyes on this. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics Bias in the lead

A few editors have been trying to insist that because they found a couple of sources that state Real Clear Poltics to be right-leaning that they can label the organization as such. I initially removed the section because there are far more sources that either make no distinction or make a statement of non-partisan or independent. I have discussed this at length in the talk page and most recently here with little success. In my most recent attempt I gave several specific examples pointing to reporting of them being independent or non-partisan to no avail. There seems to be a belief that if a majority of editors there think they are biased than that is what needs to be in the lead.

I have done numerous searches and have only been able to find a few instances of any mention of right-leaning or conservative in any MSM over the history of thier existance. To me this smacks of a fringe belief and original research as well as a netural point of view violation. We cannot simply go around and say a valid business is biased regardless of our personal belief. Arzel (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a list of organizations that label RCP here to futher show the violation of NPOV that is being pushed onto this page. Arzel (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Igor Panarin

Issues with WP:DUE given to primary source material espousing views of this fringe theorist in a way that causes the article to be a soap box for theorist's views. Experts in neutral phrasing needed to help preening out peacockery and generally correcing various neutrality problems. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rashidun Caliphate article: not sure about neutrality

I was just reading the article about the Rashidun Caliphate. It seems to be written from a religious persective, and biased towards certain individuals and against others. I could not see verifiable sources to support the information in the introduction and in the section Early history: Succession of Abu Bakr, which features the particularly worrisome sentence: 'The chief cause of the apostasy was lack of true faith.' This does not sound like an encyclopedic article to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriusregent (talk • contribs) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Philbox17

Would you please block User:Philbox17 account, he keeps deleting cited information from the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. This person is practicing article ownership, which can be confirmed by reading the editors user talk page User talk:Philbox17 and the lengthy problems this editor has had with this article. I believe this editor is a member of Réseau de Résistance du Québécois and lacks a NPOV. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis

The article violates the rules of a neutral point of view, because the author is biased against the theory, states his own opinion and ignores recent archeological evidence in favour of the AAH.--87.188.197.220 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this article falls within the domain of WP:FRINGE. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Death panel

The article had until recently been a redirect to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills because it referred to Sarah Palin's charaterization of this bill as requiring the Federal government to cut medical services by so requiring a "death panel" made up of bureaucrats to decide who should live and who should die. The article section discusses the issue in some detail.

Now some editors have re-written the Death Panel article treating the subject as something tangible and existant in many countries, including the U.S. The article wrongfully stretches the interpretation of the term "Death panel to NICE (which never hears indiviual cases when determining what expenses will be covered by government in the public health system), and even to death penalty appeals processes in criminal cases, and to bodies set up for the purposes of legal assisted suicide. None of these is what Palin what referring to!

To my mind, this article re-write is merely attempting to imply that Palin's death panels do exist and to segreggate the discussion of "Death Panels" from America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills where the truth is actually detailed.

Clearly these panels do not exist in the way Palin use the term and it is wrong to imply that they do.

Opinions re POV please!--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect was appropriate. I've restored it for you.Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Death Panels" have nothing to do with living wills. To imply otherwise is flagrant POV pushing, and misrepresentation of fact. — Mike : tlk 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The redirect to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills is bizzare. If anything, it should be redirected to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is about Sarah Palin's definition of a death panel, so it should redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care. Redirecting to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Living wills is violating NPOV and is misleading. Is there an article covering conservative opposition to the health care reform? It may redirect to a section of such an article then, as Palin is not the only person talking about death panels. Cs32en 21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, I won't revert if the redirect is changed to the above.Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect the last two editors have been involved in an attempt to move the nonsense that was in the death panels article to a new article List of panels making life or death decisions where thy hope to pervert the purpose of Wikipedia. I am confused by the AfD process so if anyone knows how to get rid of the nonsense article List of panels making life or death decisions please do so. It is WP:POV and WP:OR and is being done to link spam. The redirect back to the Palin article is clearly intended by Evb-wiki and Cs32en to avoid linking the false allegation of a "Death Panel" to the article about the very bill that Palin alleges introduced the idea. The section where it was directed of course clearly debunks the idea. I will ensure the article reverts to the proper place!

Your accusation is offensive. Please assume good faith. A simple step-by-step guide to creating an AfD is here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And done.Simonm223 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm confused why this content is being ridiculed as nonsense. I had 12 WP:RS's until User:Hauskalainen started blanking content, prior to submitting what he left behind for WP:Speedy deletion. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Which redirect?

As the editor who created the article as a redirect, I obviously agree that the anon IP's content about capital punishment, etc. is inappropriate. The term should be a redirect. The issue of the target of the redirect would be better discussed at Talk:Death panel but has progressed here, so I'll chime in.

My original redirect was to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009#Reimbursement for counseling about living wills. If a redirect to a "Living wills" section seems bizarre to Evb-wiki, let me explain that the section title (and hence the redirect) have since been restored to "Reimbursement for counseling about living wills". The reason to redirect to that section is that, when Palin was challenged about where these alleged "death panels" were to be found in the bill, her spokesperson responded by pointing to this provision. [74]

I don't think the redirect gives credence to Palin's ridiculous charge. It's somewhat better than a redirect to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care because a reader who types in "Death panel" is more likely to be looking for information about what's in the bill than for information about what Sarah Palin thinks. JamesMLane t c 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin's argument about death panels has a lot less to do with living wills and a lot more to do with end of life counseling issues that have appeared in a few of the proposals submitted in Congress. It would be erroneous to assume that this concern is Palin's alone..though she has been more visibly associated with the comment than others have.--MONGO 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that others besides Palin have addressed this issue, which reinforces my view that the redirect should be to the article about the bill rather than to an article about Palin. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States#Arguments_regarding_rationing_of_care would be more appropriate. That would put it in the article about the debate, where IMO it really belongs. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"far-left" and "far-right" at English Defence League and elsewhere

I've been quietly WikiGnoming the mangled/incomplete/mis-linked citations at English Defence League. The content editors, in the meantime, have been swinging the content like a pendulum here. There are basically two forms of the article, depending from who edited it last. The first has no mention of "far right" against the subject, but calls all of its opponents (a government minister, a mainstream U.K. political party, and so forth) "far left" or "left wing" or "Trotskyite". The second has no mention of "far left" against the latter, and calls the EDL "far right". Editors with experience of applying the NPOV to stop an article swinging between such diametrically opposed extremes are invited to address the article and contribute to the talk page discussion.

And when you're done with that, there's another problem with "far right" labels at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#zombietime as well. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point here. I think the sources should indicate the coverage. It's easy to source the EDL being far-right, that's how they are described by all the news media. Unite Against Fascism is self-evidently of the same cloth as the Anti Nazi league and of course has its roots in the political left. I haven't seen any reliable sources for it being far-left, though, and the editor who wants to call it a "front" for one specific party has failed to make his case thus far without resorting to novel interpretations of the sources. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I just made some changes, when government ministers who criticise a group have to be labeled as "Left wing" we have a POV problem. At the moment I think its manageable, but we might have to request semi-protection or a 1RR rule if it gets out of hand. --Snowded ^TALK 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Presumably others have noticed the user name of one of the editors involved, in the context of this. Hmm. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, one learns something new and depressing each day --Snowded ^TALK 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There is another, IMO even more important, point against any labeling of "far-(left|right)": what is considered an extreme on a political scale is very much a matter of entirely subjective social perspective. From a typical Québecois point of view, for instance, the American political spectrum ranges from "Moderate right" to "OMGWTF extreme right nutcases" with nary a centrist or leftist anywhere in sight. Any such labeling is fraught with, at best, systemic bias and is at worst nothing more than political posturing. In other words: POV by definition and thus to be avoided systematically. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Such labels for positions on the political spectrum are routinely used and quantified in the real world. NPOV policy means we can't slant coverage of topics, but if the terms are accurate to real world coverage then there are no POV problems. Your argument seems to be in line with claims made by others in the past that we can never use terms like "terrorist," "conspiracy theory" and so forth because someone somewhere might object, which is not true. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the labels are always meaningless outside the very specific society that applied them. Obama, for instance, has been called a communist by (some) americans over a healthcare proposal which, here, would be dismissed as right wing drivel. Those labels are not quantified, because they are not quantifiable: they are always relative to the one placing the label. Describe, don't label, and you've solved the problem. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, also the use of labels to explain away criticism etc is a common example of a POV edit on WIkipedia. If a government minister says something (to take a case here) then their political party is not relevant. Material needs to be cited in context. --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The term far-right has a meaning in positioning them relative to the rest of the English political spectrum. EDL are to the right of the BNP, who are to the right of the Tory Party. There are no real absolutes in these terms for sure - what is now considered the political centre would have been considered the political right in the 1940s. But as a marker of relative position, it has value. Incidentally, I find the parroting of their "open to all" claim rather uncomfortable. It is pretty plain that no Muslim or Jew would feel comfortable in the company of these people and the "English way of life" they claim to espouse is not even vaguely Christian, either. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its important to note that Britain is currently under the regime of a party which openly describes itself on its website as a "democratic socialist party". I think its fair to mention that Denham by virtue of being a member of a self-proclaimed socialist party, is to the left of the spectrum and that is the point of view which his comment comes from. Currently certain people want to remove any mention of his political party from the article at all. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, any mention of current official UK government policy on any subject should be prefaced by the words "left wing". Of course you're entitled to that view - but it is not at all relevant to the process of constructing an encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In matters of foreign relations and so on, perhaps not. But in a civil conflict between Christians and Trotskyites, the fact that Denham is himself a socialist politician, is explicitly relevent in this specific case to present a NPOV. Its as relevent as saying that Thatcher was a member of the Conservative Party in an article about the miners strikes during her administration. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have no doubt that according to your own personal internal model the National Socialist German Workers' Party was also a bunch of Trotskyites. After all, they use the S word in their name, and there can surely be no more damning term in the whole political lexicon, can there? But once again you use the term Christian as if it were the opposite of Trotskyite. I am a Christian, I have been in a minor position of authority within the Anglican church, and I fail to see where you get this idea from. The Anglican church contains very many people whose political views are to the left of centre, I would go so far as to say that the Christian position on most tings is centre-left, with Nulabour well of to the right of it. The Political Compass agrees. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

uncorroborated claim of racism

Tiye#Monuments starts in with the uncorroborated claim that Tiye is not well-known because of her Nubian origin, stated as "her having been a black woman". While I cannot offer any contradictory evidence concerning the biases of Egyptology, I challenge this statement as 'fact not in evidence'. While I feel that the language itself is superfluously inflammatory and/or overgeneralizing and/or technically inaccurate, I reserve specific judgment in anticipation of needed citation and correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.231.133 (talk • contribs) 17:14, September 17, 2009

I'm taking a look, but it looks like this article has some issues. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is at ANI, so it shouldn't be dealt with here. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Yesterday I came across Jews for Jesus and found it extremely biased. You don't have to take my word for it; take a look at the article as I found it. I think any reasonable person can see in a few minutes that it's a complete hit piece. The external links section is the official website followed by 12 anti-sites and negative articles. Jews for Jesus aims to combine belief in Jesus with being Jewish, but the article tells the reader over and over that this is not possible, which is an opinion. There is very little information about Jews for Jesus, but an extremely long criticism section. There is a promotional section about the unrelated Outreach Judaism. The references are cherry-picked quotes or from opposing organizations. I attempted to clean up and rewrite using independent reliable sources, but I was reverted with the edit summaries "nice try - now please just edit and not purge", "tweak" (for a mass revert) and "rv per WP:BRD; please discuss these changes before you edit-war" (I have reverted only once). I haven't been able to get much explanation on the talk page either. Some outside comments would be much appreciated. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are purging the entire page without consensus. You were bold and you were reverted - now you need to discuss with the many editors who have written the page...who, by the way, are established editors from varying backgrounds, including Messianic Jews. What it looks like is as you said: you came across the page and decided to change the entire thing - no discussion, no time allowed for...just you purging. Is that NPOV? Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article for the first time, my impression is that the complaints are overstated. "Complete hit piece" and "very little information about Jews for Jesus" are clearly not true; however, "extremely long criticism section" does seem to be. There may well be weight issues that are worth discussing, but I don't see anything to justify the chainsaw approach you've been taking. In short, if you show a disposition to be more reasonable, you might find it easier to get support. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Grain (surfboard company)

The article was tagged with "{{Newsrelease|date=August 2009}}" which means that it reads like a news release or is written in an "OVERLY PROMOTIONAL TONE". I cannot see anything in it that sounds overly promotional, or reads like a news release. I've rewritten the article many times to make it as neutral as possible but the facts entered probably seem to make it sound otherwise. Please review the article, and maybe remove the inappropriate tag. WHY? Because the article, when viewed for the first time by someone interested in the subject, is more likely inclined to lose a considerable amount of interest because the tag that sits at the very top of everything else, appears to be telling him that HE'S ABOUT TO BE BORED. Any contribution to make it better would be very much appreciated. ≈ Commit charge 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I also hate tags like this -- I think they should go on the talk page, although Wikipedia policy disagrees. Anyway, I think the complaint was basically correct -- the article was written in a tone that said "we are proud of ourselves", which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I did some editing to tone down the peacockery, and then removed the tag. I removed some overly specific detail about environmental friendliness from the lead -- I wouldn't object to adding this material somewhere in the body, but it doesn't belong in the lead. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murder theory

Over on Talk:Smiley face murder theory a couple of people are arguing repeatedly that the line in the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT section that says "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space" should be interpreted to mean that the views of the minority should get more space than the views of the majority because the title of the article is about the minority view. This, to me, is completely opposite of what that section is intended for. The same people are also arguing if the topic is really about a WP:FRINGE view that the article must be deleted completely. They seem strongly opposed to having the article adequately document the clear majority viewpoint of police investigators across several jurisdictions and the FBI. they instead favor the well-publicized but claims advanced by a few private consultants on talk shows and the like. We could use more input over there from people who deal with NPOV issues more regularly. DreamGuy (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case where the correct question is how best to serve the reader. In an article about minority views, they need to be given enough space so that the reader can fully understand them. The majority views should also be given enough space so that the reader can fully understand them, no less and no more. To chop out essential material from the minority view in order to make it shorter than the majority view, or to inflate the majority view just to make it longer than the minority view, are neither one conducive to writing good articles. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing

The article for Sungazing was edited 22 times by User:Skinwalker in a one hour period. During which he/she removed any explanation of the practise itself, ie. when to do the practise and any safety guidelines stated by known sungazers. With this done, the way has been paved for the article to take on his opinions of a practise that he seems to know little about (ie. safety guidelines, the actual process of what to do and when to sungaze etc...) As is seen with the statement "The practice of sungazing is dangerous". this is then followed by criticism of the practise with out any explanation of the process itself.
He/she has taken out entire sections of the process of how to sungaze saying 'wikipedia is not a how to section', yet on the page for Driving, room is given on how to instruct somone to drive, optimising driving performance. The same is true with sungazing, the safety lies in the proper process, with that removed any opinionated view can be propogated. No one drives 90mph out of their drive way and the same goes with sungazing, there are safety guidelines and limits...
Another example of the opinionated editing, User:Skinwalker writes, "it has undergone analysis - staring at the sun is bad for you". i agree that staring at anything is bad for you, but if the practise entailed "staring at the sun" it would be called "sun staring".
It seems this editors opinion comes first and then the rest of the article is to follow.
i would like to note that the criticism section has went untouched.
There is almost nothing left of the original article, and its current state does not allow for any genuine and legitimate information on the process and practise of Sungazing. i was wondering if someone could give any advice on how to stop these edits or how to procede.

Thanks.

J929 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing is a practise, much like yoga Asanas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asana Wikipedia discusses some techniques on this page (Common Practices). What is the difference? If sungazing is practised within 'safe limits' as prescribe by knowledgable and established sungazers, it is a legitimate practise. The results are secondary. Skinwalker says its a fringe subject, yet there are plenty of people who sungaze and many who practise yogic asanas. if everyone who pulled a muscle or in someway made a postural mistake resulting in uncomfort doing asanas, the reports would be too much to publish, yet Skinwalker dwells on his results putting an umbrella like opinion on every aspect of the practise. Staring at the sun at noon and gazing at a setting sun (ie 5-10 minutes ) before it sets are two completely different actions, with different results/consequences.

J929 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Chile's race

User User:Kusamanic first erased informations which reports that White people are a minority in Chile, and replaced them with other informations that Whites are majority[75] [76]. Then, I re-posted the information that Whites are minority, and I also posted a genetic resource that conclude that people from Chile are usually Mestizo (Amerindian and White mixture). The user is once again erasing these informations, and saying that I should use the talk page (I did use the talk page, but the user did not even answer me there)[77].

It seems they are racially biased edits from this user. Please, opinions about it. Opinoso (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the issue is whether the majority population in Chile are white, Mestizo or both? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all: the Chilean government does not ask their citizens about race. Then, any "study" reporting figures and percentages about "races" in Chile are based on nothing. However, there are sites on the internet giving different percentages about Whites in Chile. The User:Kusamanic choose to post only the sources that claim that Whites are majority, and he erased the sources that claim that Mestizos are majority. Now he is erasing my edits. This is obviously a racially biased post. Opinoso (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, User:Opinoso doesn't act in good faith in each case. It imposes his personal opinion for on the mentioned sources and he has an appreciation preconceived on the population from Chile according to his point of view like we can observe here. ←Of course my personal opinion is not a source, but I have been to Chile myself and there's no way that 60% are Whites. Even in the areas of "German settlement" of Southern Chile, the local population looks more Amerindian than anything else→.This not only happens to the articles Chile it also has more than enough with other what has cost him multiple blockades for not respecting sources.[78] it is necessary to remark that this multiple war of editions on the part of the User:Opinoso began here. When I don't respect the mentioned sources and delete from of white population's category to Chile in the southern cone edition [79]. I reverted him, as we can observe here: [80], from today it began to follow my editions. This i denominate it sabotage by User:Opinoso, when harassing me and to follow my editions [81][82][83][84][85]. Without respecting the sources where they write of a white majority in Chile that varies from 52,7% and 90% to the population´s [86][87][88] finally remarking that Chile is amerindian-mestizo like he writes here in one of its summaries of editions saying this without any source to back it up.←Chile is mostly Amerindian-mestizo→.-Kusamanic (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources claiming Whites are majority, and others that claim they are minority, all the sources must be cited in the articles. You choose to cite only the White majority, for some reason you decided to erase the source that reports Whites are minority and also to erase the genetic resource that actually prooves that Chile is a Mestizo country. And I'm not following your edits, and I do not want troubles. Just leave all the sources there, all the informations there. If you believe Chile has a White majority, and if there's a reliable source saying that, it's ok. But, do not erase other sources only because they claim the opposite. Bye. Opinoso (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources regarding the racial composition of Chile, Wikipedia should be silent on the issue, we should certainly not reference all of the conflicting unreliable sources. If there are conflicting sources both of which stand the criteria for WP:RS then, and only then, should we be showing evidence of a conflict. _{Disclaimer:I have not looked at the sources in question and am categorically not commenting on the quality of any of the given sources at this time.} Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No informations about racial composition of Chile should be posted, since the country does not even ask its citizens about race. All the sources about race come from nowhere, they are based on nothing. Like the rest of Latin America, Chile must be influenced by "whiten ideologies", which led these "scholars" to report ficticious "White majorities" or to enflate their real number, which is of course very small, because Chile has never been a country that received large numbers of European immigrants, such as the USA or Argentina or Australia. It's impossible for that country to have a White majority. White people did not come from nowhere. They came from Europe, and their presence in Chile was quite minimal to have produced a White majority. (from 1881 to 1930, 183,000 immigrants (mostly from Europe) settled in Chile,.[89] compared to 30 million in the United States, 6 million in Argentina or 5 million in Brazil).

We need more opinions about this subject. Opinoso (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is rather simple. If there are some sources listing, say 30% of the population as white while others 50% then you list both as per WP:NPOV.

I would also suggest that user Opinoso stop making up his own theories and stick to what the sources say. At this point it seems to me that he's obstinate with correcting the record. Likeminas (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Polite society in Chile is mostly White; however, this does not make the entire country so. I do expect that both sources are exagerated.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If neither source is reliable then, I reiterate, use neither.Simonm223 (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Both sources, Lizcano (that says 50%) and the other by the University of Chile (which says 30%) are academically written papers. So, I don't think it's a question of reliability but of presenting them all. Likeminas (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a third source being used around, in several articles, and it claims that Whites make up from 64% to 90% of Chileans [90]. I wonder if the author of this "resouce" was not confusing Chile with Iceland or Norway...with so many sources, with different figures, some claim 30% White, others 50%, other 64%, other 90%, there's something wrong about them. Since Chile does not have a Census about race, these figures are based on what these authors think, or desire or want to sell that the population of Chile is. None of them are realible sources. Opinoso (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso, if you're now claiming that the sources are not reliable then you're asking your question in the wrong place.

I haven't looked into the last source that claims a 90% white population, which, seems dubious to me. But my opinion on the matter is as irrelevant as yours. Now in reference to the others two, You seem to be very quick to discard them.

The first one (Lizcano) was conducted by Francisco Lizcano Fernández, a proffesor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico whom, may I add has written quite a few books on the ethography of the Americas.[91], the other number of 30% was published by a magazine of the department of Chemistry and Pharmacology of the University of Chile.

As you can see, both of these come from academia and if academic studies cannot be considered reliable, then I don't know what can.

Lastly, and as it has been polite and extensively explained to you at least twice on two different articles[92] [93] the racial composition of Chile is not easy to determine, even the CIA worldfact book has another number. Nonetheless, you seem to have developed a personal vendetta in which your mission seem to be revolving in correcting the record in regards to demographics of Chile. Please stop, that's Tendentious editing. Likeminas (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok then print both results and note sources, confirming in article that there is disagreement over ethnography.Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits are not tendentious. I am here because I realized some other user was simply erasing the source that claimed Whites are minority in Chile, and replacing them with other source claiming they are majority, including the bizarre source which reports 90% are Whites. Yes, opinions are not important. But personal experiences leads a person to distinguish what is a reliable source and what is not. If there's a source claiming 90% of the population in Sweden is Black, through the personal experience you know that the source is wrong. The same can be applied to Chile. A source claiming 90% or 50% is White is out of the reality.

There's a clear conflict of sources out there: 90%, 64%, 50%, 30%? We cannot choose a few of them and post them and ignore the others. Given that Chile has no racial Census, all these sources may be based on nothing. All these different figures come from "scholars". But it is obvious that somebody is lying out there. To post in articles four different percentages for Whites in Chile is ridiculous. It makes no sense to say 30% is White, and then say 90% is White. I agree with the other users who says that Wikipedia should be silent. Opinoso (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to mirror sources, not to make a judgment calls on whether someone is “lying” or not. And let's not forget the basics here. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Likeminas (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Kongu Vellalar

First, I'm hoping I posted this in the correct place. I came across an article, Kongu Vellalar that has some atrocious aspects mostly POV. But I do not know about the topic and wouldn't want to make changes. The article is: Kongu Vellalar It appears to deal with an India sect. Even though I know nothing about this topic it, surely it should not contain sentences such as:
"The government of India census wants to keep its people ignorant on this aspect "
"which has aroused considerable jealousy and fear among the real holders of Power"
"which mostly go unresearched partly due to the heavy stench of ideological biases of contemperory Tamil historians"
The article also has NO references for anything.
There is a Neutrality warning at the top of the article, but is this sufficient? How can sentences like the above be left in? These might be the worst, but the entire article is absolutely filled with unreferences and sometimes absurd statments like:
"Concerned scientists have warned the community to have at least two children per family to maintain steady trend"
I thought I'd mention this as I've honestly never seen anything quite like this on Wikipedia. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is pretty extreme. Much of it reads like an advertisement, e.g. "The Kongu region flourishes mainly due to their extreme hard work, commitment, objective nature and innovation in their fields." People have every right to be proud of their ethnic or religious heritage, but statements like that illustrate the opposite of the neutral point of view standard that applies on Wikipedia. For others who might like to weigh in here, I note that there's a much more reasonable and well-written article about the Vellalar caste as a whole, of which Kongu Vellalar appears to be a sub-caste. The articles List_of_Vellalar_sub_castes#Vellalar_Sub-castes_using_Gounder_title, Gounder, and Gounder_(title) may be of help as well, although it appears that the latter two are (almost) identical, and should be consolidated. Ohiostandard (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

May i suggest blanking some sections or removing everu offending statement? the article is uncomfortable to read and difficulty to verify some claims using google. Thank you. 09:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

There is a dispute as to whether categorizing the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as "Category:Eco-terrorism" is in violation of WP:NPOV.

What the debate has boiled down to is that while some feel that categorizing an article is simply making use of an organizational tool, others feel that a categorization is a type of unqualified label, and thus goes against WP:Words to avoid/WP:TERRORIST and is a WP:NPOV violation.

Please note that there are several governments and organizations, mainly those who support commercial whaling or the tradition of whaling, who have deemed some tactics of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as acts of Terrorism. These statements are properly sourced. We also have a statement from the FBI that says they're "keeping an eye" on SSCS, but the article clearly goes out of its way to avoid declaring them "eco-terrorists" (while having no hesitation in doing so with organizations like the Animal Liberation Front. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the talk page MichaelLNorth. Just a quick follow-up, the label has been applied by officials from several whaling nations but have also been called it by others. They are now well known for the campaigns against Japan but before that they were fighting against seal hunters and fishermen. It is well documented by reliable sources that they have called them eco-terrorists. I don't know if the group is or not I'm not a published source so it doesn't matter.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cpt, I'm really just trying to clear up the use of categorization here, and whether or not it is an "unqualified label" as described (and discouraged) in WP:TERRORIST. Whether Japan thinks that they're terrorists is neither here nor there. We can directly attribute this view to them in the article, but we can't put an asterisk next to the category to indicate that there is not a global consensus by any measure as to whether their actions are terrorism. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My previous edit was just to clear up that it wasn't only whaling nations that have raised concerns with your initial statement. Writers, this leader, that leader, and so on have said it. I agree there is definitely not a global consensus on it. The asterisk is the reader clicking on the link and reading the facts laid out to form their own opinion.

Also, I wouldn't mind having a subcategory be renamed "alleged" eco-terrorists or "groups called" eco-terrorists since we don't have a disclaimer and that would clear this up nicely. The only concern I have at all with that is giving the US's official position (terrorist watch list or however it is done) more value than other nations so that would have to be figured out.Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that interested parties please read the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society talk page item #66 'Eco terrorism category'. This talk page item sparked the current debate and includes both pro and con arguments for using the category 'eco terrorism'. I disagree that the category should be used and advance a line of argument to support that view. I include two of my comments here to encapsulate my argument, both of these quotes come from the talk section I mention above.

1.

'To sum up, I am not actually taking a position on if Sea Shepherd is/isn't an eco-terrorist group. I am taking a position on Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and how it says what something is. This issue is not really about Sea Shepherd or eco-terrorism, it is about how an article is categorised. Since eco-terrorism is a contentious word, since there is no agreement in the wider community (UK, France, Germany, Australia, US, etc.), that Sea Shepherd is an eco-terrorist organisation it is not proper position for Wikipedia to take by categorising them as such since there is no agreement on the application of the term to Sea Shepherd.'

2

'The reasons why Sea Shepherd should not be categorised as 'eco-terrorists' are clear:

1.Categories are labels. Without qualification or citation. Categorising Sea Shepherd is labeling them 'eco-terrorists', is calling them 'eco-terrorists'. This is not something Wikipedia should do as there is no agreement in the wider community on this label and this would mean that Wikipedia is taking sides, setting the agenda, and deciding an issue. This is not Wikipedia's role and is the same as calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience'. The reasons for not calling psychoanalysis 'pseudoscience' apply across all articles and apply in this case.

2.Wikipedia:Words to avoid; 2.4 Words that label; WP: TERRORIST. The terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. The rules around using the term 'terrorist' in Wikipedia are clear. The word 'eco-terrorism' derives from 'ecological terrorism' and people and groups accused of this are called 'eco-terrorists'. It is a word to avoid. When it is used in an article, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. This cannot be done in a category, categories cannot be qualified or cited or attributed to a source. Categories label unconditionally, no ifs or buts. There is no agreement on the term being applied to Sea Shepherd and as a word to avoid it is not appropriate or correct for Wikipedia to use it.

3.WP:BLP; Sea Shepherd is a group comprised of thousands of supporters, volunteer crew, volunteer shore-based workers, and paid staff. For Wikipedia to categorise, to label, Sea Shepherd as an 'eco-terrorist' organisation is to label these people as terrorists. It is not for Wikipedia to label people with such a negative, perjorative, term when that term is not accepted as a term to describe Sea Shepherd in the wider community.'

Tranquillity Base (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that, in my view, the category 'eco terrorism' as it is inherently not neutral is a candidate for inclusion in CfD. As in the case of the category 'war criminal', a more neutral and precise category may be appropriate. Tranquillity Base (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant background regarding the application of disparaging categories to articles:

WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE#Obvious pseudoscience and the following sections of the same Arbcom decision gives guidance in the special, but analogous, case of Category:Pseudoscience.
Essentially this Arbcom decision is policy as WP:PSCI.
Cfd for Category:War criminals.
CfD for Category:Terrorists.

Note that "eco-terrorism" has much the same demarcation problem as "pseudoscience", "war criminal" and "terrorist", and according to the first two items and the way they are routinely applied the resulting NPOV problem can't be discussed away by claiming that categories are "only" a navigation tool. Hans Adler 08:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page I highlighted that the category is a topical category on "eco terrorism", it is not a list of "eco terrorists". This is demonstrated both by its adherence to the naming convention for topical categories and its link to the "eco terrorism" page. Wikipedia:Categorization & Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories). Eco terrorism is not a very developed category and currently does not provide many subcategories such as eco terrorist, claimed eco terrorists, etc., but such subcategories likely should exist under the parent, topical category. Listing this group under "eco terrorism" will not and cannot mean they are "eco terrorists", only that its relevant to the the discussion of eco terrorism. In fact, select groups completely in opposition to SSCS can be listed under "eco terrorism" since those groups too may be relevant for someone researching the topic. Mdlawmba (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that you are proffering this pedantic argument in good faith, but it is just that. Note that the analogous case in which there is a long established, strong consensus concerns the topical category Category:Pseudoscience, not a non-existent "list" category Category:Pseudosciences. The CfDs I linked above demonstrate that the two subcategories you are proposing would likely not survive a CfD, and for good reason. Hans Adler 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page I don't believe the categorization to be appropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mdlawmba, your idea would make sense if no major viewpoint believed SSCS to be eco-terrorists, as there would be little or no chance that readers would be confused about the meaning of the category. However, that's not the case we're dealing with here. It is as if you categorized an individual like George W. Bush with "Category: War Crimes" (NOTE: I am not endorsing this categorization). The reason it is misleading is because there are some who believe him to be a war criminal. You can say that the category only indicates that his biography is a topic relating to "war crimes", but that is not the obvious and common conclusion that many readers will come to. MichaelLNorth (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While I stand by my belief the category is a benign topical category intended to aid those using Wikipedia, my belief should only be viewed in the alternative to the other reasons why SSCS should be included in the category. There is sufficient evidence the group is "generally considered" to be an eco terrorist group and, more imporantly, has performed acts "generally considered" eco terrorism. "Generally Considered" being a term used in the psychoanalysis ruling allowing inclusion. I will let others make the case in that regard, because I have not been central to that discussion. But I do maintain that, since this group would fit within possible subcategories of this category, it should be considered fair to place it in the current, parent category, both in spite of and because there are major viewpoints and official contentions regarding the organization.Mdlawmba (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concepts like "sufficient evidence" and other rationalization for being "generally considered" eco-terrorists are both subjective, and unrelated to this topic. We are talking about whether the application of a category defined with a pejorative, charged word like "terrorist" is an "unqualified label" as described in WP:Words to avoid. Just to reiterate for clarity this is not a discussion about whether or not SSCS are generally, specifically, sometimes, often, occasionally or rarely considered, called, referred to as and/or thought of as "eco-terrorists". The number of countries that consider the organization or their acts to be terrorism, and whether their acts are deemed by some as "terrorism" are neither here nor there for the purposes of this NPOV noticeboard discussion. If it helps, please think of this as a discussion about whether it is appropriate to start categorizing certain articles as "Stupid people" or another pejorative and charged descriptor unrelated to Sea Shepherd. I would be happy to discuss the elaborating of existing material on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society regarding various countries' views of the organization on the article's talk page, as it is clear you have strong views regarding the organization, but it is of topic when placed here. MichaelLNorth (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly off topic and please do not paint me as some type of extremist, whether I have strong views or not is very much off topic.Mdlawmba (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you take offense to my saying that you have strong views on this topic, but that isn't tantamount to being an extremist. Would I be correct in saying that you believe the application of the "eco-terrorism" category to the article is appropriate, as long as you have several reliable sources to back it up? MichaelLNorth (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I outlined my belief that it is appropriate under the circumstances and why. I do not believe we have to, or can, label them eco terrorists by using this category. If the organization committed one documented act of eco terrorism as "generally accepted" in meaning during its 20+ year history I believe it can rightfully be placed under the category. There are many living persons in that category who have committed but one act, and this is not a living person. Especially considering the persons associated with it today may not have been born when the act was committed.Mdlawmba (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Questions:

If it is demonstrated by people on both sides of the argument (that is if notable experts have written papers about why SSCS are eco-terrorists or why they aren't) then what is wrong with categorizing THE ARTICLE as an article that pertains to the discussion on eco-terrorism? The words "Ecotage" and "Radical Environmentalism" are (at the present) uncontested articles within that category. The SSCS are self-proclaimes Radical Environmentalists and have made their own extensively reported statements on "eco-terrorism". There is no contest about whether or not they are part of that debate, why not categorise it as such?

If it were a list of eco-terrorists, how many notable sources would you need that call SSCS eco-terrorists? I'm hearing from some that no matter how many reliable sources you get, it doesn't matter, they don't think they should be labeled as terrorists. Well that's just against WP:Terrorist. So my question again, how many notable sources do you need for that category? Or should we just delete the category? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point. I think if the US instead of Norway would have attempted to jail Watson their would not be an argument about the label.

It also occurred to me and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts regarding readers understanding of the group. Do you think some of the editors who do not want to categorize them as eco-terrorists are taking their information from watching Whale Wars and not looking into previous actions which involved more aggressive tactics? I was telling MLNorth earlier that I personally couldn't label them as terrorists if it was just bottles of rotten butter involved but bombing typically = terrorism.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Elaborating on exactly that idea, we are not talking about the DPRK calling Amnesty International a terrorist organization, we are talking about multiple democratic governments describing SSCS as terrorists. Sure it may be a 501(c) charity in the United States, and I have no doubt that many feel the SSCS's actions are fully justified, but government officials in Canada, Iceland, Japan, and Norway have all described SSCS as terrorist, so lets call a spade a spade. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed what I believe this has come down to. What do the experts say? The problem is that editor POV (lots of editors like what the SSCS are doing and don't want them labeled negatively) conflicts with much of the notable opinion that is out there. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

68 - to answer your question, my position is the category should not be applied to anything, for the same reason that I believe it would be against wikipedia policy to create a "Stupid people" category and go around categorizing various articles with it. I believe that the name of the category its self brings with it a POV. — Mike : tlk 00:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are in favor of the category not existing. Let me ask this then, if the category "stupid people" existed and there were government agencies set up to deal with "stupid people" as well as PhDs who specialised in stupid people, how many well cited, notable, major news source refferences would you require of the experts before you would allow the wiki category to reflect their opinion? ;) And yes I agree the category most definately carries a POV, but it's that of the experts. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope I am not appearing to dodge the question here. The point is not number of sources, it is that "stupid people" is an inherently subjective term. Various government experts may have a different criterion as to what defines a "stupid person", and it is virtually certain that not all experts will have identical lists of who is a "stupid person". There may be some people who want to use SAT scores, and others who think IQ is a better metric.

This is precisely what WP:TERRORIST suggests we avoid. Using a term like "People with IQ below 75" instead of "Stupid People" is the recommended course of action, in the case of our example. Everyone's definition of IQ is the same, and there's no disagreement over whether 62 is below 75. A more realistic example directly from the guideline is choosing a term like "Suicide Bomber" over "Terrorist". There's no grey area in terms of whether someone detonated a bomb, and in the process took their own life or not. There will never be a lack of consensus as to what this term means, and thus there is no need to figure out "how many well cited, notable, major news source references" are necessary before we violate WP:NPOV by adopting a particular POV as "the truth". — Mike : tlk 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK good point, there is a very specific word for people who 1.strap bombs to themselves and 2 detonate 3. in the name of Allah. Different generalized words are used for people who preach hate and don't blow themselves up. But there's only one commonly used term for people who affix "can opener" devices to thier hulls before ramming fueling ships in the name of whales. So at what point in our lexiconological evolution does a word become "specific" enough for use? How well defined by notable sources does this term need to be to satisfy that requirement? A scan of online definitions will show that it usually means "sabotage, terrorism or violence" against "people or property" in the name of saving the environment. Multiple dictionaries use that definition, the FBI seems to use the exact same definition. It's not some broad term like "stupid people". It has a very specific meaning with three common qualifiers 1. Violenvce/terrorism/sabotage 2. People or items being targeted for damage. 3. For the purpose of saving the environment. That's like between 63 and 65 iq dumb. Not just vaugely "kinda dumb". Peace. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue of specificity, it's an issue of objectivity. You could get as specific as "People who are so stupid that they can't figure out how to use their toaster", and it would still be subjective, and thus still inappropriate as an unqualified label like a category or a Wikiproject.

"But there's only one commonly used term for people who affix "can opener" devices to thier hulls before ramming fueling ships in the name of whales."

This is moving back to the argument of "surely the must be terrorists if they do XYZ". No matter how sure you are of the validity of this idea, it is still subjective, and thus still advocating the use of "Stupid People" instead of "People with IQ below 75" because you believe that having an IQ below 75 surely makes one "Stupid". You keep asking me "how many sources", and again, the number of sources is irrelevant. You should need no sources to justify applying a category to an article, which makes sense since there is no mechanism for attaching a reference to a category in Wikipedia.

I'd also like to thank you for helping to keep this surprisingly civil for what could be a very controversial topic. — Mike : tlk 03:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL and consider it before posting random insults regarding the relative intelligence of editors who disagree with you.Simonm223 (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reread Simonm. I'm not calling anyone stupid, I'm using "Stupid people" as a hypothetical example category with a subjective name, and "People with IQ below 75" as what WP:TERRORIST recommends as a WP:NPOV improvement. — Mike : tlk 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My appologies. It's been a long day and I misread your statement.Simonm223 (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"still inappropriate as an unqualified label" The question I am posing then is what would it take in your mind for a label to be appropriate and qualified. If not common use in liturature with well defined boundaries and scholarly enough for sociological journals and congressional reports alike then what? I'm trying to figure out what sort of objective qualifiers you are applying to see if the word is appropriate and then apply those qualifiers to other categories in WIKI to see if a president has allready been set. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Also, thank you as well for your civility. This is fun when people are respectful. :) One other thought as well, applying this same strain of thought on the word "Terrorist" instead. Would your argument lead you to the same conclusion that the word should not be used? --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a question I can give you an answer to.

what would it take in your mind for a label to be appropriate and qualified.

It would take an objective and NPOV category label. This will result in little to no explanation or elaboration required for a full and accurate understanding of what the category is, and why it has been applied to the article.

I'm trying to figure out what sort of objective qualifiers you are applying to see if the word is appropriate and then apply those qualifiers to other categories in WIKI to see if a president has allready been set.

OBJECTIVE: First off, it's very important that everyone be able to agree on the definition of the category name, and all concepts involved with the definition. It should not be a component of the article that needs to be supported with references, which seems fitting as there is no mechanism by which to cite a category as it applies to a particular article. This issue is addressed in WP:TERRORIST, and is the reason they suggest using "Suicide Bomber" instead of "Terrorist". Examples of messing this up: "Stupid people", "Poor countries", "Confusing political issues".
NPOV: Second, it should not bring a POV along with it. This another the concept described in WP:TERRORIST. Al-Qaeda may refer to Osama Bin Laden as a "Freedom Fighter", but I think of him as a "Terrorist". Neither is appropriate for a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. I understand that sometimes a majority viewpoint may seem to be so widely and thoroughly supported as to seem like fact, but having a lot of references is not license to violate WP:NPOV.Examples of messing this up: "Politicians with un-American views", "Fair and balanced cable news channels" (zing), "People who are in jail, but are innocent", "The best soccer players in the world".

You shouldn't find yourself asking "how many sources do I need before this is OK?". That is a strong indicator that you may be looking for license to present a POV (even if it is an expert one) as fact. When WP:TERRORIST uses the term "unqualified label", this is exactly the type of thing they're referring to. WikiProjects, categories and article section headings among other things often don't have citations, and are meant to stand on their own without any further elaboration.

To answer you final question, yes, I do have the same problem with any entity or event being categorized, with an "unqualified label", as "terrorism" on Wikipedia, because the term is both POV and subjective. — Mike : tlk 00:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So here are some new questions, please select a word that you believe fulfills all the above requirements that we could name a category that would include organiations that blow up buildings in the name of ecology, organizations that sink other people's ships in the name of ecology, initiatives to stop those organizations and experts on those types of activities. But NOT non-violent organizations and NOT organizations that blow things up for non-ecological reasons. The "so how many" question was meant to (and did) demonstrate that no number of reliable sources using any such term would suffice because someone would be able to make the same arguments as above. Leaving these very related categories sorely uncategorizable. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Militant environmental activist". — Mike : tlk 00:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought everyone could at least get a laugh out of this: "It can also be used as a euphemism for the word terrorist.[1]". Militant. Personally, I think eco-terrorist is better defined than militant environmental activist, and as soon as ELF, ALF, OLF, ULF, etc. are all thrown into that category, then it will be equally negative. It's not the neighborhood, it's the neighbors.Mdlawmba (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't realize they're interchangable. Wikipedia defines it here

A militant is an individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat.

which is completely objective. I see that you have selected an excerpt from the "Mass Media Usage" section of Militant. Just about everything that precedes it is NPOV, objective, and in agreement with the definition above.— Mike : tlk 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice. OK back to you I suppose, are you proposing that we use the new invented term in an attempt to make the notable sources more NPOV? That somehow doesn't sound right.. :) Can we take a consensus on that one?

Whoa there, I didn't "invent" this term.

are you proposing that we use the new invented term in an attempt to make the notable sources more NPOV? That somehow doesn't sound right.. :)

Could you please rephrase. The current meaning sounds like you think I'm trying to alter the sources that the article uses as references. Somehow that doesn't sound right. 68 stated a list of characteristics, and I replied with an objective and NPOV term that encompasses them properly. I was reluctant to even play that game, since it is almost asking a rhetorical question since the criterion was so specific to Sea Shepherd. In the interest of reaching a consensus, I gave an answer, and it seems that you may not find it acceptable. Is this accurate? Could you elaborate? — Mike : tlk 07:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind restating. I did not mean to imply any foul play with the previous question. I was asking if instead of using the common term "Eco-Terrorism" that is currently used by the majority of law enforcement, with a specific agreed upon definition (and thus quite objective in my anon opinion) that we instead search for a new term not currently used by the community of law-enforcement, government and private agencies.. We could call them "violent direct action envoronmental protesters" We could call them "Politico-Environmental demolitinsists"(<-- my favorite), "millitant eco-protectors" we could call them anything we want really (and probably find some obscure reference to demonstrate that we weren't the first to come up with that term) but we'd have to stray from the common used word that describes someone who blows junk up for environmental reasons and for some reason, avoiding using the word eco-terrorist because we don't want to adopt the POV that the government might be taking.. seems kinda like forcing a false NPOV (which is really not neutral IMHAO). I mean I get what you're saying, that you believe the word is inherrantly Subjective but I strongly disagree, believing it to be quite objective (when you look at the definition). But I tend to think that if the phrase "Ship sinker" is POV, well there's nothing we can (nor should) do to protect an organization from well documented intentional ship sinkings. It's not our job to fluffy up their image. I'm not accusing you of doing that. I'm saying that if we take your proposed actions (creating a less mean sounding and less relevant category) that the effect would be us protecting them from the flood of media categorizing them with something else. I hope this didn't come across offensive, I like to use humor but don't like to be insulting. Hope I'm making sense. :) Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________________

Republican Senator Scott McInnis is an ardent advocate of laws to control 'eco-terrorism' in the United States. In a recent interview he was asked by a journalist; Should these groups be lumped in the same category as what, you know, we have come to know after 9/11 as terrorists?

McInnis replied: Sure, absolutely, I mean they are the number one, the eco-terrorists, these types of organisations, you know, ELF some of these type of groups, absolutely, they are the number one domestic terror threat we have. Those people that flew that airplane in, they weren't in to die for money, they were in to send a message, disobedience, civil disobedience.

Note two things: people and groups accused of eco-terrorism are terrorists , the same as the 9/11 attack; and McInnis equates civil disobedience with terrorism of the 9/11 type. Ron Arnold, who created the word 'eco-terrorism' (not covered in the very bad Wikipedia eco-terrorism article), makes the same point. In a 1985 article he wrote: Ecoterror crimes range from misdemeanors—such as criminal trespass and obstruction—to felony equipment sabotage, bombings, and attempted murder. He reinforced that definition in testimony to the US Congress in 2000 when he said, ...ecoterrorism, that is, a crime committed to save nature. These crimes generally take the form of equipment vandalism but may include package bombs, blockades using physical force to obstruct workers from going where they have a right to go, and invasions of private or government offices to commit the crime of civil disobedience. So you can see, Mr. Chairman, the range of ecoterror crimes spans the most violent felonies of attempted murder to misdemeanor offenses, such as criminal trespass, but they are all crimes. In the conservative view, any act in opposition to business enterprises that involve the natural world is terrorism.

Categories label. The definition of 'category' is: a class or division of people or things having shared characteristics. — ORIGIN Greek kategoria “statement, accusation”. (Oxford English Dictionary). Categorising a group like Sea Shepherd is accusing them, labelling them and their members, as terrorists. The category is inherently not neutral, it labels groups and the people who are their members as terrorists in the same way that the category 'terrorist' did. The word 'eco-terrorism' is a portmanteau word that combines 'ecological' and 'terrorism'. It is a political word used to label environmental groups as terrorists.

In the UK, if Greenpeace (as they have) entered an agricultural plot and uprooted plants being used for research into genetically-modified organisms as a protest, they would be charged with trespass and, possibly, criminal damage. In the US they would be called 'eco-terrorists'. That is, as terrorists.

Labelling a group or an individual as a terrorist is a way of playing on people's fears. As Professor Sharon Beder notes: Propaganda aims to “persuade not through the give-and-take of argument or debate, but through the manipulation of symbols and of our most basic human emotions.” There are a number of basic techniques identified by the Institute of Propaganda Analysis, many of which are used in public relations. Two examples of these are “name-calling” and “glittering generalities”. “Name-calling” involves labelling an idea or a group of people so as to get others to reject them or treat them negatively without evidence being put forward to support such a label. (Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism page 122). The word 'eco-terrorism' is a propaganda word that labels groups and people as terrorists.

This technique was used by the public relations firm Ketchum Communications when it advised the Chlorox Corporation when it faced protests from Greenpeace. The advice was to run a campaign labelling Greenpeace as terrorists by using the word 'eco-terrorist'. Labels such as “extremist” or “terrorist” are examples of the propaganda technique of name calling ... It is, according to Penny Cass, an attempt to activate preconceptions and stereotypes already held by the public. “Category-based expectancies define a group in such a way as to predict future behaviour and to interpret ambiguous information in the shadow of pre-existing stereotypes”'. (Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism page 134). The list of sources that call Sea Shepherd 'eco-terrorists' is nothing more than name-calling and amounts to nothing more than an attempt to categorise the group as terrorists, which is what the category 'eco-terrorism' does.

For example, Japanese whaling interests first started out by calling Sea Shepherd 'vigilantes' then 'pirate-terrorists' then, after a Western public relations firm was hired, settled on the perjorative term 'eco-terrorists'. As Roescke points out, Today, Americans tend to have a heightened, almost Pavlovian, sensitivity to any use of the word “terrorist”.(Roeschke, J.E. (2009). Eco-terrorism and Piracy on the High-seas: Japanese whaling and the rights of private groups to enforce international conservation law in neutral waters. Villanova Law Review 20 pp. 99-136). He suggests that the Japanese whaling interests use this word to gain a negative image of Sea Shepherd in the US. He points out that laws concerning 'eco-terrorism' exist only in the US and, as such, there is no 'eco-terrorism' outside of the US. Outside of the US, the word only exists as a label used by vested interests and conservative (right-wing) anti-environmentalists to paint environmental protesters as terrorists to try and isolate them from public sympathy.

By using the category 'eco-terrorism' Wikipedia is labelling groups and the people who are members of these groups as terrorists, which goes against WP:TERRORIST and against the reasons for the decisions made in the cases of the former categories 'terrorist' (see: CfD Terrorists) and 'war criminals' (see: Cfd war criminals). By using this category Wikipedia is using a word invented as a propaganda tool to marginalise and isolate groups and individuals engaged in environmental protest. By using this word as a category Wikipedia is using a term invented in and isolated to the US in law; it is not a recognised word in law anywhere else in the world and is only used outside of the US by vested interests, and their supporters, as a derogatory propaganda term. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and the WP:Worldwide view position.

I would ask that a person with the authority to do so to please nominate the category 'eco-terrorism' for CfD. As well, the article eco-terrorism is a poor article, deficient in fact and showing a POV bias so if someone with the authority to do so, could you please put the NPOV and factual dispute flags at the top of the article; they would be doing Wikipedia readers a good service. TranquillityBase ^Message 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are the opinions of Japan, Canada and Norway no longer valid becauset they have "interets"? So any country who gets thier stuff blown up is not allowed to have a notable stance? And yes, terrorism, violence, millitancy, these are all words with negative connotation that suggests intentional destruction to make a point.. but isn't that exactly what the sources say ELF, ALF and SSCS do? Blow stuff up to make a point? It seems ReAAAALLY common sense to allow a category to adress the issue. It seems really POV to me to disallow that category when the word has a clear definition and is used by so many reputable sources. --35.12.54.53 (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course those governments are allowed to have a stance. Wikipedia can even report their stance ("The government of Japan has charged that...."), because we report facts about opinions (see WP:NPOV). What we don't do is to adopt those opinions as true. Therefore, to state as a fact that SSCS is engaged in eco-terrorism would violate NPOV. Governments are entitled to express opinions but are not entitled to have their opinions on controversial subjects enshrined in Wikipedia as fact simply because the opinion comes from a government.

If we thought it worthwhile to have a category like "Individuals or organizations who have been accused by at least one government or prominent NGO of being eco-terrorists", then we could include SSCS. We don't have such a category, though, and I see no reason we should.

It's no answer to say that Category:Eco-terrorism includes all articles of interest to the subject of eco-terrorism, not just articles about eco-terrorists. I don't notice anyone rushing to include Scott McInnis in the category, although by that logic he'd fit (see discussion above about his advocacy of legislation relating to supposed eco-terrorism). Plenty of people consider the government of France to be culpable in a specific act of eco-terrorism, namely the murder of Fernando Pereira. Try including Government of France in the category and see what happens. Let's be practical -- a huge number of readers would see that category and take it as Wikipedia's endorsement of the truth of the assertion that SSCS engages in eco-terrorism.

The trouble is that a category appears as a simple yes-or-no entry on the article's page. As MichaelLNorth mentioned, we can't put an asterisk on it. It's therefore a pretty blunt instrument for dealing with nuances and controversial subjects. The better approach instead is to omit the category and give a full presentation of the controversy in the article. Assuming proper sourcing, it's perfectly proper to say in the text of the article something like "The government of Japan has characterized Sea Shepherd as an 'eco-terrorist' organization." Of course, we would also report the facts about SSCS's side of the story. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So I went to the Scott Mcinnis page and I noticed that no where in his article did it mention actions taken against eco-terrorist or his contribution to the discussion on eco-terrorism.. otherwise I would have added him to the category Eco:terrorism. Because that's exactly how such a category should work. Unfortunately for this discussion though, eco-terrorism isn't such a big part of his story. I would love to add more opponents of eco-terrorism to that list though to make the list more comprehensive.. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I see Operation Backfire in the category which was an FBI mission and not an "eco-terrorist".

Editors have really tried to use a neutral tone to meet the guidelines of this project and to not offend supporters of the SSCS. Ideas proposed and implemented by editors who are admittedly not fans of the group include adding a disclaimer to and reorganizing the category. My position has been that it is a navigational tool and now it is properly labeled with consideration given to the most knee-jerk of readers. The use of the term in the article has even been kept to a minimum when the sources requested on the talk page show a decent amount of usage. The argument against it is clear, readers might jump to the conclusion that this label is the opinion of Wikipedia. To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have an opinion. Contributors of this project use sources to present information. Sea Shepherd has been labeled by some for acts such as bombing and ramming their enemies in different industries in different countries. Scholars and the media have frequently commented on this label and if it is appropriate. We are simply doing the same. To not use this category prevents neutrality concerns.

The precedent set is also a concern if we do not use the category, is setting a building on fire (with nobody in it), spiking trees, and ripping down radio towers "terrorism" when done by another group referenced in this discussion? Is it for us to decide (it could be argued that they are not causing injuries and simply fighting for what they believe in) if it is or do we simply go by the sources?Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few days since I posted in this topic (took a little break for perspective), so I'll mention that I'm replying to this comment from 68. I didn't intend to imply foul play, just that I was unclear as to what you meant.

You assert that the common term "eco-terrorism" has a well-defined definition that is widely accepted by "the majority of law enforcement". I'm surprised that you haven't brought up this point before, since our discussion revolved around the subjectivity of the term "eco-terrorism". You even gave me a list of characteristics and asked me for an objective NPOV category, and I abliged. What is this widely-accepted definition? WP:TERRORIST is all about this. Your "terrorist" may be my "freedom fighter". It's really a "good guys" vs "bad guys" thing. Neither should be used, especially in a situation where you are asserting the term as fact (like -- a category). Mick Jagger, Martin Sheen, Darryl Hannah, Christian Bale, Anthony Kedis, Heath Ledger, Edward Norton and Pierce Brosnan have donated money to the organization, so they clearly don't share this apparent global consensus. The Discovery Channel profits from the organization's video footage (and I'm sure pays SSCS for it), so they clearly are not part of this global consensus. If we do decide to keep "eco-terrorist", shouln't someone go through all those celebrities' articles and note that they support terrorism (WP:POINT-violating joke)? Should The Discovery Channel be investigated, and their assets siezed?

There are some high school troublemakers in my town that keyed a few gas guzzlers. Was this an act of "eco-terrorism", since they devalued property in the name of the environment?

"Regular" terrorism has as a key tenet the use of fear to bring about political change. Do we have to figure out whether these kids were trying to strike fear into the hearts of SUV owners before labeling them as "eco-terrorists"?

You say "it's not our job to fluffy up their image". I can only assume that when you say this, you are referring to the removal of the category from the article. Thus, it's continued presence on the article is sullying their image. This is not an appropriate use of categories, even if you believe that their image should be sullied to remain WP:NPOV.

Finally, I ask that you acknowledge or at least consider two things. First, if this were a clear cut issue it would have been settled a long time ago. You would have spit out the widely agreed upon objective and NPOV definition of "eco-terrorism" and I would have shut up. This debate would never have gone on for multiple talk page sections and multiple NPOV Noticeboard discussions unless it was truly a contentious term. Second, I would like you to consider the option of simply un-tagging the article, instead of finding an "appropriate" replacement for the current category.

This seems to be reverting into an argument about whether SSCS is in fact appropriately deemed an "eco-terrorist" organization, by various definitions, press releases, statements, etc... Perhaps it's a good time to go back to the "Stupid People" abstract example?— Mike : tlk 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fluffy up their image is actually a pretty funny line. If they wanted a nice image they wouldn't be bragging about sinking ships. That really has nothing to do with it though. I can't reply for #68 but I do agree that this is not a clear cut issue. That is why the category got reworked. Even if it didn't it wouldn't mean that they shouldn't be included but that seemed like the right thing to do and I commend him for doing it. In regards to you shutting up, so many people on so many pages on such a contentious subject with so many recycled and modified arguments had no chance of working out perfect the first time viewing. As long as no one is trying to win (not even going to wikilink it since we are all big boys) and do what is best for the article and its readers I am happy. Also, what I said after #68 directly touches on some of what you just said so please read that if you skipped through to respond to an earlier point.Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cpt-- It's obviously still not a clear cut issue, even after whatever category reworking you're referring to (please give me a hint as to where I might read about this, so I can be better informed). We should all re-focus here. This isn't about whether SSCS is an "eco-terrorist" organization, it's about whether an "unqualified label", like the "Category:Stupid People" example, should be subjective and carry a POV along with it. Also, we should decide the point at which we escalate this in the WP:DR process. It feels like we're in limbo here, and there's no point in continuing this discussion if it's clear there will be no consensus. I'm not saying we're at that point yet, but there's a good chance that we'll find ourselves there soon — Mike : tlk 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another thing to think about. Labeling SSCS with "Category:Organizations comprised of stupid people" is, in essence, placing an unqualified (needing no elaboration or explanation) label, "Stupid people", on its members. Since WP:BLP applies to all content written about a person, throughout wikipedia, this guideline seems relevant:

From: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories

"Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

Also, it seems that another guideline speaks to how we should should properly "label" organizations

FROM: Wikipedia:Words_to_Avoid#Words_that_label

"Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example, 'The Peoples Temple is a cult, which...', 'The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization.', 'Pedophilia is a sexual perversion...'. Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."

The guideline then provides possible solutions to fixing these types of problems

"There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources, replace the label with information, or use a more neutral term."

Attributing the term to reliable sources is not an option with a category, since there is no mechanism by which a reference can be added. The last two options are to replace with information (I'm not sure how this would work in the context of a category), or to use a more neutral term.

— Mike : tlk 15:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to me Mike.. I'd like to adress the issues you wrote a little bit above.

"You assert that.. "eco-terrorism".. definition.. is widely accepted.. I'm surprised that you haven't brought up this point before.." Actually the reason for me asking so many questions on why you felt it was subjective and to define Subjective and bringing up "number of sources", etc.. was my way of understanding why you thought it wasn't. The term used by the FBI, DoD and the majority of news outlets and government agencies is all comptatible. Folks who blow up other peoples stuff to make a point about the environment.. roughly. Sure there are other people who twist words around and put spin on things.. "You're a bad guy.. no YOU'RE a bad guy" but that's a separate issue becaue we're not using those incidents, we are using the double strong, 1. well accepted state of affairs, that they blow stuff up to make a point and 2. government agencies and experts in the field recognize the term as applicable.. (not just some yahoos with a blog saying "you are.. no YOU are".)
""Regular" terrorism has as a key tenet.." Good point with regular terrorism. But with eco-terrorism the target is not generally people. It's usually stuff. But that's not really our discussion because Eco-Terrorism is not the same thing as regular terrorism, nor is it treated the same by governments, etc.. Not our discussion though.
"You say "it's not our job to fluffy up their image". "I am referring to the long history of 2 editors in removing anything potentially negative sounding from the article. It's part of the reason I got involved in the article. I was looking on wiki for more info on thier past actions and found what was close to a recruiting brochure. I didn't start editing the article from passion on the subject so much as the desire for an article that actually demonstrates the information that was available. I learned allot as soon as I started looking for sources. Every news source I started adding was deleted more times tha I could count with SOOOoo much arguing and bullying. Eventually though they had to give in because it's what the reputable experts and notable sources were saying. They removed every instance of the word "eco-terrosim" from the page so many times qupteing every wiki policy they could link from "PSuedo science" to BLP to NPOV to seriously everything.. even getting a well sourced article took practically WEEEKs to establish. So what we're looking at now is the tail end of fighting POV pushing. So when I say fluffing the image up I'm referring the long battle to actually get reputable and sourced info in the article that didn't come directly from their webpage. :)
I will most certainy acknowledge that this is not a clear cut issue and I respect your back and forth with me and I respect your stance that the word should not be used in a category. I see that as your good faith interpretation of the policy. With others (see above rant) ^ I have been steadily coming to the conclusion that anything that would stall a negative sounding remark will be used in good faith or not.. after having witnessed edit wars, deletions and personal attacks on myself I've started to see the edits of some as less than well intended for wiki, just well intended for the beloved org. I do not apply that thinking to you though and am completely enjoying your well laid out viewpoints. I still disagree with finding other wordings for the category for two reasons. 1. Other wordings mean different things and will include articles not directly related to eco-terrorism. For instance radical environmentalists will include green peace, vegans who radically abandon "normal" life and other radicals who may not be blowing stuff up. 2. Any other wording will not be as widely used and could be confusing. There are only two phrases I have heard used by governments for people who blow up other peoples' stuff to make an ecological point. "Eco-terrorists" and "Single issue terrorists"(of the ecological variety or something simmilar) Single issue terrorism is not as widely used and also includes other varieties. I believe there is not other acceptable word for this category for those two reasons. Peace and happy editing. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike, you wrote above what I think is the important part here: From: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories "Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

I think we've demonstrated in the article that most of their notabillity comes from international accusations of eco-terrorism and that it is well covered in reliably third-party sources. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrillja just removed it and I revertedd. I won't edit war over it but thought it was appropriate since consensus does not look like remove and the eco-terrorism category has received the appropriate information to let the reader know what they need to know.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And he reverted. I think this is inappropriate considering the (WP:BOLD) practice and the exceptional amount of effort to clarify this to the reader. Per my message on his talk page: "The edit warring finally stopped on this page some time ago and consensus seems to be going in the direction of keep. Mike is still active and has given up his opposition (got bored, was OK with what was done, or had no rebuttal) All measures have been taken to make it crystal clear to the reader what the categorization is and all info in the prose is done properly. If you haven't had a chance to read through the edit history, multiple talk page discussions, POV noticeboard, and the cleaned-up catagory you should." I won't revert but would appreciate it if this was addressed sooner than later.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quick recap for Terrillja

They have been called eco-terrorists by multiple officials in separate governments, scholars have discussed the issue in depth, books have been written about it, newspapers and other media mention it often.
The category now has a giant disclaimer that you should read laying out that the category is not a label assigned by Wikipedia but a tool for correlating subjects in the topic for the reader.
The group has done more than what is seen on Whale Wars (bombing vessels, destruction of property, etc)Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

In the article History of Argentina the line "The dominant figure of this period was the federalist Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is considered by the traditional historiography a dictator. " (on the "Birth of Argentina" section) should be modified to something like "The dominant figure of this period was the federalist Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is portrayed under diferents angles by the diverse historiographic styles in Argentina: the canonic history usually considers him a dictator, while revisionism support him on the grounds of his defense of national soveregnity." to comply with the neutral point of view, as the consideration of Rosas as a dictator is not universal.

As it was long explained in the talk page, there was indeed a mainstream view of Rosas as a dictator in Argentina until the early XX century, mainly designed by Bartolomé Mitre and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. Most of their views about history of Argentina, and specially the portrayal of Rosas, started to be hold in doubt by historians like Pepe Rosa or Scalabrini Ortiz during the 1940 decade, when Rosas was portrayed the opposite way. Modern historians like Felix Luna, Felipe Pigna or Pacho O'Donnell stay apart from both of styles, the once mainstream history and the revisionist interpretation of it, and refuse to make such categoric definitions.

User Justin A Kuntz rejects any mention to this, by pointing british authors. As it seems that the rejection of the original historiography hasn't arrived to England yet, he states that such is the "mainstream" view of the topic, and that the authors that reject it are just a minority viewpoint or a fringe or conspiracy theory. However, even if the viewpoint happens to be mainstream among the few english-speaking historians that worked with the history of Argentina, it wouldn't be a good idea to disregard sources that, even if written on another languaje, come from places where the topic at hand has been more deeply studied, checked and analyzed (wich in the case of history of Argentina means historians from Argentina). Wikipedia is written from an international point of view, and a local consensus on a subject shouldn't override a lack of it on a bigger scale.

Some books were Rosas is either portrayed as a heroe, or not portrayed as a dictator on an explicit manner (such as "he did wrong things but we won't call him a dictator", rather than simply a lack of the use of the word)

Historia de los Argentinos, Vol 2, Cap 1, by Carlos Floria and Carlos García Belsunce
Breve historia de los Argentinos, by Félix Luna
Juan Manuel de Rosas, by Pacho O'Donnell
Los mitos de la historia argentina 2, by Felipe Pigna
Grandes protagonistas de la historia argentina: Juan Manuel de Rosas, by Félix Luna
Historia Argentina, by Diego Abad de Santillán
Mayo, la revolución inconclusa, by Alejandro Poli Gonzalvo

and so on.

The user is not willing to pay attention to the explanations given to him. He reverted my comments to him here and here. Afterwards, he added a template on his user talk page here, where he says "The more advanced at the game of righting great wrongs have enough grasp to read policy and decide that sourcing makes their edits bulletproof. Wrong again. Sources have to be reliable, so the conspiracy website or the book by a crank doesn't mean your edit is sacrosanct." Given the context, it seems clear that such mention was directed to me, and that the "conspiracy website" or "book by a crank" to the sources I had given to him. Here he declared his intentions to resist the proposed changes. here, after a long explanation by me, he did not reply to none of the points I made and instead try to refute the Clarin newspaper (wich was not provided as a source on the topic, but as a source that describes the debate itself as a legitimate scholar debate) as a reliable source by considering it a "tabloid", exploiting the confusion that may rise from the many meanings of the word (Clarin is indeed printed on a tabloid format, a size and shape of newspapers; but the negative implications of the word can't be applied to Clarin, and certainly not just with a google test). Here he does accept that he's working with english writers and acknowledge the existence of the dispute in Argentina, but cites NPOV as a reason not to mention it. Finally, here he takes the critic on relying solely on british authors as an acusing of bias and a personal attack (even when he didn't mind accusing me of editing with a personal agenda here), and refuses to go on with the talking.

As trying to solve this by explaining things to him has failed, I request external intervention. I am well aware on the policies of minority viewpoints and fringe theories, but I'm also well interested in history and historiography of Argentina. I know for sure that revisionism does not fall in such category of viewpoints, and I can provide any reference that helps to check such a thing that you may request me. MBelgrano (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet

There is an RfC about whether or not Pinochet should be listed under the fascism infobox. Plenty of sources link this dead dictator with fascist ideology but I suspect there has been some canvassing going on. Truly neutral opinions would be welcome. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

An RfC has been started at Talk:1421: The Year China Discovered the World#RfC: Article neutrality regarding the neutrality of this article. I feel the article is unbalanced and non-neutral, focusing purely on criticism and discrediting the author, with no inclusion (nor attempted inclusion) of positive reviews and contradicting opinions. Two other editors, who have stated they agree with the criticism, disagree. Views from those well versed in NPOV may prove useful.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

Article background: This article is about a self-immolation incident in Beijing, which was used by the Chinese government to defame Falun Gong. The event itself is a blur because only the Chinese approved media could research and report on it inside China. So there are several opinions regarding what happened actually, this varies from the fact that the immolators were Falun Gong practitioners as the Chinese media stated, to the fact that this event was completely orchestrated by the communist government in order to justify its persecution (torture, labor camps, etc. etc..).

Situation: I think the article would fail NPOV, if the opinion of Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations, would not be included in the lead more exactly see here. This addition was resisted by some editors, and I did make some changes to it [94] [95] [96] [97] in order to comply, but whatever I did this information is not allowed to be added. See Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#This_event_was_staged_by_the_Chinese_government.

My perception: I think that without this addition a significant view will not be presented fairly.

Question: What do you think?

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of effort has gone into fixing the POV of this article and that the changes you reference improve the WP:NPOV compliance of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not have a Wikipedia article on Karen Parker (the human rights attorney) nor on International Educational Development. Google tells us very little about the latter group, and we do not know if anyone besides Ms. Parker is a member. If Parker's views were cited in newspapers, magazines or books things might be different. If Parker is not widely known, it does not seem that it helps the neutrality of the article to include her views. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For the credentials of Karen Parker, see here. Regarding notability the point is that she is a field specialist, she is accredited by the UN and her statement was published in the UN press release. Also here is a sample of her work quoted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be wrong to have no reference to what Karen Parker says at all. It shouldn't be too long, but she spoke before a UN committee and offers an interesting view of what happened. Provided there isn't too much weight placed on it, what's wrong with it? John Smith's (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in the article, or in the lead of the article? I don't think anyone is questioning the inclusion of the material in the article itself, just whether to mention it in the lead, and, presumably by extension, how to phrase the mention in the lead. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems to be neutral enough. I understand the problem is regarding a human rights attorney's report on the matter? Well, I agree that she is a reliable enough source to merit possible inclusion in the article. But consider: too many viewpoints make an article seem like it's dissociative. In this case, I believe Parker, and just her, merits inclusion in the article. It would be too much, though, to include any more. Incidentally, the lead section needs a small rewording where it says "and some third-party commentators" to avoid WP:WEASEL. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is regarding whether to include Ms. Parker's statement that the event was staged in the lead of the article. I don't think anyone is necessarily arguing that it doesn't deserve mention somewhere in the article, but whether it is significantly important and separate enough from Falun Gong's own claims that it should be mentioned separately in the lead of the article. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

She probably would merit inclusion in the lead if she was included in the body of the article. Very few things should be in the lead and not the body, and opinion is not one of them. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede should not contain anything that is not elaborated in the body; it should be a fair summary of the article. Therefore, the question about whether it should go in the lede is a moot point; if the info on Parker was in the body, then of course it should be adequately summarized in the lede.

Now, as to how much should be said about Parker in the body, well, that depends on keeping a balanced view. I would imagine that Parkers statement may warrant a very brief mention in the article, but bear in mind that there are certainly lots of other prominent people who could also be quoted; without care, the article could descend into a 'quote-fest'. Per WP:TIGER, these arguments need careful presentation to maintain neutrality. Chzz ► 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Happy, please consider what you meant by "significant view" - who determines which views are significant. That way, madness lies - all we can do is state well-reported views, ie with plenty of WP:RS. If we start to debate what does and does not constitute a "significant view", we run into all kinds of trouble; hence, we do not care about truth per se, just verifiability. Chzz ► 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chzz, thank you for your input! I would add that beside verifiability there is also the WP:NPOV which requires that the article should "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". To do that here I thought it would be required to actually present all the significant views. Here I thought significant is something that shows from where to where do they vary based on the amount and variation of opinions that was thrown around in this case, by different WP:RS. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@Sceptre and @Chzz, thank you, you are right, it is my mistake, first it has to be mentioned in the body of the article then in the lead. I guess I'm still learning, so thank you for that! Also another mistake is that I did is that I considered this sole source too good, and was somewhat disturbed when I saw the amount of resistance to it, on grounds, that I considered invalid, ranging from WP:NPOV, WP:OR to WP:N. So I asked for a neutral evaluation here. The opinion here vary too, but they are also a precious insight on how things should be considered. And the first step is to get lots of WP:RS on the subject, then compare them in quantity and essence. So thank you all! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Per what the source stated:

KAREN PARKER, of International Educational Development, said State terrorism in the form of Government terror against its own people produced far more gross violations of human rights than any other form of terrorism; an example was China's treatment of the Falun Gong. The Government had sought to justify its terrorism against Falun Gong by calling it an evil cult that had caused deaths and the break-up of families, but the organization's investigation showed that the only deaths and resulting family breakups had been at the hands of Chinese authorities, who had resorted to extreme torture and unacceptable detention of thousands of people. International Educational Development had discovered that a self-immolation cited by the Chinese Government as proof that the Falun Gong was an evil cult in fact had been staged. The international community and the Subcommission should urgently address this situation..

What HappyInGeneral tries to add:

Karen Parker the chief delegate of an organization that is accredited with the United Nations ^[1] was quoted in a press release issued by the United Nations on 14 August 2001 saying that this was a clear expression of state terrorism, and that the event was staged to justify the extreme torture and the unacceptable detention of thousands of people.^[2]

A simple rhetoric, claiming that they "discovered" that the incident was staged, with no references or evidence whatsoever. Furthermore the "state terrorism" claim was about China's treatment of FLG, not the Tiananman Square self immolation incident, which HappyInGeneral tried to synthesis. Parker is a lawyer, whose job is to take a client's POV and argue for them. There is little information on Parker's studies or academic credentials, and should not be placed an undue weight.

Furthermore, HappyInGeneral is a dedicated FLG activist, as his user page describes, and is the only one trying to add the material on the Tiananman Square self immolation, despite the fact that nearly every other user was against him. This source should not be used to push a pro-FLG POV and advocate the view that the self immolation incident was staged, as HappyInGeneral is trying to do.--PCPP (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@PCPP

"claim was about China's treatment of FLG, not the Tiananman Square self immolation incident, which HappyInGeneral tried to synthesis." => well I argue that common sense here is that the whole paragraph is about state terrorism
"Parker is a lawyer, whose job is to take a client's POV and argue for them." => Are you implying that Falun Gong hired her?
"There is little information on Parker's studies or academic credentials" => See here and here.
"Furthermore, HappyInGeneral is a dedicated FLG activist" => I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner. True. But how about the source? Can we discussed that?
"advocate the view that the self immolation incident was staged" => I'm arguing WP:NPOV here. That is I'm fine with mentioning sources that say that the event was done by people who practice Falun Gong, as that is actually stated in the article and I did not remove anything like that, I only thought that a source that is stating that the event was staged should be mentioned as well, that is when I saw this statement from an UN accredited human rights lawyer. However I'm a bit disturbed when things are phrased that this source, saying that the event was staged, "cannot be allowed" and was actually removed repeatedly, and claimed to be WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. (my impression was at some point that just about anything will be raised just as long as that source is not quoted). Of course, per WP:LEAD this first has to be also in the body, and yes, I agree, that this is a valid reason for not putting it into the lead.
Regarding: "that this was a clear expression of state terrorism," - I thought I have deleted the word clear, my mistake, again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't strike me as neutral enough - it appears to be pushing hard against wikipedia policy in order to criticise the Chinese government, and to defend falun gong. An example is the phrase, of one of the survivors:"He denied having been bribed to stage the incident", which although well sourced, seems to me weaselly, as it doesn't go into any more detail than that - who had accused him, etc etc. The article uses a lot of words like "capitalise", "use" (i.e. exploit) about the Chinese government's actions, which is also rather weaselly. Secondly, the link between falun gong and the immolations is not presented very cleanly. The background is all about falun gong persecution, yet there is prominence given to denials that falun gong supporters would ever protest in that manner. That is, there appears to be a subtext of "FG practioners would never do something like this, but if they did, they'd be perfectly justified anyway". The Falun Gong connection is there, one way or another, but it needs to be dealt with more objectively. Finally, the reporting and analysis section lacks structure - it flits between the credibility of the FG claims on either side, the presence of cameras, and the state reporting of the event. That's not an NPOV issue in itself, but chaotic organisation makes POV easier to insert.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article still has problems, I only looked 2 days (the last 2 days) at the lead, and was planning to go from top to bottom. Some of the things you mention should be fixed, while others are according to WP:RS, which state that Falun Gong would not do this anyway (especially the burning girl, which is just monstrous for a genuine appeal to be effective) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The event is largely a conspiracy theory, with no conclusive evidence on whether the event is genuine. The PRC government says the immolators were genuine FLG practitioners, FLG says that they are not and the even is staged. The article's bias comes from the little avaliability of PRC material, which would be dismissed as propaganda, vs FLG's easily avaliable information in the West.--PCPP (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

However, it certainly seems notable. Work needs to be done to improve it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead doesn't accurately reflect the contents of the article. The article explores the incident and portrays the confusion and lack of evidence as to what really happened, and that there is a dispute between the Chinese government and Falun Gong as to the way the incident has been portrayed in the Chinese media. The lead should neutrally cover the confusion and lack of evidence, and that there is a dispute about the way the Chinese media has handled the incident. But it's inappropriate to target the Chinese government with the claims that have been made, as though these claims are fact, and to use the emotive language of the second paragraph - "Capitalizing on the incident" is not neutral, "created a plethora of printed materials" is not neutral "repeatedly broadcast" is not neutral, "vivid images" is POV and original research unless some reliable source can be found to support the word "vivid", and even then it's a very questionable use of language in this context in an encyclopedia, etc. I feel a little bombarded, and that I have to accept the version of events as presented to me, rather than allowing to me to make my own decision by presenting to me the facts. SilkTork *^YES! 02:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very useful discussion to be having, as the article is currently being nominated for WP:FAC. I have been concerned about the article's neutrality for some time, it is a rather delicate balancing act here. I would thank VsevolodKrolikov and others' advice on how to neutralise the article, and I will edit the article accordingly. I agree that it is a very notable topic, and important historical marker in the battle of the Chinese state against a quasi-religious group. Vsevolod rightly mentions that the link between falun gong and the immolations is not presented very cleanly- this is certainly to a conscious effort on the part of Falun Gong editors and a subliminal effort on my part to capture the element of doubt about the true facts behind this event.

Happy and I have been disagreeing about the text to be inserted which I felt that it was done in complete violation of WP:LEAD, WP:SYN WP:NPOV and WP:RS. John Carter and PCPP have elaborated on these issues. Happy and I disagree over the cite in the lead, which was echoed by an editor reviewing for the FAC. What's more, I specifically disagree with the fashion how (pls refer to his four diffs above) Happy has attempted to insert the material. The text synthetised the assertion that Parker referred to the incident as "state terrorism". Note insertion two was blatant misattribution. The press release itself is a primary source which should not be used, particularly as it was not clear Parker was notable, or that hers was a "significant view" not already covered by others' - in fact, because of the perfunctory opinion [in the press statement], it is not detailed exactly what this view is. However, the summary position seems to mirror the Falun Gong view. Therefore, it could eventually be grouped together with FG if there is consensus that Parker's opinion warrants inclusion in some manner. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where did you mention something specific from WP:Lead as being an issue before? I might have missed it. Thanks.

Also Thank You for pointing out: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident/archive1

Regarding the notability of the press release John Carter was kind enough to ask on the notability notice board.

PS: Thank you all! All of your insights are truly valuable and I think they will help us to move ahead and to get to a real good quality in this article. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I much appreciate the constructive criticism received in connection with this article, and have now made a number of changes to the article which hopefully addresses the concerns expressed here. Please let me know if they are still not yet addressed. In the interests of keeping all FAC related discussions in one place, I would ask interested editors to kindly list in bullet point any remaining concerns about the article at the nominations page, so that they may be dealt with, and for the evaluation/nomination to proceed. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War (1)

This article really cries out for some participation by utterly uninvolved (as in "I don't give a f---- about the Gaza war") editors who are interested only in applying Wiki policy and creating a neutral article. There's some excellent stuff in this article, and overall it is informative, but it's a powder keg and the talk page is like the Second Battle of the Marne. I realize most smart editors avoid articles like this, but I thought I'd give it a try just once. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Article describing John Birch Society is biased and attempt to repair was labeled as vandelism by a John Birch promoter

My edit is the paragraph at the top. The rest is the original article which ignores my relevant information of how the John Birch Society is and was percieved in popular culture. The position of a redical political group in society and how that group is percieved by the public is important and relevant. This group was known for intimidating people and stifeling voter participation. The original article ignores that and glosses over the very famous opposition to civil rights reform. The John Birch Society reached it's hight of notoriety during and soon after the civil rights struggle as a voice for segregation and against voting rights reform. Any unbiased article needs to ackowlage this history and the groups place in popular culture. The original article reads as promotional material for this extremist group.

Massive and completely unnecessary dump of what is obviously Waterunderground's preferred version of the article removed. If you want to see that version, use the article's edit history in the normal way. Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterunderground (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The version promoted by Waterunderground is a major WP:NPOV violation. The article is currently the subject of an edit war between Bytebear (talk · contribs) (defending the earlier, more neutral version) and Sift&Winnow (talk · contribs) (defending Waterunderground's vesion). Both are on the verge of 3RR and are hurling spurious accusations of vandalism at each other. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Looie496. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

TWiki

Contributors representing Foswiki, an article deleted through AFD several times, are consistently disrupting the discussion process on the TWiki article. The simplest explanation of the dispute is that proponents of an open source fork of TWiki have been aggressively promoting their product after a dispute over ownership with TWiki's founders. Myself and another editor were just reaching a working consensus when an IP jumped in again. I think what they're doing amounts to spam, but mediation from anyone not previously involved would be most welcome. Steven Walling 00:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

British National Party

A question has been raised that the page is not neutral. As an example of this "Historically the BNP (including Nick Griffin)" why is Mr Griffin mentioned this page is not about him? that seems to me a bit biased. Do any other politcal party pages also note that the leader of the party supports its views?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Griffin is the leader of the party that claims to have completly reformed it. His past is relevant so i dont think its unreasonable for that to be mentioned. However i dont have strong feelings on its inclusion, but these are the sorts of examples (if this is a POV matter, i dont think it is at all) that should be raised on the talk page, instead we just hear claims of POV but no ideas on how to improve things. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be because the party claims to have changed, while the leader still holds those views. The wording could probably be improved, I dislike a parenthetical of this kind. Verbal chat

If its relevant mention it in the section about him, that is the proper place.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this passage? "While Griffin was still a leading figure in the National Front, he was a close associate of Roberto Fiore, an Italian who, having fled to London, was convicted in absentia of belonging to the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, a terrorist group that was alleged to have carried out the Bologna massacre on 2 August 1980, which killed 85 people and injured 200 others in a railway station.[272][273] However, no connection to the bombing was ever proven, and the case is still open." Not only is this not about the BNP but its curretn leader but also admits there is no evidance for a link, so why is it in this article?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, So an article on a political party should say nothing about its leader??? Anyway, seeing as its apologists claim that the BNP has changed under Griffin, it is relevant that between being a leading member of one fascist organisation (the National Front) and another (the BNP) he was associating with other facsists. His link to Fiore was close, long-lasting, and well-documented. Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari is still alleged to have carried out the bombing, but no court case has yet proved it. For more on Fiore, take a look at The Guardian article "Language school run by Italian fascist leader" which says that Fiore, "who once said he was happy to be described as a neo-fascist and who is an old friend and mentor of Nick Griffin" is running a language school. "The accountants for the college are Edgar and Jean Griffin, Nick Griffin's parents." You couldn't make it up. Emeraude (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not whe he had nothing to do with the party no, unless it can be proven to have influenced his actions as leader. Nor is there a proven link between the bobmioing and the BNP. As to his parents, this (like the rest of this)is pure syntahsis. much like "The American Friends of the BNP, a party offshoot headed by Mark Cotterill, was still having extensive contacts with the National Alliance as recently as 2003; as documented at length by Nick Ryan in his book Homeland: Into A World of Hate" is tehre any evidanc that this is used by the BNP as a bridge between the two? or just more synthasis. By the way were in the article does it say the BNP claim to not be a facist party?Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC) The passage about The American Friends of the BNP has noe been substantiality re written after it was found to not be supported by the source, and after other sources pointed out the organisation had been disbanded 2 years before. But this does reveal a problem with the page, an uncritical acceptance of any attack on the BNP, why was the source never checked?. In addition this passage still seems to include information not in the sources, despite claims that its been edititred in accordance with them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We now have this [[98]]. Ther is no denile in the text as thye edit claims. Ans (as I poined out here [[99]] the re-inserted link does not work. So editors are not even boptherting to check that a source is valid before reverting.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Info box

By the4 way it was sugested this was brought here, and taken of the talk page. OK you want a proposal, the info box should represent what the BNP say about themselves, any doubts raises as to the veracity of these claims should be in the body of the text. Are there any other examples of a page about a political party were they deny something that is ion the info box and have ben ignored?.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns about that appearing in the infobox, in the past i have said it would probably be best not to include it there, however the majority says it should stay and its not inaccurate and it is backed up by reliable sources, so i dont see it as a huge problem. I just think people waste too much time on the label in the infobox when theres bigger problems with the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Except the BNP who claim its not true. Moreover the accusation made by user 207.161.237.132 is that the page is biased, now if it is (and in part you seem to agree), that might be becasue of POV pushing by a politicaly motivated majority. If this is the case then we have a very serious problom with this page. Hijacking.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

An infobox should give information - that's what it's for. If every notable commentator that can be sourced says the BNP is fascist, then it is not just misleading but downright dishonest to not have that in the infobox. The infobox is for information, not the party's denial of it. Emeraude (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it should be in the info box, and we have plenty of WP:RS for that. Verbal chat 16:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It should also have all relevant information, so why does it not have the BNp's own version of what they are? moreover I was not aware that a source had to be notable to be used.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If an infobox has "all relevant information" it becomes an article. No, an infobox is a place to record brief facts, without explanation or qualification, in the same format on similar articles. The place for explanation (and this includes the BNP's views) is within the article itself, and this is done. I did not say a source a had to be notable - I said "every notable commentator that can be sourced...". Sources have to reliable: these are, as has been agreed again and again and again and ......... Emeraude (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway Massacre

There is a POV dispute in relation to the lede in this article and I therefore added the POV intro tag. One of the parties to the dispute, however, removed the tag with an edit summary saying "rv POV crap. This article is all referenced and sourced. The only POV is the warriors on the talk page". I don't want to start an edit war over the tag, but at the same time I don't think it is appropriate for it to have been removed before resolution. I was advised by an Admin to come here for advice. Mooretwin (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of massacre in question appears to be incorrect as there is no page under that name. Please correct so that we can have a look. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies: it is Dunmanway Massacre. Mooretwin (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do the two sources cited in the questioned paragraph of the lede say the victims were informants? Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do. BigDunc 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I would suggest the question hinges on whether those sources meet WP:RS suggest you consult the reliable sources noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute about what the sources actually say, with the suggestion having been made that only one source supports the statement that they were all informers, with other source(s) disputing this. Those refuting this suggestion refuse to explain what the sources say. Until this is resolved, the tag should surely remain. Mooretwin (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please put up quotes from the sources confirming that victims were informants? Could somebody please list sources that contradict this viewpoint? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. Mooretwin (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{undent} I rather think the problem lies in the inability of editors on either side of the conflict to compromise. The lede, as it stands, could be improved. It should be clarified that the assertion the victims were informers is an opinion of an historian and not an iron clad fact. Hart does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:RS considering his rather revisionist bent and errors in research method. Simonm223 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Mooretwin (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the page, with the inclusion of new references today, meets WP:NPOV criteria. Hopefully case closed. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Article on Super Size Me

The article on the film Super Size Me is not written from a neutral point of view. For example, here are the first couple of sentences from the article:

This film is one of the best documenteries i have ever watched! It gives you the full facts and details needed to know about the poisins and chemicals in the fast foods we eat...Super Size Me is a 2004 American documentary film directed by and starring Morgan Spurlock, an American independent filmmaker.

I'm flagging the article for revision. I have not seen the film myself, so I cannot rewrite the entry, but someone should if at all possible. Thorswitch (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page doesn't have to be NPoV as long as the article doesn't violate. I can't find the quoted text on the article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the entire article and didn't see any obvious NPOV issues. I did remove some original research and a reference that I didn't think belonged. Do you have any specific concerns that you'd like addressed? -Atmoz (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was in a vandalized state when Thorswitch saw it. Compounding the problem was that after an IP editor removed the vandalism, another editor used rollback to reinstate the vandalized version, then realized his mistake and reversed himself. It would have been easy to get confused. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AC Propulsion eBox Written Like an Advertisement?

A header has been placed on the AC Propulsion eBox article, suggesting that it is written like an advertisement. While the article is not perfect, I do not think this header is justified. Since the tag was posted, I have added some references and fixed another. I have tried to clean up the article a bit. Please help me by weighing in as to whether you think the header is justified and, if you do, what changes you think could be made to eliminate the need for such a header. Of course, any edits to the article which would help would be enormously appreciated. I have no professional affiliation with this product or company. Thanks! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. The article needed some copy-editing at the time it was placed, but it did not look like an advertisement even then, and certainly doesn't now. It could benefit from some information about reviews by independent sources, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TheFix63

I am bringing this here because User:TheFix63 has made several edits that violate WP:NPOV. First, he kept adding the phrase "The Lakers are considered to be among the signature franchises of the NBA" to the lead even though I have told him that our policy prohibits the insertion of opinions. But he ignored, claiming that he is "confirming the existence of a major opinion."[100] Also, he removed a sourced statement on Larry Bird and replaced with an uncited statement contrary to the advice on WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.[101] I asked him not to do that but he kept on making the same edit.—Chris!_c/t 02:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mind giving the other side of the story? Another editor has recently posted on the talk page for LA Lakers that the line was INDEED neutral. Wiki policy doesn't prohibit the insertion of prominent opinions either, so long as they're sourced - and the line has indeed been sourced. The Larry Bird statement is sourced as well. This whole "incident," if you can even call it that, really reflects poorly on Chrishomingtang. TheFix63 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the whole story on Larry Bird: In [102], you took out the sourced sentence. Then, you reverted me in twice: [103] and [104]. In the latter edit where you are rv by User:LOL, the sources you gave said nothing about Bird being the greatest. All of your edits violate WP:NPOV.—Chris!_c/t 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In order to keep this discussion in one place, let's deal with it on the article's talk page. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

^ Regello, Rosemary. "Biography of Karen Parker, J.D., Member of: Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, partners of the BRussells Tribunal". The BRussells Tribunal. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
^ Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 53rd session (14 August 2001). "Terrorism, Transnational Corporations, Traditional Practices Discussed". UNITED NATIONS, Press Release. Retrieved 2009-09-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[KarenParker-1] Regello, Rosemary. "Biography of Karen Parker, J.D., Member of: Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, partners of the BRussells Tribunal". The BRussells Tribunal. Retrieved 2009-09-28.

[2] Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights 53rd session (14 August 2001). "Terrorism, Transnational Corporations, Traditional Practices Discussed". UNITED NATIONS, Press Release. Retrieved 2009-09-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]