This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

The article T.B. Joshua has recently been edited. I found it in the Newbie RC and I don't know exactly how far I can go about editing it to make it neutral again. Can somebody take a look? Thanks! DreamHaze (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should be more specific. To specify, the article notes that he is "a man of uncompromising holiness and exposes a power so great that can never be compared to any known man of God on earth today", which is undoubtedly an opinion, not a fact. The entire section listed as "Practice" says that he raises the dead, heals with prayer, and has the power of Prophecy. Obviously I don't know the truth of the matter, and I believe that this is going to be a controversial article, but without sources being cited I don't know how to change this to a more neutral tone. DreamHaze (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• What Happened (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:What Happened (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a current RFC here in which an editor has insisted on including a gross amount of criticism from persons wholly unconnected to the book, the administration, or the events surrounding the book, to the point that the criticism section outweighs the content of the article (both of which violates WP:UNDUE). Outside opinions are requested (preferably at the article talk page). Said editor has openly stated that his intent is to neutralize what he believes to be "either declared or undeclared pro-Obama viewpoints." Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very well known book and writing a good article about it is easy so long as you keep it simple. Obviously include all the facts about the book's publication, and then cover the contents. Then you should have a section on "reception". It should include reviews of the book in the important media, from all viewpoints. Just state what the reviews said, e.g. "X, writing in Y, said that the most important contribution of the book was that it .... However, he wished that it had ....". It's very important to reflect the exact tone of each review, i.e. don't pick out an isolated favourable comment from a review that was mainly critical. Give most space to the reviews in the print and broadcast media, less to those in web-only media unless they are highly respected. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice. I think the major concern is that the book itself is a whistleblower's account of what happened in a political environment, and as such we have plenty of commentary from subjects that may be notable, but are definitely completely unconnected to the events, the book, or the author. It's easy for politicians to make statements (both positive and negative) with political motivations rather than having any actual connection. Since that is the case, I strongly believe that we should limit opinions injected into the article to people who are actually connected to the subject. You bring up some excellent points, and I'm going to cross post this conversation there. I would request additional comments be directed to the open RFC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Particular_attribution_POV A number of changes are being discussed that involve NPOV and it needs more heads to look into the arguments and come up with good consensus. Ward20 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The article linked might not be neutral. I'm not really much involved with editing the article but I have it on my watchlist and I tagged what I believe to my not following NPOV. Please try changing its tone and removing any bias if possible. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute at soy milk on whether or not a controversial claim made in a commercial advertisement is encyclopedic material. There is currently a RfC under progress concerning this issue among others. Please help resolve this dispute. Thank you. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice: this interpretation of Neutral Point of View is thriving while the projects encyclopedians are standing idly by. Skomorokh 05:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to have NPOV problems, in particular unsourced statements. It could take a long while to sort out. I suggest making one edit at a time and asking for more pairs of eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am getting bogged down in it now, and user:Relata refero has had enough for the time being. More people desperately needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some homerish editors are refusing to see this article as POV. The article essentially describes him as a god, is chock full of weasel words and unattributed statements. I've made an effort to tag 'citation needed' where necessary, and tried starting a fruitful discussion on the talk page, but editors (one South Korean, and one Russian) keep removing the POV tag, and refuse to engage in serious debate. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some unencylopedic wording in the article. The trivia section should simply be removed. I wouldn't bother warring about the POV tag. Just remove unsourced statements per WP:BLP. There is a Football wikiproject and I'm sure editors there would be pleased to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to place two sentences in the Nietzsche article, in the section entitled "Nietzsche's Reading". The sentences read as follows:

"It is also possible that he read and was significantly influenced by Max Stirner. However, this theory has a long and controversial history and, while such influence cannot be ruled out, it appears impossible to conclusively establish."

One editor on the page suggested that these two sentences gave undue weight to the theory of Stirner influence on Nietzsche and removed them. I provided some 20 citations on the talk page. These citations showed that the theory has a long history, a controversial history, and that it has been debated in both popular and academic settings. At least of six of these references showed clearly that the idea that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner is still current, though it is a view held by a significant minority (including such well known figures as Deleuze).

I do not feel that the inclusion of one sentence mentioning the possibility of influence, and another providing caveats about controversy and the fact that it cannot be established conclusively constitutes undue weight. Can anyone provide me with suggestions or guidance here regarding determining whether or not these two sentences constitute undue weight? --Picatrix (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved observer, I must say that I think you have made your point very clearly and patiently. If Deleuze has discussed this question recently at book length then it is worth mentioning and not undue weight at all. It cannot be a tiny minority viewpoint either. It would be great if you could get further opinions from participants in the Philosophy and Critical theory wikiprojects. An RfC might also be appropriate but because the issues are rather technical start with the wikiprojects. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. Deleuze discussed it at length in a chapter of a book-length treatment of Nietzsche's philosophy, but not throughout the entire book. I feel that it is a minority opinion, but not fringe theory (as was suggested by the editor). I will follow up as per your recommendation. --Picatrix (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. Still worth including, I'd say. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted to the Fringe Theory notice board and the Wikiproject Philosophy notice board. The article does not appear to fall into the Critical Theory Wikiproject; would you still recommend that I post to that board? I don't seem to be getting much response. Thank you again for the help. --Picatrix (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche wouldn't come under that project, but Deleuze probably would and you may find readers there who are used to writing about complex ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi I was wondering if someone could assist us at Talk:Great power#Potential Superpower. The there is currently a disagreement that is akin to a little edit war. Some input would be great, thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair The entire piece is one sided, more or less taken straight out of Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation". No attempt is made to give Harlow's real explanations for his experiments, or the impact his research had on modern knowledge of psychosis and depression.

The article doesn't directly cite Singer, although that doesn't mean it doesn't follow his line of argument. It does draw from an Oxford University Press book by Deborah Blum. This would seem to be reliable. Could you use it to find more detail about Harlow's purpose in the experiments? Harlow's own books and articles should also be valuable sources. Is the article title appropriate? I.e. is this apparatus widely known among psychologists as "the pit of despair"? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems the neutral term os either his book title, "Love in infant monkeys" or. from his papers, " maternal deprivation in rhesus monkey" the lack of neutrality in the article is truly remarkable. To quote one of the external links there "Harry Harlow’s experiments added scientific legitimacy to two powerful arguments: against institutional child care and in favor of psychological parenthood."DGG (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Blum's book takes a strong line. It is still a reliable source (by virtue of being published by OUP) but needs balancing. The Harry Harlow article is dreadful. The value of having an article Pit of despair has not been shown. It probably needs to be merged into the Harry Harlow article and then the resulting article would need a complete rewrite so that both POV are impartially presented. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This controversial church is loathed by many but that is no reason for the article to be a smear piece. More attention should be given to trimming off the POV-pushing especially as this church's income is derived, in part, from suing it's perceived opponents. Let's keep Wikipedia out of that drama please. Banjeboi 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A short paragraph summarising this news article ("Pro-'surge' group is almost all Jewish". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 2007-08-24.) is being deleted on the grounds of undue weight. This source (a news agency) is reliable, and I believe weight should follow the weight given by the source (devoting a news article to the topic), and the source should be fairly summarised. —Ashley Y 00:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ashley. Yes additional opinions are welcome on the article. This is a dispute that has been going on for about 8 months in regards to whether details about Jewish members of this organization should be identified. Comments are requested so that a consensus on the material can be determined. thanks, Dman727 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This needs a complete rewrite. Making claims of Indian "occupation" of Kashmir and such words as "Civilised and educated", "liberated", etc. need to go. Corvus cornix_talk 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a quick rewrite that results in many red links. I'm sure it can be further improved. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a biased article. Just look at the last paragraph and you can see that it seems like it was written by the party itself! There are not even any mentions of its (many) controversies and downsides. The article seems more like party propaganda than a description of the party.

There is lots of work that can be done to improve that article. For a start the history needs to be separated from the current political positions. I wish I could suggest a good model, but Labour Party (UK) is nearly all about history with very little about what the party is currently doing, whereas Democratic Party (USA) is mainly about current internal politics and not much about history. It should be easy to find good sources for criticism, for example in the newspapers or in statements made by political figures in other parties. Although that will mostly be in Swedish that is probably not a problem for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead of this article has hook facts addressing both the past success and the largely unsuccessful history of the baseball team; the negative aspects are being glossed over and made to appear less important historically than more current events. User:Killervogel5 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The above user is trying to keep the intro fair and balanced, and another user is trying to apply recentism and peacock verbiage to the intro. The Phillies' long history of losing, with pockets of success, is a reasonable fact to cover int the intro. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

While there was an edit-war on this, I believe this posting is premature. No discussion had been opened on the talk page at the time this report was filed. I suggest the all parties be given the opportunity to produce meaningful results via the talk page before bringing in outside help. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite true. There was discussion on the WP:Baseball talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a dispute with User:UKPhoenix79 at Great power / Talk:Great power. In the article we have a map of great powers, that presents the United States as superpower. And in a list of great powers that includes other countries, a mention that it is referred to as superpower. I don't dispute the latter, but belief that the current presentation doesn't reflect all significant views, while it should according to WP:NPOV. The two versions are in this diff.

Most of the talk is at Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers and Talk:Great_power#Reference to Superpowers 2.0

I belief instead of this:

•  United States^[1][2] (also referred to as a superpower)^{[3] [4]}

We should have this:

•  United States^[2] (also referred to as a superpower ^[3][5], although it is a matter of debate if it is losing its superpower status ^[6][7], and was most recently described as no longer a superpower by scholars^[8].)

With as optional extra sources for "described as no longer a superpower": 123

We previously had a third opinion on that, that proposed sidestepping the issue of superpowers in the great power article.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to look at this. =Species8473= ^(talk) 12:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the consensus view is that the USA is still a superpower. The alternative views should not be given equal billing. I prefer the first of the options you propose. Could you mention add the dissenting sources to the footnote? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Could I get some extra eyes on this page. It's a well sourced page on a rather odd subject. And apparently there is some real life controversy over it that is spilling over onto the project. A number of times the page has been edited to add a very POV slant to it. Not only are the edits POV, they are unsourced, unlike the rest of the page. This has gotten the page's author to a very frustrated state, where he has requested speedy deletion of the article a couple of times because of the vandalism. I've declined that speedy, and there is enough other editing that IMHO G7 is no longer valid. The article still is well enough sourced that I at least think it deserves to stay. More eyes on it may help to keep the POV out of it, or if the POV pusher can come up with sources, to get their side of things worked in within a NPOV way. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD is the place for this. DGG (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And now it's been G3 deleted as vandalism. I've protested the deletion at the deleting admin's talk page, as whether the article should remain or not, it is not IMHO subject to G3 speedy deletion. The article was the target of vandalism, but was not vandalism itself. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting admin reverted himself. It's back to AFD, and I'm back to having to decide if I !vote delete or keep, as I see point for both sides. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article "Safety of the Large Hadron Collider" focuses primarily on the possibility that operation of the Large Hadron Collider could create micro black holes that might be capable of destroying our planet Earth, and how strong the safety arguments are. A lawsuit is currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii seeking to require reasonable proof of safety before operations begin. CERN is currently in default before the US Federal Court and editors including employees of CERN are acting in concert to remove opposition view points that have been part of the article for months.

The safety opposition seeks only to present references to published peer reviewed papers containing main stream science by Professors and PHDs of Math, Physics and other theoretical sciences that dispute or question CERN's safety arguments.

The following statements and references have been removed and efforts to restore them are being blocked:

A concern of some physicists is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all.^[9][10][11] Professor V.A. Belinski argues that Hawking Radiation does not exit.^[12]

Reference details:

Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", arxiv, (2003) arXiv:gr-qc/0304042 "Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made."

William G. Unruh1,2 and Ralf Sch¨utzhold, "On the Universality of the Hawking Effect", arxiv, (2004) arXiv:gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2 "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give non-trivial information about Planckian physics."

V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole", Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995) , pp. 13-20(8) Elsevier "A conjecture is made that the standard derivation of the black hole evaporation effect which uses infinite frequency wave modes is inadequate to describe black hole physics. The proposed resolution is that the problem is not due to the absence of the as yet unknown “correct” derivation but rather that the effect does not exist."

The other removed statement which has been part of the article for months (in one wording or another) is the following:

Otto E. Rössler, professor of theoretical biochemistry at the University of Tübingen,^[13] calculates that Earth accretion by a micro black hole could take as little as 50 months.^[14][15][16]

Reference detail:

O.E. Rössler, "Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk", (2008) www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OttoRoesslerMiniBlackHole.pdf

O.E. Rössler, "Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher ", (2008) Chaos, conspiracy, black holes in German

O.E. Rössler, "Chaos, conspiracy, black holes", (2008) Translation from German

About the references:

V.A. Belinski's work was published by Elsevier in Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995) , pp. 13-20(8). Dr. Helfer's work is well known and discussed on physics sites such as "Back-Reaction" and others, and William G. Unruh and Ralf Sch¨utzhold work has been referenced in at least one major news article. Also, CERN's 2008 LSAG Safety Study directly addressed Dr. Rossler's theory that micro black holes might be capable of holding magnetic charges and extended this theory to cosmic rays which Dr. Rossler did not.

--Jtankers (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My objections to Otto E. Rössler's material are laid out in full at Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider#Otto E. Rössler. I believe his references are not credible and do not satisfy standard WP:VERI & WP:SOURCE standards. In summary:

• He appears to be a senior faculty person at a reputable German university. His primary field is chemistry, which is close enough that his claims cannot be dismissed out of hand.
• It is not clear that he has any standing in quantum field theory, elementary particle physics, or general relativity, which are the central physics disciplines involved in the debate. All are highly technical and specialized, with really only a few thousand or even a few hundred workers really qualified to pass judgment on their content.
• Rössler has made claims, repeatedly inserted in the article, to the effect that black holes (BHs) created at CERN are likely to result in the destruction of the Earth in as little as 50 months. These are said to be the result of his calculations, but no calculations are presented for examination, only hand-waving. None of the references given are to bonafide publications in refereed publications. Thus there is nothing that can even be criticized.
• All the references by Rössler that I have seen presented to us are to be ca 2008, and appear on web sites that seek to halt the operation of the LHC, one of which is overseen by Jtankers. Rössler states that his papers have been submitted to Science, Nature, and a German Zeitschrift, but are not yet accepted.

By contrast, CERN's most recent safety review^[17], nearly a hundred pages long, presents explicit and detailed calculations showing that BHs, if they are produced at all, and if they are stable, will still not affect the Earth for millions or billions of years; and/or would have resulted in the destruction of commonly observed objects (Earth, stars, and especially neutron stars) in cosmically short times due to the effects of cosmic rays with energies many orders of magnitude higher than the maximum LHC energy.

Several of the references Jtankers cites, notably those by Adam Helfer, Belinski, and Unruh, are in my opinion acceptable, but they address only the question of the reality of Hawking radiation (which Rössler lately announces that "he alone" knows how to disprove! -- see the discussion on the talk page). But BH evaporation is only a small part of the safety debate, sufficient but not necessary to the argument. To date the only sources that address the entire safety issue in a comprehensive way are those from CERN.

Re. Jtankers's plaint that Rössler's references have been there for long: indeed they have. We have been going around in circles about all this for many weeks in the LHC discussion page, largely about the maintaining reasonable balance within that article. Now that we at last have a separate article focused on the safety issue, I believe we can and must be much more careful than heretofore about the details of the WP:OR, WP:VERI, WP:SYN, etc. issues. There is much to criticize on both sides of the argument in those respects, and I have tried to point some of those out, on both sides, for discussion, and to give notice and warning that these core Wiki issues cannot be deferred indefinitely. I think there are likely to be many further disputes of this kind now that we are unstuck from the balance issue. I hope that a fair and useful article will result. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"None of the references given are to bonafide publications in refereed publications", by that standard, all of CERN's scientific work would be questionable, as none of it has been given to bonafide refereed publications, they are all self published and self validated by scientists selected by CERN. Double standard. --Jtankers (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Now that we at last have a separate article focused on the safety issue, I believe we can and must be much more careful" The coalition fighting for more safety review has opposed removing the safety content from the main Large Hadron Collider article because we believed it was an attempt to hide the safety concerns. The argument for moving the safety content to a new article was so that the safety issues could be covered in more detail. But the safety argument is now covered in less detail and is less balanced. --Jtankers (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"the only sources that address the entire safety issue in a comprehensive way are those from CERN" CERN has exactly zero arguments accepted by bonafide refereed publications. Who are you to censor what arguments are worthy, this violates WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV and tends to indicate possible NP:COIN. --Jtankers (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"appear on web sites that seek to halt the operation of the LHC" LHCFacts.org contains references to all articles on both sides, unlike the wikipedia safety article as of the last two days. And the webe site does not seek to halt operation of the LHC, it seeks to delay operation until after safety can be reasonably proven and reasonably verified by scientists not directly selected by CERN. This process is currently in progress, and papers are forethcoming detailing flaws in CERN's safety argument (my understanding is that it is based on unverified properties identified by CERN's own Scientific Safety Committee and extremely strong magnetic fields around white dwarfs and neutron stars that were not properly accounted for in the safety report). But I suspect that including such a report will require neutral 3rd party dispute resolution when it is available. --Jtankers (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See this for a centralized location. Editor is Forum shopping here. ThuranX (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was (quickly) archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive446. A consensus was for inclusion of concerns raised in the media, as detailed by llywrch (talk)

"Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the LHC is a potential danger. It doesn't matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN's rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group's actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)"

However, efforts have been renewed to censor descent. My last argument at Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider is below:

What part is undue weight? This just feels like censorship of concerns from the general public and from credible PHD level scientists. The conflict of interest could not be more clear. I have nothing to gain that I do not share with the defendants (safety of Earth), CERN has potential Nobel prizes, future employment, fame and fortune, potentially at the cost of Earth 50 months to 50 years from now. The debate could not be more relevant now and could not affect more people. To bury the concerns another link level deeper would certainly be better than completely censoring the concerns, and I can accept the solution. But I think the undue weight is given to the concerns of CERN and they will not be satisfied until the article appears to suggest that there is no conceivable danger, when in fact safety arguments are no more substantial than unverified original research. CERN's safety analysis is original research that has not been accepted by peer reviewed journal for publication, only approved by a 4/5 majority internal assessment which called some major argument unverified and peer review of the self published work is still in progress. A CERN employee editor has even had links to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the primary safety argument, the probability that Hawking Radiation exists removed against editor consensus. How can that be justified? According to Professor Dr. Otto Rössler the results of CERN's actions could result in the greatest crime against humanity imaginable. Dr. Rossler is arguably among the world's most eminent living contributors to theoretical sciences, a former university visiting professor of theoretical physics (a fact suspiciously removed from Dr. Rossler's Wikipedia bio June 2, 2008 without prior discussion) and founded a new field of theoretical physics in collaboration with MIT Physics Professor David_Finkelstein who is historically significant for his contribution to black hole theory. The public and other scientists have the right to know that scientific consensus is credibly challenged by multiple credible PHD level theoretical scientists. More importantly, we deserve credible concerns to be addressed before collisions begin. Wikipedia should not be a public relation tool to influence public opinion and limit information to other physicists by censoring descent. This is a very significant issue. --Jtankers (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Bookworm857158367 and User:Nunh-huh are repeatedly adding unsourced claims on the Russian Royal Family articles that they were "murdered". --81.79.158.57 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand NPOV. If sources widely describe their killings as murders, we can say they were murdered. There is no need for a conviction in a court of law. Seeing as such a thing is often hampered by silly things like politics, and uh, revolutions, it would be something of an utterly rediculous requirement. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-communists are not the arbiters of truth. It is a blatant propaganda statement and unbecoming of a neutral encyclopedia. The Russian Royal Family brought untold misery to the Russian people and to Jews in particular. It was not surprising therefore that the chief executioner Yakov Yurovsky was Jewish himself. His article establishes that he acted as an officer of his government and was not a murderer. --62.136.16.134 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You also don't understand it, or you're the same person and still don't understand it. NPOV is about accurately representing the opinions of reliable sources. Personal opinions based on personal biases against various groups are inherently POV. And one's own analysis of an event is equally unacceptable. Arguments based on either hold no weight at Wikipedia. The only valid viewpoints to portray are those that are promulgated by reliable sources. If you dispute the characterization of a person's death, back up your preferred characterization with sources before a change is even possible. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your obfuscations. Execution is the neutral term to describe it, as it can be applied to both lawful and unlawful killing. The Soviet government regarded it as a lawful execution. --90.241.58.137 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And who says the Soviet POV is the neutral POV? And there is nothing obscure about this. Sourcing trumps personal opinions, and you're not going to get anywhere if you don't understand that. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"And who says the Soviet POV is the neutral POV?" I didn't, the Soviet government is clearly not a neutral source on this issue. However, no sensible observer would regard a bunch of reactionary monarchist writers whining "murder" as neutral either. As I said, "execution" describes both lawful and unlawful killing - that is surely a compromise here. --90.241.58.137 (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "murder" implies that a crime was committed. Since the action was performed at the behest of the government in power at the time, and the people who did it were never accused in a court of law, the situation is somewhat ambiguous, and it's better to use a neutral term. You can say, "many people saw this as murder", if you can provide references to support that claim.Looie496 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Werth a well known historian writes: “The question of whether the 1932-33 famine constitutes a genocide is a matter of disagreement among historians studying the calamity, whether Russians, Ukrainians, or their Western counterparts. There are basically two schools of thought.

1. Some historians see the famine as an artificially organized phenomenon, planned since 1930 by the Stalinist regime to break the particularly strong resistance of Ukrainian peasants to the kolkhoz system. In addition, this plan sought to destroy the Ukrainian nation, at its “national-peasant” core, which constituted a serious obstacle to the transformation of the USSR into a new imperial state dominated by Russia. According to this view, the famine was a genocide.
2. At the other end of the analytical spectrum are scholars who recognize the criminal nature of the Stalinist policies, but believe that it is necessary to assess all of the famines that took place between 1931-33 (in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, western Siberia and Volga regions) as part of a complex phenomenon shaped by numerous factors, from the geopolitical context to the demands of an accelerated industrialization and modernization drive, in addition to Stalin’s “imperial objectives. From this perspective, the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine and the Kuban was not a genocide.” ^[18]

Many Wikipedia editors for the Holodomor and related articles endorse the second POV however constantly delete or block well referenced material that supports the first POV. Neutrality tags are summarily removed often with uncivil comments. This editing clearly violates the NPOV policy for Wikipedia.

Tags to initiate a NPOV discussion are immediately deleted. Bobanni (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Article is being accused of 'Corporate Vanity', although the article is trying to reflect that there are two unofficial flags available to the general populace of Dorset, England. An editor keeps removing one of the flags(Dorset Cross), citing POV, SOAP and Corporate Vanity - but the Dorset Cross should be included as it began the whole thing and is a real tangible flag, sold to people in Dorset AS a flag of Dorset, the same as the other flag. White43 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Are the three following statements too POV and OR?

"During this period the Broncos had only two losing seasons, were AFC champions five times and Super Bowl champions for two consecutive years".

"They did not make the playoffs and had only two winning seasons".

"They also experienced their two worst seasons ever, winning only two of fourteen games in both 1963 and 1964". Buc (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Easily verifiable and quite appropriate.Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Pritzker was the subject of a long article today in the Wall Street Journal about her association with a major bank failure in 2001. Surprisingly, her article had nothing about it, so I added a new section.

Pritzker's the chief fundraiser for the Obama campaign; as I looked over her article's history, I noticed a recurring problem with "peacock terms". I'm going out of Internet range for a week -- can someone keep an eye on this? The story of Pritzker's involvement in the bank is complex and nuanced; I'd hate to see that get lost by either POV-editing from either direction. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A related article, Superior Bank of Chicago, could also bear watching. Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Autistic Society article appears biased. The General Public Help section appears to be written like an advertisement too. There isn't any coverage on opinions of the press as well, or third opinions if applicable. Telephone numbers and email address are not supposed to be put into an article too. I think it may need complete revision as it has multiple issues which I have explained here. --Marianian (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit, although it could use more. A subject matter expert (but not a marketing executive) is needed there as well. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit more. I wasn't sure if the organisation runs the schools directly. If so, that should be spelt out. Probably on the website if someone has time to check. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A dispute among three of us over whether a certain criticism is described in proportion to its importance or whether it is given undue weight. Edit-warred and discussed on the talk page with little movement. Suggestions welcome. --EmbraceParadox (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war started at Druze and spreading now to Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah‎. User:GreenEcho is warring with me and refuses to "come to the table", so to speak, and has been rather cold and hostile from the start (as an IP addy). He admits to having followed my edits on other pages and starting trouble. I don't know how to get him talking rather than just reverting (his last 3RR missed the window by three minutes). I've asked for compromise: ignored.

Another user, User:Hiram111 has been involved in a spreading edit war with him as well; I am not entangled with that issue although it also started at Druze. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried to figure out the ramifications of the edit war, but just looking at the page for the first time, it appears to be written in an unnecessarily provocative way. It looks like the rather common story of people trying to balance against a viewpoint they consider fringe but going overboard. I am referring to a sentence in the lead that reads, He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation. This is not neutrally worded, and no source is given. Things like this look bad to neutral readers (such as me), and are bound to make "believers" furious.Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were made by User:GreenEcho... older versions of the page stated that, as is factual, no-one knows what happened to Hakim. He disappeared. Suspicion fell on a female relative but the Druze say he went into Occultation. GreenEcho changed it to "He was killed by his servants"... you can check the logs and see. I am not a Druze, but I think we need to respect their beliefs, and I will go and provide a cite now for the occultation view. This basic attitude is the problem I have with the wording about Hakim's alleged role as God, which is shirk "idolatry" and particularly detestable to the Druze. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to respect the beliefs of a religious group, if they contradict the consensus of reputable sources (as often happens), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. We do need to stick to verifiable statements that are neutrally worded. What is needed is not so much a source for the "occulatation" view, as a source for the basic "disappeared, cause unclear" fact. Anyway, you won't be able to edit the Druze page until the protection is removed, but it helps to have a reasonable plan.Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that iTunes article is written like and advertisement or brochure and is not neutral. Any edits making it more neutral (like adding criticisms section) are reverted by apple fans. This problem persists for a long time already and is described on the Talk:ITunes by me and other editors. If you take a look on the edit history you will see that criticisms section as well as warning boxes were added and removed many times.
Criticisms section is currently in place, but any additions are promtly deleted. I've offered these additions at bottom of the Talk:ITunes page. Please read Talk:ITunes#Advertisement and Talk:ITunes#Criticisms.3F first. --Varnav (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And as you've been told multiple times, you can't add your personal gripes to the article. If you could source someone who is actually making criticisms no-one would be objecting. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about myself. There is a long history of edits reversal, many people are unhappy with not neutral point of view in the article, and many complain that any edits to make this article more neutral are promptly reversed. See Talk:ITunes#Advertisement and other topics on discussion page. --Varnav (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked but I think you'll find that most of the edits were removed because they weren't following Wikipedia policy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Varnav. AlistairMcMillan is not neutral in this respect. --BBird (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy was the Grateful Dead music archivist (deceased 1999). He held this job for 15 years. He archived and released approx 20 albums of music, and posted 100s of pages of notes and internet posts.

Latvala wrote all sorts of crazy stuff online including one post that was construed by some, as being anti-Semitic. At the same time, the post condemned all racism.

This one "anti Semitic" post is repeated in its entirety in the wiki biography. I just think it is way out of proportion. He had no notable anti-Semitic leanings. This was one internet post, and quite ambiguous. As I said, his public record includes dozens of writings all on the topic of music (his notability).

I think one user on Wikipedia is grinding an axe by maintaining this anti-Semite rant thing as hugely notable. I have deleted it 3x but the user keeps putting it back, and I get the feeling he is masturbating about the power he gets from doing this to somebody's grave. Please help.--Jangles1 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the offending content since there is no demonstration that reliable sources have mentioned this. Even if it can be demonstrated that he made the posts, information has to be demonstrably significant or notable to make it onto Wikipedia; that fact that it's verifiable is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
User:Miyokan Is constantly reverting any criticism from that article. [1] After time he asked another user to help with that [2]. And now they are trying to push theirs view through constant reverting. Discussion with them seem to be stuck. Please see talk page for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.13.68 (talk • contribs)

It seems like everybody involved is trying to push their views through constant reverting. Mikoyan's views seem as reasonable as yours, and the things he is reverting are poorly written, if nothing else. Also, people who have properly registered tend to get more sympathy than people who work from anonymous IP, all else being equal.Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to look into it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a serious problem here. Even a slightest attempt to bring this article in line with WP:NPOV requirements brings personal offenses and immediate reverts from a group of users. I tried to edit this article a couple of times but gave up.Biophys (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, I just have removed a ridiculous nationalistic claim in this article - and see what had happened.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationalistic claim? That's a fact, Stalin was indeed Georgian. Britannica says he's of "Georgian -not Russian- origins". This anonymous IP has been refuted a number of times yet continues to repeat the same old arguments while revert warring. Not a recipe for success. The user Biophies has been known for wiki-stalking and harassing anyone who contributes anything positive, or even just not anti-Russian, to Russia related articles (in fact Miyokan was one of his victims), so it's kind of ironic that he's posting on a board called "neutral point of view".. Krawndawg (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's "ethnicity" is completely irrelevant in this context, as obvious from the diff. This might be only relevant if someone is trying to "prove" that it were "Georgians" and other minorities who accomplished genocide of Russians. But such nationalistic nonsense do not belong to wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The (currently) fifth section of this article, "Support for ATFP", seems to me to be at best excessive and at worst blatant advertising. Any topic related to Israel/Palestine has the potential to blow up (har har) into a big mess, so I'm not editing it myself. Also I am not sure of Wikipedia's stance on this kind of section; obviously "Criticism" is an important section for many articles, and is appropriate, so maybe a reasonable "Support" section is also appropriate? I leave that to more experienced editors.

That being said, eleven substantial quotes praising the group about which the article was written is hardly neutral. Furthermore, it seems to me that none of these quotes are at all informative in the way that Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. This is the kind of stuff you get from the organization's own web site, not from an encyclopedia. Even if a "Support" section is appropriate to balance a "Criticism" section, this one needs significant pruning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.14.70 (talk • contribs)

Go for it. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've written this article to improve the quality, provide a balanced view from both the sceptics and promoters view and provide multiple references from acceptable sources. As a professional and author working in this area I believe that this new article now warrants the removal of the neutrality and clean up flags put in place by the Wikipedia editors. Can you please advise? Andy Tomlinson (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your changes were mostly improvements, but it still reads largely like a puff piece. I've just done an edit to turn it into my conception of a properly written Wikipedia article. Note that it is considered improper to use a Wikipedia article to promote your own book, as the lead was doing. (btw the word is "skeptic", not "sceptic") Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic is the American spelling, the British spelling is sceptic. [3] Jayen466 11:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can the neutrality and clean up flags be removed now. 82.26.16.3 (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the flags. No guarantee that somebody else won't put them back, or that my changes won't be undone to a degree that forces me to put them back myself. I wasn't aware of the spelling difference; thanks for explaining. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is strongly biased throughout. The Shugden practitioners position is supported over and over again while HHDL's position is hardly presented in any detail.

The article, even the lead, is pretty much incomprehensible to anybody who isn't an expert in Tibetan Buddhism. If you care about this issue, consider adding some basic explanatory material to the article. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me revise that. Dorje Shugden is the incomprehensible article. Dorje Shugden controversy is much better explained. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a pass through Dorje Shugden controversy, and it looks like one massive violation of WP:Soap. However, the material in the Executive Summary section seems useful and reasonably neutral. It might make sense to extract that material into Dorje Shugden (which, as I said, is incomprehensible as currently written), and then remove Dorje Shugden controversy. Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I first encountered this new-to-me content on the Harvey Milk bio which I'm pretty familiar. I have been reading about Milk for years. An editor kept adding in a "Milk's Support for People's Temple" even though there seemed to be little support for this content in reliable sources. I did my own research of what any RS's had to state and inserted several neutral sentences but this alone did not appease their desire to see an entire section devoted to the subject. After an RfC, ANI report and full page protection, Wikidemo came to the rescue and started an article to house much of the content that was seen as undue in this and other articles. They have just now reintroduced this twice again[4] and [5].

I'm not greatly familiar with all the other players and politicians in the Jim Jones/People's Temple universe so I only commented on what I see as POV and, IMHO, questionably sourced items in the Political Alliances of the People's Temple#Harvey Milk section. I detailed these out on the talk page in hopes that the main editors there would look into the concerns and hopefully address them. Now I'm being told that I am acting in bad faith and my asking for reliable sourcing is disingenuous in some fashion. It took me 2.5 months to get the "bonus" undue content off the Milk article but now I feel by having an article just on this subject the editors are emboldened to present information without regards to neutrality. I may be over-reacting to this however there seems to be some agenda of painting Milk as a major pro-Jones/People's Temple supporter when my looking into sources shows almost the opposite. Milk stated at the beginning he thought they were weird and dangerous. As a politician he basically did what all the politicians were doing. This letter is the lone piece of evidence that is being used to support Milk as being aligned with Jones in some fashion. In it, if we are to accept it at face value, Milk also details that Jones/People's Temple got widespread support including from the California Senate. This is also the kind of letter that politicians routinely write for a variety of reasons. I'm concerned that editors are cherry-picking information to somehow add scandal where little to none exists. Just in the past hour they have re-added a section devoted to this subject back into the Milk article without consensus. I'd appreciate someone else looking at this as I don't thing anything I say will be received well at this point. Banjeboi 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This was also raised, in slightly different form, on WP:AN, and I replied there as a neutral third party. The discussion should probably be centralized either there, or perhaps more desirably, on the article's Talk page. --MCB (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The editor who keeps inserting POV content seems incapable of adhering to policy and writing this material neutrally. For instance, Milk wrote a letter of support is neutral - "supported the controversial Peoples Temple during investigations of criminal wrongdoings" is not. It misinterprets this letter which this entire content fork relies upon. 71.139.44.169 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For the last six months, proponents of alternative medicine have been wanting to see particular mention of homeopathic uses of atropa belladonna included in the article about the plant. The problem is that there are no reliable sources which say that homeopathy is a prominent use of this particular plant. There are sources which indicate that all homeopathic remedies do not contain any molecules or atoms from the plants/compounds from which they are supposedly created. There are sources which mention that homeopathic remedies that homeopaths claim are "based" on this particular plant exist. Some fringe journals have done tests on those remedies to see if they have any efficacy, but like all tests of homeopathic remedies have come up short. There is one sentence in a book on "Health Foods" which mentions, off-handedly that there are some homoepathic uses for the plant, but don't explain whether that is relevant to the plant itself, nor does the book itself seem to care enough to even define homeopathy. So we have editors basically POV-pushing to get mention of the homeopathic "use" of this particular plant on the page devoted to this plant. How do we resist their incursion and attempts to give homeopathy undue weight in an article that should be mostly about botany? I've looked at dozens of sources and can say that if we count the number of words written about this plant and compare to the number of words that are about homeopathy and this plant, the ratio would be something like less than one word for the article to be appropriately weighted. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are the sources currently being used in the article:

• The Oxford Book of Health Food, Oxford University Press
• Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C, The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
• Belladonna (Atropa belladonna L. or its variety acuminata...), Medline Plus

Each of these sources mention the homeopathic usage not off-handedly, but rather critically, from a scientific mainstream perspective. They describe the usage and tend to refute the efficacy. Some of these source mention various dilutions (200c, 60c, 30c, etc.) and while these are "ultramolecular", none of them say that the remedy do not contain any molecules or atoms from the plants nor that the remedies weren't derived by using the plant as an ingredient.

Other sources we may want to consider using include:

• Plants and fungi used in homeopathy, The Natural History Museum
• some of these 800+ references, PubMed - such as:

• Efficacy of homeopathic treatment of skin reactions during radiotherapy for breast cancer
• Rat models of acute inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of homeopathic remedies
• Clinical management of idiopathic epilepsy in dogs with homeopathic Belladonna 200C

From my perspective, no one currently at the article is actively trying to use it to promote homeopathic usage. The mention is rather critical and pretty much aligned with what the mainstream sources are saying. No one is trying to push any POV less critical than what mainstream science sources are saying. ScienceApologist, on the other hand, is pushing to include unsourced passages which are even more critical than what mainstream science sources are saying, or he is pushing for outright deletion of any mention of the homeopathic usage.

Previous noticeboard discussion include one here and one over at RSN. ScienceApologist has also recently brought this to FTN twice: here and here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that this is the kind of civil POV-pushing that confuses the issue. The sources that are mentioned by Levine2112 are either not about the plant itself (the one primary sources is an attempt to disprove homeopathy: they just happened to choose a remedy that has the name of the plant attached to it), are search engines that allow links to homeopathy resources, or are databases that include every homeopathic remedy known to man and do not make any distinction. If we used these as our standards of inclusion, virtually every plant, chemical, and animal page on Wikipedia would have a section devoted to the homeopathic remedy associated with it (for a partial list see List of homeopathic remedies). What I have gunned for all along is an indication that this fringe association is somehow prominent. No one has been able to provide me with anything. The CLOSEST people have come is to the Oxford Book of Health Foods which mentions homeopathy in the most cursory and off-handed of fashions: not even bothering to properly define it. I submit that undue weight is not satisfied by these sources. No one has countered my argument directly except to balk. No one has provided any sources that indicate that atropa belladonna as a plant is known for its inclusion in homeopathic remedies. Nor has anyone argued why an obscure group of homeopaths who are very good at producing loads of crap for various credulity-levels of sourcing should be allowed to dominate our sourcing for a plant that they have no expertise in whatsoever. Do you see any botanists saying that atropa belladonna is famous for its use in homeopathy? Do you see any mention of homeopathy on other equally interesting plants and animals like poison ivy, hemlock, or cobras? Please, I see no reason to entertain this nonsense any longer. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

SA, please consider refactoring your "Civil POV Pushing" accusation. WP:POVPUSH: "...calling someone a "POV-pusher" is always uncivil...". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I'd be more concerned that the article contains a comment on Recreational drug use. I agree the discussion on homeopathy is too long, but most of it is the rebuking discussion. I would handle it more like the Oxford source did. Just mention it once in passing in the same sentence with the disclaimer that "there is no experimental evidence of it's effectiveness and to be clear; all parts of deady nightshade are poisonous and should not be ingested." -- Dēmatt (chat) 13:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the spirit of this suggestion but would go even further to simply state something to the effect that it is used in some homeopathic preparations, full stop. Putting in the disclaimer is somewhat COATRACKY, as would be giving the details of the preparations. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to this suggestion either. You're right about the COATRACKY. I do think we need to make sure that readers don't try something ontheir own. Perhaps maybe we mention homeopathy once in a string of common over the counter uses, but make sure to mention that all parts of the plant are deadly, just to be sure someone doesn't try something stupid. I commented on the talk page as well. -- Dēmatt (chat) 14:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually used in the preparations. The preparations do not contain any part of the plant. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no belladonna in the homeopathic remedy? Or are you saying that no belladonna was used in the preparation of the remedy? Or both? Can you point us to any sources which back up whichever position you currently have? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for sources as neither of those options is what I meant (even if the first option is usually true anyway). Used meaning "utilized in the process of preparing said homeopathic remedy". Not "present in said homeopathic remedy product". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(FYI: I have an anti-homeopathy POV. Go to the talk page of the Homeopathy article and look at my old postings.) My impression is that ScienceApologist is one of the most disruptive editors on the entire Wikipedia. Not because he is a raving lunatic. No, he is higly intelligent and knows every policy and guideline like the back of his own pocket. His disruptions comes from his unwillingness to accept and reach for a consensus, a systematic gaming of the system, deliberate misunderstandings when it suits him, an intellectual dishonesty, his use of sock puppets, his false accusations of others being sock puppets (including me), his constant testing of how far he can go in almost transgressing WP rules before being blocked, his disrespect for the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him by an earlier Arbcom. In My Opinion, the rest of the WP community shold just dismiss ScienceApologist and ignore him. MaxPont (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The section Concerns and controversies has questionable NPOV (reads like Chinese propaganda). Since the page is semi-protected, I can't flag it. I've highlighted my concerns on the Talk page.

CompSciChris (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC) CompSciChris

I happen to think the following line in Oliver Sacks is something that is being given undue weight, at least with regard to the Oliver Sacks article:

According to a Letter to the Editor published by the Journal of autism and developmental disorders, the exact details in the book should not be taken literally and there are alternate, skeptical views.

I don't have a problem with the criticism/source being included in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, to which it is specific. Does anyone agree or disagree?--Father Goose (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, perhaps your POV about Sacks affects your view? [6] It appears that you seek to remove the one attributed sourced critical opinion of Sacks' writing from the article about him, which barely touches the broader issue of medical accuracy in his writing. One well-attributed sentence is hardly WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To put literary criticism in a broader context, I've now expanded it to two sentences and four sources. For a well known author, that's not a lot of critical review; more can be included if desired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a neuroscientist myself, and I largely agree with Father Goose: the article as written has a weight issue, in that it fails to convey adequately the fact that the view of Sacks from the scientific community is overwhelmingly positive, and that the criticism comes from a pretty small minority. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone might want to dig in to Jstor fee required articles to expand positive views of his work (where they will also find more negative). I also suggest sorting out input from the scientific and medical community from the reception from literary reviews and critics: distinctly different issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the article on Individualism is not NPOV, and in particular that a phrase ("man is a social animal"), which runs counter to the main tenor of the article has been removed twice. Statements justifying the reference to "social animal" have not been responded to.

I seek the opinion of more experienced editors than myself. Doc Richard (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Individualism has six edits to it over the entirety of the last month, some of which are minor/insignificant. The talk page usage has been similarly sparse, and no discussion about this point has taken place over the past month. I strongly recommend that you raise your concerns on the talk page and trying fixing some of the problems yourself. Vassyana (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a NPOV dispute regarding the articles Taiwanese American and Template:Chinese American. Would greatly appreciate if people not associated with the dispute come and mediate. Roadrunner (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I already tried, and advise others to avoid it. This is basically a dispute between people who think that using the category Chinese American makes some kind of assertion about whether Taiwan and the mainland should be reunited. Or something like that. Strong contender for wp:lame. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of IPs are using this article to argue about their lawsuits. I made one attempt to remove the cruft, which was immediately reverted by one of them. Looie496 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the article I get a strong feeling that it is more of an advertisement listing the benefits of Organic Farming than an actual overview of the concept/topic. Could someone please read over it and give a second opinion?

Note the "Economics" section and the "Organic Farming and associated biodiversity" section.

I dunno, maybe living in Berkeley I'm exposed to a warped environment, but the article looks pretty neutral and factual to me. It does focus on the purported benefits, but not in a very pov-pushing way. The claims about biodiversity have pretty solid empirical support, I believe -- it's the non-use of pesticides that makes the difference. On the whole I would say that there is room to add material on problems and costs, but "written like an advertisement" is an overstatement. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is just from the point of view of Bosniak victims. It is a matter of fact that in the Bosniak and Croat war there were cca. 100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley but yet it is nowhere mentioned. It just utilizes a limited point of view to further its own agenda. Therefore, it cannot be a neutral point of view.

• Comment

I read the article. The whole article is based purely on WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are hundred of sources, references from ICTY verdicts, HRW reports, BBC etc. So it is not "point of view of Bosniak victims". This is one of the best war related articles I have ever read on Wikipedia. According to the sources, there is nothing about "100,000 Croats ethnically cleansed in the Lasva Valley" suggested by anon. However the ICTY concluded: Based on the evidence of numerous Croat forces (HVO) attacks at that time, the ICTY Trial Chamber concluded that by April 1993 Croat leadership had a common design or plan conceived and executed to ethnically cleanse Bosniaks from the Lašva Valley. Dario Kordić, as the local political leader, was found to be the planner and instigator of this plan. ICTY-Kordic verdict. Historičar (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ResearchEditor has been banned from editing SRA. WLU (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• ((cite journal)): Empty citation (help)

It has been asserted that the use of only three skeptical authors being given 48 out of 127 citations (almost 38%) on the page (Frankfurter 11, Victor 24, LaFontaine 13 - as of three days ago) is a violation of the NPOV policy, where it is stated "none of the views should be given undue weight" and at WP:UNDUE it is stated "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The complaint is that these three authors are not nearly that prominent. Another complaint is that there is too much weight given to what one editor calls "an extremely skeptical" position and that reliable sources that are neutral or pro-SRA on the topic are being deleted from the article. The other side states that the skeptical view is the majority view and other views are minority ones. Information on the debate is here. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I have collapsed the discussion below that meandered here from the talk page by editors involved in discussion there. Suffice it to say that several editors in this collapsed discussion express some strong disagreement in how RE has described the situation just above. Anyone who comments here is advised to read this collapsed discussion and to visit the talk page. Outside input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The section below clearly shows that a large portion of the page should be written about the pro side of the debate. The sources below should not simply be ignored or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchEditor (talk • contribs)

The section below is mostly of irrelevant and popular interest; those scholarly publications that exist that are used to support the idea that SRA is an ongoing concern do not "clearly" demonstrate anything; they are problematic, if not outright irrelevant. WLU (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the section below is very relevant. These scholarly publications are the bulk of the research of those working with actual victims of SRA. These were written when the debate was most notable. The few sources that were written in the last 8 years were written by a few extremely biased sources that had no experience with the acutal victims or cases. They are at best a historical footnote and should be treated as such on the SRA page. ResearchEditor (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

sourcelist header 1

Sources header 1

The most important thing I would like to see is a comment from an uninvolved experienced editor on whether SRA is now considered a fringe topic of only historical interest. The most important information in this regard for me is the three sources which currently state the topic is dead (four if you include de Young, 2004, which I have yet to read cover to cover but have on hand). This can be settled by sources I believe, and there are multiple sources asserting the issue is dead and interest has faded. To date, four have been presented for "fringe, dead", none for "the mainstream is still interested". The sources are explicit:

In the social work profession, a debate commenced which has crystallised into two poles: 'believer' in the existence of satanic abuse of children and 'skeptic'. Presently this part of hte discussion is at an impasse and coverage has subsided. (from Gary Clapton (1993). Satanic Abuse Controversy: Social Workers and the Social Work Press (Essential Issues in the 1990s S). University of North London P, 1. ISBN 1-85377-154-6.)

When this book was originally published, there was a great deal of interest in and concern about ritual abuse, most child welfare professionals believed in its existence, and the federal government funded research into its characteristics and effects (Bybee & Mowbray, 1993; Goodman, Bottoms, Qin & Shaver, 1994; Valliere, Bybee & Mowbray, 1988; Waterman, Kelly, Oliverie & McCord, 1993). But responses to allegations of ritual abuse have undergone a transformation in the last 10 years, so that any case involving ritual elements elicits great skepticism. In fact, it is no longer au courant to believe in the existence of ritual abuse (Chaffin & Stern, 2001; Myers, 1998) (The most damning for me; from Faller, KC (2003). Understanding and assessing child sexual maltreatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 29-33. ISBN 0-7619-1996-1.)

Satanism and Ritual Abuse-The Panic Collapses, 1992-1995. While the Satanic Panic can be taken as beginning with the publicity over the McMartin charges, no single comparable event marks its end. A convenient turning point is marked by the child abuse case that got underway in 1994 in the town of Wenatchee, Washington, a case that initially threatened to become a witch-hunt as grotesque as any of the previous decade. Yet it did not, since on this occasion media expectations were utterly different. (from Jenkins, Philip (2004). in James R. Lewis: The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, 221-242. ISBN 0195149866.)

I believe the above sources clearly and unambiguously indicate that the SRA phenomenon is dead and of historical interest only, and the mainstream position is skeptical. Accordingly, it is undue weight, and POV-pushing, to continue to insist that there is any real interest in the matter. It is undue weight and POV-pushing to insert qualifications of skepticism into the lead and throughout the body. The sources provided to assert that the controversy is ongoing are self-published books and low-quality news articles, or journal articles where interest in SRA is peripheral (or discusses ritual abuse, something quite different). Accordingly, skepticism should be portrayed as the norm and the credulous position as the minority. WLU (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, "dead and of historical interest only" overstates the case. There are definitely people who still believe that SRA is genuine. The episode of the 1980s was a flareup of a belief pattern that has existed for hundreds of years and probably will continue to exist, especially among fundamentalist religious groups. Moreover, there is probably some level of belief among the general public: I bet if you polled people on the statement, "There have been documented cases of groups of Satanic cultists who carried out perverse and sacrilegous rituals involving childen", you would get TRUE from at least 10%, and maybe a good bit more. Looie496 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496 makes an interesting point here. I've entered a sort-of related comment on the article talk page at Talk:Satanic ritual abuse#Followup_to_straw_poll. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another point it that most of the pro "panic" anti-existence of SRA sources are not from people with any clinical experience nor have they worked with victims of SRA. Most of the pro sources are clearly from people with clinical experience that have worked directly with victims of SRA. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, the source dump is confusing the issue. The best "pro"-SRA source is nothing of the sort. It support the existence of "ritual abuse" more than the consensus would have, but it provides no evidence or support for the existence of "satanic ritual abuse", or of experts who believe that there is such a thing. The popular believe that such exists is not entirely relevant, although, if sourced, it would make a nice contrast to the apparent fact that no experts believe it.

Nonetheless, a neutral analysis of the best sources as seen from each side would be helpful. It would be too much to expect for anyone to wade in and read the tens of thousands of pages in the sources mentioned here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One could also look at the pro-panic side of the argument and say the same thing. It is only theory from primarily sociologists, not those working with victims or cases. It would be good to have a neutral analysis. ResearchEditor (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What is needed in the article is the clear message: "SRA has been discredited in the mainstream, though interest still lingers from a minority." In fact, there has been no recent research on satanic ritual abuse. I don't have all the sources but I can ask user:WLU to demonstrate the above sentence if you wish. —Cesar Tort 09:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

{undent}Three sources above all explicitly say the interest has waned. Most of the new publications are self-published books, extremely low-impact journals, or newsletters that look like, but are not, peer-reviewed journals. I'm sick of typing the same things out, so I'll be providing diffs - some of the sources that are posted as "SRA is a real thing and a going concern" are in fact not saying this. The Phenomenon of Torture does not support this position in any way I can understand (I don't see how anyone could read the three pages in question and conclude that this is proof that people still take SRA seriously). Noblitt & Perskin's Cult and Ritual Abuse has been criticized for ignoring the critical literature as well as being incoherent, and they couldn't get their next book published by a real publisher(Noblitt & Perskin's Ritual abuse in the 21st century is a vanity-press self-publication [12]; [13]). Pepinsky's Sharing and responding to memories is not about SRA, it's about designing a course during which he invites people who allege SRA and how to deal with them during the course. Far from clearly demonstrating SRA is an ongoing concern, the sources presented as evidence are extremely problematic. I have made these comments several times now, yet ResearchEditor keeps presenting the same sources, without qualification, as if it were conclusive. Meanwhile, the three explicit sources above as well as De Young's 2004 book, The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic (published in 2004 by academic publisher McFarland & Company as well as Frankfurter's Evil Incarnate, published in 2006 by Princeton University Press) that treats the whole thing as a rumour panic. As one would expect from a fringe theory, the pro-fringe publications are either in extremely obscure journals or not ones Wikipedia would consider reliable or only tangentially refer to SRA without addressing it substantively. By contrast, the pro-rumour panic side are fewer but published in academic press. I'm getting really tired of typing out the same objections to the same publications again and again because they keep getting posted as if they proved something. I have adjusted to reflect the minority ongoing interest, but because there is minority ongoing interest does not mean the page should represent it as if it re-opens the whole SRA debate. Again, explicit references saying the debate is over, none that counter, and from what I can see, even McLeod & Goddard, a quite recent publication, says that it's over in the mainstream even if they think this is incorrect. WLU (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA is like UFOs. There has been a surge of interest in the past. It has been debunked and interest has waned, and it is our job to document it as a historical phenomenon, regardless of any lingering interest groups that may be trying to influence Wikipedia coverage to a different effect. dab (𒁳) 08:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources header 2

Check out the google books link for Child Maltreatment by Perrin & Perrin, p. 321 [14]:

Here is a fifth explicit statement from a relialbe source that says the satanic panic is over, and a second one that says the believers are the minority. I have yet to see anything comparable in explicitness and reliability from the 'believer' side. Given this verifiable statement, is there any reason to give weight to the non-skeptical side? Seriously, five sources, explicit in saying a) it was a panic, and b) the panic is over, two explicitly saying the remaining believers are the minority. This could be written for settling a dispute on this page. Based on what I've seen of the minority position, there's no question of interpretation, quote mining, unreliable sourcing or anything else that I can think of that could possibly indicate that SRA is still taken seriously. Are we done here? I think we're done here. Anyone want to put a resolved tag at the top? WLU (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Without a comparable counterclaim from reliable sources I think we are most certainly done. Since no such source has been provided after weeks of asking for one I think "resolved" is right as well.PelleSmith (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But the issue is not resolved. Not one neutral editor has given an opinion here. The sources I provided above show that a large portion of the field does not believe that SRA is or was a panic. Many of these sources worked with actual SRA victims, unlike those promoting the panic idea. And I will repeat my idea above, "the few sources that were written in the last 8 years were written by a few extremely biased sources that had no experience with the actual victims or cases. They are at best a historical footnote and should be treated as such on the SRA page." ResearchEditor (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The structure of Template:Asia Topic is under dispute. A couple major questions are in play: What is the purpose of the template, what is NPOV handling of the relationship between China and regions/countries that it rightly or wrongly claims. How should other disputed regions/countries be handled? Of specific interest are the listings of Taiwan and Tibet. Neutral third party assistance would be appreciated. Readin (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where NPOV's concerned, there's no such thing as "rightly or wrongly" claiming something. An area is just claimed. --Joowwww (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My name is Arudou Debito, the subject of a Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arudou_Debito. As of August 22, 2008, I have added an NPOV tag.

As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice to the media — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search. I go into more specifics and cite specific passages at http://www.debito.org/?p=1878, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry. The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:

1) A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.

2) An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is third-party material published by other authors.

3) Omissions of books I published months and years ago.

4) Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.

5) Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.

6) “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.

7) Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.

In conclusion, where are the (positive) quotes from the people and published authors who actually have something verifiably meaningful to say about Japan and social issues, such as Donald Richie, Ivan Hall, Chalmers Johnson, John Lie, Jeff Kingston, Robert Whiting, Mark Schreiber, Eric Johnston, Terrie Lloyd, Bern Mulvey, Lee Soo Im, and Kamata Satoshi? Omitting the comments and sentiments of these people make the Wikipedia entry sorely lacking in balance, accurate research, and respect for the facts of the case or the works of a living person biographied.

For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry and hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself.

It's reasonable to report this here, but it would probably be even better to report it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Enforcement of rules concerning biographies of living persons is considerably more vigorous than enforcement of the NPOV rule, in my experience. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is my assessment that these two threads are very biased toward the Polish POV of history, and are basically revisionist.

For example, in the Curzon Line article, the following: "In these circumstances, war was inevitable, and hostilities broke out in late 1919." I think a fairer assessment of the situation is that Russia was in the midst of a civil war and that Pilsudski, a bellicose nationalist, decided to take advantage of it in order to push Poland's borders east-ward. This, at least, was the take of the Allied Powers at the time. See: http://www.historynet.com/polish-soviet-war-battle-of-warsaw.htm/2. I am not sure that it is the role of Wikipedia to assess responsibility in these matters, but surely the article ought to make clear that this view of the war's causation and responsibility is very unusual outside of Poland.

While the articles make clear that the Allied powers were against Polish invasion, they do not make note of the considerable aid, political, economic, and in men and material, the Allies rendered to Poland once it became clear that the Poles were badly losing the war.

I claim no expertise on these issues, and am hesitant to say much further, but it does seem to me that these threads are possibly the pet projects of some rather nationalistic folks and ought to be reviewed. At the very least, a warning should be at top notifying readers that the articles have been tagged as bias. I think the standard read on the history of the Curzon Line and the Russo-Polish War is, more or less, the synopsis given by Henry Kissinger in Diplomacy, ISBN 0671510991, Simon & Schuster, 1995.

Anon's right. I might look into this at a later point. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Address: 96.242.82.74

The above IP Address constantly vandalizes the article Bicycle Kick by disrupting the order, deleting sources, deleting information to his convenience, and claming NPOV in the article. I need help from someone who can check the article and see that it has no POV, or do something about this user that apparently knows a lot about how to manage Wikipedia but does not want to reveal his Wikipedia name (which is rather shameful). Please help.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding what is going on there. The edits by that IP were not vandalism, although they should have been at least discussed. Are you assuming that user:Selecciones de la Vida is the same person as the IP editor you identified? Could you give a very brief sense of the issue that the argument is about? It looks like it has something to do with whether the bicycle kick was invented in Peru or Chile, but as I said, the back-and-forth is hard to understand. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This page has been hijacked by a group of propagandists for the organization. Given that in the real world HT has been frequently accused of terrorist activities and banned in a number of countries, the current activity on this page runs the risk of causing Wikipedia to be used as propaganda for terrorism.

I've attempted to clean it up and de-POV it a bit. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Undisputed: On about August 2 the Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran article was tagged as neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words (along with other tags). On about 23 August, after an edit war, the page was locked and is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. On the talk page the tagger has made the complaint that the article has "Editorializing as well as POVish and unencyclopedic language" but not specified where.

The dispute: If there are weasel words and POV statements we need to know what they are - how else do you resolve the dispute! but no other information has been provided despite requests to provide some (my appeal to the admin who locked the article was unsuccessful).

My position: the RS tag appeared on the article along with other tags and with no comment in the talk page. The article had had no complaints about any of the tag issues for over a year, and in the mean time it had been extensively rewritten. (The comment above about "POVish and unencyclopedic language" was added a couple of weeks later after a RfC (request for comment) by me.) This, along with the lack of specific explanation for the tags, strikes me as a might suspicious. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never looked at that article before, but I can see four sentences with weasel words in the lede:

1. The government of Iran is criticized for…
2. Extra-legal acts that have been condemned include…
3. Also condemned has been…
4. One defense made of the Islamic Republic's human rights record is that…

Do you see now? Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question regarding WP:CRITICISM and controversy sections on some WP:BLP articles: The Game (rapper); Rush Limbaugh; Rick Santorum; and Michelle Malkin, among others. For some of those articles the sections run longer than other sections. Should controversial content within those sections be integrated throughout the biography chronologically? Because I think that "controversy" sections suggest POV, as the Wikipedia guidelines suggest. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Other articles of concern: Snoop Dogg and Young Jeezy, which are tagged with Template:Criticism-section as are the other articles above.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

the virtue of having such sections for, let us say, someone's political views, is that one can first present the political views, and then separately the criticism and response to it--the intention was I think to aid NPOV by making it easier to have a straightforward statement of what the views were, unmixed with people debating each point. But perhaps we can find a better wording--though criticism is not necessarily negative, the word tends to carry that application. DGG (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But I always thought that such sections "imply a POV" as Wikipedia:Criticism and other NPOV-related pages claim. Also check for a section on the Akon page. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So I guess you were pointing at the provision regarding articles/sections about POV's. For one thing, I sort of agree, but my main concern is about the controversial aspects of certain people's lives being organized in long-winded "controversy" sections on certain biographical articles. Sure, people like Santorum, Malkin, and Limbaugh regularly get criticized for their opinions. But if a person/subject is controversial, we should assert so within the biography rather than shove it all within a section to illustrate the point. I believe that "controversy" sections imply that we're taking a stand on the subject. Eventually, they become so long they branch out into "X controversies" articles, which never really work - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore controversies for more --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Undisputed Facts: On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[67] She instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[68][69]

Her power to fire him is not in dispute, but Monegan alleged that his dismissal was a retaliation for his reluctance to fire Palin's former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[70] Palin is currently being investigated by an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Legislature[71] to determine whether she abused her power when she fired Monegan. The investigation is scheduled to end October 30, only days before the November 4 presidential election.[72]

The Dispute: Should this section of Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page be entitled "Abuse of power investigation" or "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner"? My view is that this matter would not appear on the page were it not for the abuse of power investigation. But those supporting the (in my opinion inaccurate and obfuscatory) title "Dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner" insist, without argument, that calling the section "Abuse of power investigation" is (in some unidentified way) violates NPOV and undo weight. --BenA (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the article used as a source for the statement about the investigation never refers to it as an "Abuse of Power" investigation. It refers to it as an investigation into the "controversial firing of former state Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan." It also states that the investigator "explore whether Palin, her family or members of her administration pressured Monegan to fire an Alaska state trooper involved in a rough divorce from Palin's sister." The title "Abuse of Power" in this case represents a pejorative, non-neutral point of view, in my opinion. Rlendog (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the issue is only the term "abuse of power" (although this term does appear frequently in press reports about the case, and that is what has been alleged), how about some other reference to the investigation? Perhaps we can title it "Ethics investigation into dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner"? The point is that the title ought to focus on the independent investigation, as that is the main story here.--BenA (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At the Gibraltar article the following sentence is being argued over:

I see a big problem with the term "annexation". It is being insisted upon by a (proud) Gibraltarian Wikipedian who has been in de facto control of the article for many years now (User:Gibnews). Whilst he does good stuff fending off the idiots who vandalise the article, sometimes he can't see past his political views and can put a political slant on the article, which is what I believe is happening here. Therefore, I would appreciate others' views at Talk:Gibraltar on whether "annexation" is an acceptable term to describe what I would say can be replaced with the 100% neutral "Spanish sovereignty".

Thanks.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This report is way, way premature. Both User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and User:Gibnews have a long history of tendentious arguments on this article. Dragging in others at this stage is utterly ridiculous, particularly in view of the fact that a consensus is not that far away on the talk page. Justin talk 11:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why asking for others' input is a problem. As you reverted my change within seconds and are yet to contribute to the discussion, I'd like to see you do that there rather than sniping here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting a dispute resolution process, when a consensus is not that far away is simply being pointy. Your actions are more designed to escalate the dispute than diffuse it. Justin talk 12:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this noticeboard begins with the following instructions: "Editors can post questions here about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion." I am using this noticeboard for its intended purpose. You've made your point, now please let me get the opinions of others. Thankyou. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. Annexsation is used most often in the context of municipal politics. It's just when one political jurisdiction incorporates the territory of a second but the political, administrative structure of the first is retained, as opposed to amalgamation. If I say "In 1912, the city of Toronto annexed the town of North Toronto", this is a factual, neutral statement. But context may be important. What term do most sources use? WilyD 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a North American (and intra-territorial) convention. In international politics, the usual meaning of 'annex' is something like 'assert sovereignty over', with an implication that the state taking the action disregards any existing territorial claims. It's often used to describe the political mechanics of a military invasion. In the UK (at least), municipal authorities have no independent power to absorb unincorporated or junior places adjoining. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of the official Government of Gibraltar websites (gibraltar.gov.gi, gibraltar.gov.uk) uses the term "annexation" in the context of the sovereignty issue, according to google: [15] [16]
• Uses of "sovereignty" abound on both sites: [17] [18]
• Searching the Website of the Gibraltar Chronicle, one of the oldest English-language newspapers in the world, I found a total of 107 matches for "sovereignty", and just 3 matches for annexation (two of which are opinion pieces). This would seem to indicate that even in the Gibraltarian press, references to "annexation" are the exception rather than the rule. As per WP:DUE, we should give prominence to mainstream rather than minority terms, especially in the lede. Jayen466 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a concern about the neutrality of the following section in the entry on Lebanon: In 2006 however, the Israeli army attacked Lebanon with intense airstrikes and artillery fire alongside numerous ground incursions by Israeli forces - the extensive attacks were in response to a single incident of rocket fire in which two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The month long conflict caused significant civilian loss of life and serious damage to Lebanon's civil infrastructure (including Beirut's airport). The conflict lasted from July 12, 2006 until a cessation of hostilities call, by the UN Security Council, went into effect on August 14, 2006,[9][6] the country's economy is still struggling to recover.

In particular, the assertion that the Israeli attack was in response to a single incident of rocket fire. My understanding and recollection is that there had been repeated, continuous incidents of rocket fire from south Lebanon into Israel, and the Israeli soldiers were not taken prisoner in a rocket attack, but in an armed incursion into Israel by Hezbollah.

You didn't sign or date this, (remember to use four ~s!) but I'll try and answer it. Yes, I think the wording of the entry is inappropriate. In a general article on Lebanon, it is unnecessary to discuss the claimed motivations for the war. It would be best to say something like, "However, Lebanon's economic and tourist recovery was set back severely by the 2006 Lebanon war, a month-long conflict which caused significant..."

The claimed causes for a war are always controversial and require the explication of numerous claims and counter-claims from several POVs; with the Lebanon war this is probably even more true. To be truly neutral you would have to say something like, "Israel destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure in response to a Hezbollah rocket barrage on Northern Israel which was launched in

response to a series of Israeli incursions and airstrikes which was launched in response to a Hezbollah cross-border raid which was launched in response to Israel's holding of several dozen Lebanese prisoners and occupation of a small strip of territory which Israel claims as part of its national territory and most of the world sees as occupied Syrian territory but due to its historical administration by Lebanon the Lebanese and Syrians see as occupied Lebanese territory, however, Israel claims that this territory is vital to its security interests and was acquired in a defensive war against Syrian shelling of civilians however Syria claims... blah blah blah." And it tends to take over the whole article which is, after all, the top-level article for the entire nation of Lebanon and its entire history. So yeah, I'd cut down on the alleged reasons for the war and just talk about its effects. Those who want details can click the Wikilink and read them. <eleland/talkedits> 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I have an uninvolved editor look at Charles Bukowski and give their opinion? There has been some long-term tension between User:Bukowski99 and myself on this article. The editor has a pattern of what I consider POV edits--adding insufficiently sourced slanted material, moving all the references to Bukowski's wife or removing her name, adding a POV "readership" section--all these have been pretty much dealt with. However, the user has now removed the "literary movement" information, claiming that Bukowski is "unclassifable." (The literary movements were on the article when I first saw it, and were not added by me). These movements looked pretty standard to me, but the editor asked for sources, so I tracked down some sources. The editor removed them with a series of personal attack edit summaries that didn't address the quality of the information or edits. Now another user is on the talk page saying that in their opinion, Bukowski isn't part of any literary movement. Since the article tends to attract fans, I think we just need some more uninvolved editors looking at it. Movingboxes (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding The user has gone on to make non-constructive edits to Dirty realism and Transgressive fiction. Movingboxes (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was under a serious NPOV dispute some 4 months ago, but one of the editors in this dispute appears to no longer be active. The issues in dispute are summarized here: Talk:Melissa_Farley#RfC:_NPOV_and_BLP_issues.3F. There has been an RfC for this article, but no additional comments concerning neutrality issues were forthcoming from the RfC. I believe the article is NPOV or very close, as well as factually accurate to it, and would like to remove the tags from the article. However, since I was one of the parties to the dispute, before removing the tags, I am seeking further opinions as to whether the article has any remaining bias and whatever edits are needed to fix any such problems. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP editor brought this up on the BLP noticeboard, but it belongs here. The subject is a woman who has recently written a book focusing on her romantic entanglement with the drug lord Pablo Escobar. Most of the article is apparently written by Vallejo herself, and it contains quite a number of NPOV violations. Looie496 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are we subject to biased editors?Akamina (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) The posts for this resort are constantly reverted because issues which the corporation does not want revealed are called "vandalism".

Please make your concerns known at Talk:Whitefish Mountain Resort. There is a whiff of controversy about that article, but there is also some criticism of the resort already in the article. Good quality sources for any remaining problems are needed. I have been following the discussions there, but the charges of COI editing don't appear justified. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide assistance on this issue. A user has made the common name of the "Republic of China Passport" "Taiwanese passport" bold, which in my view is an act to assert a point of view that can be highly offensive.

"Republic of China passport" is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese passport" but it is believed by pro-Chinese reunification supporters that this common name is unacceptable and it should not have been mentioned at all. This common name is not supported by law, and calling Taiwan as a country is highly offensive to these supporters.

Pro-Taiwan independence supporters believes that the Republic of China is a country called Taiwan. This position is not supported by the current government (but supported by the previous government) and is never supported by law. The law calls the document "The Republic of China passport". As the Republic of China is not recognised in most English speaking countries, the common name "Taiwan" is used. Therefore, the Republic of China passport is commonly referred to as "Taiwanese Passport".

I believe a neutral view is that the common name "Taiwanese passport" should be mentioned, but it should not be made bold, for the reasons below:-

1. Taiwan as a name of a country is highly offensive to a section of the relevant population, bolding of the name acts as provocation. It complies with their political view to ignore the common name altogether. 2. Taiwan as a name of a country is supported by a section of the relevant population, mentioning it satisfies their view, and it is not a provocation to these supporters if the name is not made in bold. It complies with their political view to make the common name known as prominently as possible. 3. Taiwanese passport is a common name so it should be mentioned and the English readers are aware. There is no likelihood that a Chinese reader would not be aware of the "Republic of China" including Chinese readers outside Taiwan or mainland China. 4. Taiwanese passport is not a legal nor the current official name. The official name used by the previous government was Republic of China (Taiwan) passport (this is still not "Taiwanese passport"). The previous government went further and said when they added "(Taiwan)" they didn't intend to change the name, they did it to facilitate travel as some passport control officials would make the mistake into treating the ROC passport as a People's Republic of China passport. 5. Common names of other countries such as the "United Kingdom" are made bold for easy reading. But since "Taiwan" as a name of a country is highly controversial, I don't think the UK case can be applied here, as the United Kingdom as a common name for a country is not subject to controversy.

Thank you for providing a view on this.--pyl (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese reunification debate has been a fertile source of contenders for wp:lame, and this one is the best that I've seen so far. Jonathon Swift would have loved it. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As the opposing party to this, I agree. References provided (initially blanked by the reporter), and others, support usage and inclusion of Taiwanese passport as a secondary, though common, rendition, in the lead for the ROC passport article (note lower case p in passport, not as above). Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue in question are the bold fonts, not the fact it was mentioned. And it is not about whether China should be reunified. As I said above, the style in question is considered to be provocative and offensive to a significant section of the society in question.--pyl (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue goes beyond that, since you also first removed the online links which supported this (from many sides of the spectrum), and then proceeded to debate ad nauseum the merits -- this signifies that you have a point to prove, and perhaps this extends to similar articles.

As I have explained in your talk page. The footnotes you cited are not neutral because they are from sources who don't recognise "the Republic of China".

• "Taipei times" is run by pro-independence group. The country is called "Taiwan" as far as they are concerned.
• "China.org.cn" is from mainland China. Again "Republic of China" is not recognised.
• "BBC News" directly or indirectly expresses the viewpoint of the British government. It would also go as far as saying "Republic of China" is the official name, but it still calls the country as "Taiwan"
• "ISECO" is the Israel office in Taipei. Israel does not recognise the "Republic of China".

I don't have a view to prove, and I am not trying to be "right". I already accepted the "Taiwan" is a common name for the "Republic of China". I objected to the footnotes because they were from biased sources, given the reasons above.--pyl (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This line of reasoning is a red herring: you extend bias ad infinitum. Shall I assume you and your edits are biased since (per your user page) you are of Taiwanese ancestry, et al.? Anyhow, provision of these online references -- which is really all that Wikipedia requires -- satisfies a burden of proof which you have yet to dissuade, and which you attempted to mollify through removal, and then tortuous discourse. As well, the online selections were a fairly random sample. Arguably, given the preponderance of online references indicating the commonality of this moniker, e.g., and since most of the world (English-speaking or otherwise) doesn't recognize the ROC as a de jure sovereign state, your insistence on de-bolding has the effect of placing undue weight on a certain viewpoint to the detriment of others. The current lead of the article is equitable, rendition and all. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I just gave the reasons why the footnotes are biased then you just ignored completely it and then use dramatic language to cover that fact and said that "satisfies a burden of proof". I think Wikipedia has a policy of not using footnotes from biased sources.
• Then you cited Taiwanese ancestry against me and said then I must be biased. I think that's a very simplest conclusion: "Indian people must all like curry". I think being someone of Taiwanese ancestry puts me in the position to know what is considered very offensive and highly provocative to a significant sector of society in question.--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Since most in the world don't recognise the ROC, then I guess with that reasoning we should all remove all ROC related articles and make them Taiwan related articles. I cited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof and showed you that Wikipedia's established policy doesn't follow your reasoning because it is trying to be neutral and equitable. All governments have their points of view. At the moment, they support the view of the PRC because the PRC gives them the most benefit, and accordingly, it is in the interest of these governments not to recognise the "Republic of China". Wikipedia recognises that and that's why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof is made so we must say "Republic of China" when we are talking about the country, not "Taiwan".--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As well, you indicate this style is "provocative and offensive": to whom, and can you provide any modicum of evidence to support this? Bolding is a usual practice for alternate forms in article leads. Discussion is good; shoving your opinion down our throats without real cause is not. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is offensive and provocative to people who are Chinese reunification supporters. http://www.kmt.org.tw/, http://www.huanghuagang.org/, http://www.uocn.org/bbs/. Please don't use "usual practice" as a reason that Wikipedia doesn't need to be sensitive about the feelings of a significant section of the society in question. If you read the article on the "Political Status of Taiwan" you will note that according to a latest poll up to 18% of the people in Taiwan still believe in reunification. I believe the fundamental reason for a NPOV policy is because Wikipedia is trying to be sensitive to all viewpoints. I have also explained this on your talk page.

Please don't overlook the sensitivities of the issues here because it is "common practice" or because "Taiwan" as a common name for the "Republic of China" is the norm in the English speaking countries, as most English speaking countries don't officially recognise the country as "Republic of China".

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof says when we are talking about the country, we use "Republic of China" and the place, we use "Taiwan" and when "Republic of China" is mentioned the first time we should make sure that the reader is aware that the article is about a country commonly known as "Taiwan". The article is question "Republic of China passport" already points that fact out. There is no need to make the fonts bold so it gets an emphasis. The article is called "Republic of China passport" because that's the name of the identity document the article is about.

Given the political sensitivities in this issue, one probable interpretation of bold fonts is, despite the so-called official name of the "Republic of China", the country is really called "Taiwan". This is one of the reasons why the style in question can be considered as provocative and highly offensive.

As I have repeated numerous times, this has never been about whether China should be reunified. It is about being sensitive to the feelings of a significant section of the society in question. The bold fonts in question are considered to be provocative and offensive to these people and the style shouldn't be used.--pyl (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's an old adage of not being able to please everyone all the time. I cannot attest to what a minority may or may not consider offensive, since no clear evidence points this out. Regardless, feelings are a non-starter: your insinuation that bolding text is offensive is no more or less so than blanking references and constructing a case based on what may be supposition, with the aim of obfuscating the issue. Also, the guidelines you point to are disputed.

As well, in your riposte above, you indicate the authority of 'Republic of China passport': you will note that the bulk of passport articles are preceded by the appropriate demonym, regardless of the official name (e.g., Canadian passport, Swiss passport, etc.); there are exceptions (e.g., United States passport). Can you explain why this shouldn't apply to this topic? There's probably a very good case (e.g., counts below) to support moving this article to that moniker: after all, 'Chinese passport' redirects to the passport article for the PRC, not to a fork in the road (i.e., disambiguation). Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here you ignored my reasons again. It is because calling a country "United States" is not controversial but "Taiwan" can be. "Chinese passport" is redirected to the PRC passport because the PRC is commonly known as China. There is nothing wrong with it. I don't think there is anything wrong with "Taiwanese passport" is directed to the ROC passport either. That's not disputed. It is the emphasis of "Taiwanese passport" that is.
• I gave reasons above why the footnotes were initially removed. They are from biased sources and I gave reasons to each of your footnotes to say why they are biased. But as I said above, you just completely ignored my reasons without responding to them.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof is a generally accepted policy. This is a complex issue and it is not possible to have 100% agreement. But you will note that almost all articles on this subject follow this policy. If you wish to depart from this policy when you edit articles on this subject, then these articles are likely to get into controversies. I think the bolding style departs from the spirits of this policy as it is trying to emphasise something that can be considered to be offensive.--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a note atop that sectional guideline (not policy) that disputes it. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay bold for two reasons. First, Taiwanese passport redirects to the article, and people coming via the redirect will be less confused if they can immediately spot the phrase they were looking for. Second, Google shows that Taiwanese passport is more widely used than Republic of China passport, so people are most likely to come to the article by that route. (Note: Taiwanese passport, as a phrase, gets 3470 Google hits. Republic of China passport, as a phrase, gets 4300, but over 1500 of these derive from People's Republic of China passport.) Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of Taiwan related articles are redirected to ROC articles because Taiwan is the common name for the ROC. But you will note that a great majority of these ROC articles don't have "Taiwan" in bold. The reason is doing so can be considered offensive and highly provocative to a significant section of society in question. Most editors who edit on articles of this subject are aware of the sensitivities in this issue.
• The Google argument has also been discussed in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. Google is in the business of making money, it is not in the business of telling people what's right or wrong or sensitive. Google gives results which it thinks are popular so it makes money. Google blocks certain results in mainland China is an example. Google has a point of view to make: a view that's profitable to them and to their shareholders so Google is not a neutral source.
• Further, the article mentions the fact that the ROC passport is commonly known as "Taiwanese passport" in the article. So there is no likelihood of confusion. If you make the "Taiwanese passport" in normal style then you will note that readers are not going to get confused because the wording in the article is quite clear.--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There is clear evidence above to point out that a significant section of the society in question would consider the bolding style offensive. As I have told you, I was not being personal or patronising when I told you that you should research more into this issue before editing. This is a complex issue, and it would be best if you do not edit on this subject if you are not aware of the complex political, legal and sometimes highly emotional background that gave rise to this issue. There is also the language issue involved if you do not read Chinese. I would not edit topics relating to Israel and Palestine issues because of this reason. I don't know enough about the background and language to do that. A "common practice" for me the outsider may not be an acceptable thing to them.

Of course you're being patronizing. I am quite familiar with the situation. And, no, I will not refrain from editing said articles because you wish it. Nor will I baldly accept your presentations as fact. Further perjorative commentary will be ignored. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being personal when I initially removed the footnotes you cited either. I gave you the reasons. They are from biased sources. Let me repeat my reasons here for your easy reference:-

• "Taipei times" is run by pro-independence group. The country is called "Taiwan" as far as they are concerned.
• "China.org.cn" is from mainland China. Again "Republic of China" is not recognised.
• "BBC News" directly or indirectly expresses the viewpoint of the British government. It would also go as far as saying "Republic of China" is the official name, but it still calls the country "Taiwan"
• "ISECO" is the Israel office in Taipei. Israel does not recognise the "Republic of China".

I think Wikipedia has a policy of not using footnotes from biased sources.

As I said this issue is about a practice that can be considered to be highly offensive and provocative to a significant section of the society in question. But so far, I don't seen anyone arguing against this main issue. The arguments above mostly just ignores it then say I am biased. I don't think arguments overlooking the sensitivities are persuasive.

I added further clarification at the top of the article to clarify that this article as follows:-

The "Republic of China passport" is commonly known as "Taiwanese passport" since the 1970s.

Not to be confused with People's Republic of China passport.

This is similar to the well-established practice as applied in the "Republic of China" article. I believe this totally eliminates any likelihood of confusion. Now can we remove the bolding style of "Taiwanese passport"?--pyl (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeating your assertions does not necessarily make them so. All of your comments have been considered and not ignored, so refrain from being so judgmental. Anyhow, given that myself and another editor in the least support bolding, that will stand for now. I'll await other commentary before coming back to this.

As well, I have revised the hatnote you added to the article, since it was redundant with content in the lead (e.g., dates). I have also added a reciprocal one to the PRC passport page. Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't change the hatnote that way. As I told you many times, the Republic of China was commonly known as China before the 1970s. This article is about the passport for the whole time, not just about the time when it was issued in Taiwan. You really should accept my advice and learn more about the political status of Taiwan--pyl (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your assertion RE dates. The hatnote is completely in line with others, and doesn't need to repeat the date already in the introduction.

And, you need to partake in discussions with respect and not condescend. I'll comment from here-on-in when appropriate. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading "Republic of China" article would tell you why the ROC is commonly known as Taiwan after the 1970s, but it was known as "China" before then (foreign recognition).

If you think I was being condescending, I apologise. I didn't mean it that way. It is just the act of changing Republic of China to mean Taiwan absolutely was an obvious mistake if one is aware of the political status of Taiwan. As I said "Republic of China" was commonly known as "China" before the 1970's.--pyl (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your commentary and actions throughout have been more or less condescending and questionable, which is part of the problem.

As well, I'm aware of the distinction, but the function of a hatnote is to simply clarify the topic matter, not to launch into a microhistory of the political situation. This does not need to be iterated every single time. Regardless, I still believe the current hatnote is sufficient sine it harks of the passport image below. If you can suggest alternate, simple wording within the current hatnote, I'd be receptive to that. Bosonic dressing (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please again accept my apology if you think that I was being condenscending. That wasn't my intention.

Why don't we just go back and qualify it in the hatnote and leave the "Taiwanese passport" unbold then we won't have a problem:-

• You will then address my concerns that bolding is offensive and provocative to a sigificant section of the society in question;
• Your concern that readers will be confused this article into thinking that it is a PRC article will also be addressed;
• We will not have any over-generalising comments and this is good for an encyclopaedia; and
• And this style will be the same as the "Republic of China" article, which has been done like that for a long time and that implies consensus.--pyl (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the way it is, if you remove the boldness of "Taiwanese passport", there is no likelihood of confusion by readers as the hatnote already makes it clear that the article is not about the PRC.--pyl (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. However, I see nothing as yet to justify removing the bold. I look forward to other user comments. Bosonic dressing (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Bosonic dressing. The purpose of bolding is to match an alternate article title with a redirect or other index or search term, and Wikipedia policy is to include terms which are in wide use among English speakers, which "Taiwanese Passport" unquestionably is. No endorsement of the validity or appropriateness of the usage is implied. It is also inappropriate on pyl's part to assume that non-Chinese editors are not familiar with the situation, including issues which are much more subtle such as the difference between "Zhonghua Taipei" and "Zhongguo Taipei" in the Chinese Taipei article. --MCB (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing that "Taiwanese passport" is the common term for the English speakers. I think by that reasoning since "Republic of China" is usually confused by English speakers to mean "People's Republic of China", Wikipedia should call all "Republic of China" articles "Taiwan" articles. Taiwan is the term which are in wide use among English speakers. In the context of political sensitivities, what is common practice does not make it the right practice.

You will note that a great majority of "Republic of China" related articles don't have their Taiwanese common name in bold. I believe that's a common practice. "Chinese Taipei" article doesn't have Taiwan in bold (but Republic of China is). "Politics of the Republic of China" doesn't. "President of the Republic of China" doesn't. "Constitution of the Republic of China" doesn't etc.

Any possible reader confusion is addressed by the hatnote which clarifies that the article isn't about the PRC.

You said:-

"No endorsement of the validity or appropriateness of the usage is implied."

The arguments that I am putting forward is it is implied. I am glad that the issue of "Zhonghua Taipei" and "Zhongguo Taipei" is raised here, as this illustrates the core issue here. "Zhongguo Taipei" is considered by a significant section of the society in question to be highly offensive and provocative. That's why even the PRC government changed all its official publications to "Zhonghua Taipei". This is essentially the argument I am putting forward here: "Zhongguo Taipei" implies that Taiwan is part of the PRC, since a great majority of the countries in the world consider the PRC "China" ("Zhongguo"). Having "Taiwanese passport" in bold implies that despite the so-called official name of "Republic of China", the country really is called "Taiwan".--pyl (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the common usage. We do not attempt to determine the "right" usage, which, as you note, is a political issue. Using boldface will find favour with one faction and offend another; failing to use boldface will find favour with a different faction and offend another. Therefore, Wikipedia simply adopts the most common and recognizable usage by English speakers, without attempting to navigate "political sensitivities" where it is impossible to please everyone. Please remember that though you and I are lawyers, Wikipedia is written for laymen and is less concerned with legal exactitude and official nomenclature than reflecting widespread usage and understanding of names and terms.

(By the way, I brought up the discussion of "Zhonghua Taipei" vs. "Zhongguo Taipei" simply as an example, in the article Chinese Taipei, of the fact that non-Chinese editors are aware of issues regarding the status of Taiwan and PRC/Taiwan relations.) Cheers, MCB (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You said:-

"Wikipedia is written for laymen and is less concerned with legal exactitude and official nomenclature than reflecting widespread usage and understanding of names and terms."

I can accept this reasoning.

If I look at the article from the point of view from an English speaker (not knowing anything about Taiwan and its political status), I would not get the impression that "despite the so-called official name of the Republic of China, the country is really called Taiwan". The common name of "Taiwan" will just be revalidated in this case.

That construction is only possible by someone who is aware of the issues. I accept that the great majority of people reading the English version of Wikipedia would not be in that position.

Perhaps this debate is only much more relevant in the Chinese version of Wikipedia--pyl (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per below. Arakunem^Talk 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The listing has been hijacked by someone inside the company. First they eliminated any controversial history from the company, now a week later they are back writing up a press release. Don't want to get into an edit war with insider, but hoping someone here knows how to control this behaviour.

Yes, the IP in question is definitely an insider (though their last edits were over a month ago). So we have some COI problems as well as the POV ones. Looking at the history I think reverting the inappropriate deletes was proper, and the IP doesn't seem to have tried to re-add them. I don't think an edit war is brewing here based on the number of edits in the last month. I'll watchlist it and see what develops. I'll also leave a COI and POV note on their page just to make sure they know what the policies are. Arakunem^Talk 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sorted itself out in the time since report filed Arakunem^Talk 19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The last section of the Stop Loss article about topics in the media is biased. It needs to be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.100.9 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 Mar 2008

6 months later (Hey, I just started watching this noticeboard!) the Media section looks ok. Arakunem^Talk 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per below Arakunem^Talk 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has used the "Political background" section to post his own views about the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. It is blatantly not NPOV and must be removed - but I'm not well-researched enough on the topic to know what to replace it with. This abuse has not been noted on the Talk page.

The offending section begins with: "Lets not forget the real reason why Kosovo is now independent" and ends with: "As evidenced by the recognition of Kosovo by top world powers such as the US, UK, France, Germany and Canada, its not hard to see why this region deserved its full independence and recognition." It includes various typographical errors in addition to the non-NPOV content. The section was authored by user:SmartPolitics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.10.216 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 Mar 2008

The section has been edited to a much more neutral tone since this report was filed. Arakunem^Talk 20:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deleted via prod Arakunem^Talk 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The brief article on the Anniston Eastern Bypass in northeastern Alabama seems to be presented from a particular point of view, condemming alleged "land-grabs" and demonizing the local newspaper.

Not a big issue, neccesarilly, just one I found today.

Resolved

 – Per below Arakunem^Talk 19:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to include McCain's "I don't disagree" [with the draft] statement to Cultural_and_political_image_of_John_McCain#Controversial_remarks. When I did so, it was reverted on the grounds that it was not a "controversy". I can't find anything in the policies that specifically defines how to determine if something is controversial. Am I overlooking a relevant policy? Do we need an objective source to call it a controversy? Wouldn't they then lose their objectivity by doing so? Can't even biased sources at least determine if something is controversial? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor who removed the comment gave a further and in my opinion, better, explanation as to why the comment was not a "controversy." Though, interestingly, we did establish that editors could determine when something was a controversy or not, as none of the other sources included the word "controversy" or any of its derivatives. I suppose that falls under the category of WP:COMMON. I consider this matter resolved. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page, most recently DGG has raised POV issues. The article seems to express one point of view about acid throwing (the article is actually not about the throwing of acid; it is about the throwing of acid in mostly Muslim countries as a crime against women) witout clearly identifying the point of view, and without providing a clear account of other points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the discussion was positive and that a consensus has been reached (breaking out sections specific to other countries/regions where applicable). Arakunem^Talk 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific section with serious NPOV problems is "Trials for fossil fuel chiefs". Briefly, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature", on the grounds that these and other fossil-fuel companies had actively spread doubt and misinformation about global warming. I added a reply from a Peabody Coal spokesman, that if everyone who disagreed with Hansen were jailed, "the jails would be very, very big." , citing "Big Coal Fires Back Over James Hansen’s Criminal Complaint"

The ensuing discussions (and edit war) are documented at Talk:James Hansen#7.4 Trials for fossil fuel chiefs. Briefly, two editors strongly object to including the Peabody Coal reply, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. Three editors support the addition (or something similar) on grounds of WP:NPOV. No consensus emerged, nor does one seem likely. Hence an outside review is requested.

Hansen is a controversial figure, and his WP biography has been very contentious in the past, so an overall review of the article's compliance with NPOV would also be helpful. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The entry on Governor Palin lacks any information on an important matter of public record, the stated concerns of many critics that she lacks substantive knowledge and/or experience in foreign relations (or, more properly, international relations). I fail to understand why a documented reference to this issue might be considered partisan, especially since the article includes an entire section about another controversy, her dismissal of the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner. I have no objection to locking the entry. I am only concerned that the entry on Governor Palin conform to the same standards as comparable Wikipedia entries on political figures by providing fair and comprehensive information regarding substantive public controversies. For example, the entry on Presiendt George W. Bush includes information on several public controversies related to his perceived abilities and his political stances. To be clear, I am not suggesting the entry on Governor Palin be opened up so as to provide a comprehensive listing of accusations against her or her family, no matter how incredible. However, I do believe the entry ought to be expanded to include information about a matter of considerable consequence. How does the exclusion of substantial, well-documented information about a public controversy serve the public interest or enhance the credibility of this forum?

Well, first of all, Wikipedia is not a forum. But if you think the above should be in the article, the first place to go is the Talk page for the article. Propose what you think should go in there, and discuss with the other editors. If a consensus is reached, it can be added to the article. Arakunem^Talk 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article leads for Quirinius and Census of Quirinius contained a sentence written with the phrase most historians and most modern historians that I and other editors are concerned with (see discussion pages). I'd just like some feedback here because I'd like to address the underlying issues of making sure articles use neutral language and that legitimate differences of scholarship and referencing, as I read the guidelines. should preclude using language that is almost wholly subjective in that there is simply no way in this case to accurately quantify this particular opinion using WP:RS. In this particular case shouldn't some or there are or similar language be used to better effect? Awotter (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've only made a minimal effort so far to work this out by discussion. It would be much better for people who know the literature to work out the most accurate phrasing than for people here to try to resolve an issue they don't know anything about. (Note though that in many cases "there are" or "some historians" are frowned on as weasel words.)Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I only became involved because of the article on Quirinius, there is substantially more discussion (and effort) by other editors taking place over an extended period of time at Census of Quirinius, so there is more dialogue going on than just mine. As to weasel words, as I understand the guidelines, they should be substantiated or not used. There are references that substantiate the changed wording, "some" or "there are" should satisfy both the guidelines for NPOV and weasel words in this case.Awotter (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now restored this to a neutral position (as suggested, 'some historians' is clearly weaselly language, and is in any case wrong), by attributing the statement to a notable scholar on the subject.--Rbreen (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best way to get a handle on this one is to look at the discussion regarding it. also that this is, i think, the third argument about it. --Kaini (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This article The Bachelors has been continually edited by User talk:Contributer67, and one of the links he has added 3 times (which is why I have obeyed the 3-revert rule and not reverted a third time) is [19] which is obviously from The Bachelors camp, whereas a contradictory claim is made by John Stokes at [20] which means the veracity of the claim by Contributor67 cannot be ascertained.

Further more, another contributor, Con Cluskey, who is obviously one of the members of The Bachelors, denies the claim that John Stokes lost the court case denies the accuracy on his talk page User talk:Con Cluskey says there was no court case in Altrincham, which is a complete denial of the claims made by Contributor67.

A reference for the article is given as “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I have been unable to confirm the existence nor the contents of this dictionary. Perhaps another Wikipedian can search to see if I have missed something.

Contributor67 has also added to the article the words, “As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true – see the webpage [21]

Can somebody please separate the chaff from the wheat and ensure that it is properly and correctly referenced? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

REPLY Contributer67 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

Firstly it has to be said the Mr. Richard Wilcox [Richhoncho] appears to have made it his life ambition to injure Dec Cluskey in any way possible. Ref. his vitriolic and foul languaged comments on various music newsgroups [RMMS etc.]. His maniacal attacks are there for all to see.

He has now turned his attentions to Wikipedia. His contributions to Wikipedia pages can be either thought to be exemplary or verging on manic. He has in the past said that he will desist from editting The Bachelors page. He still does. I believe the term for this is vandalism.

I find it hard to understand the first paragraph of Mr Wilcox above. I have read Con Cluskey's talk page and find it perfectly clear and plain. To the best of my knowledge there was no court case in Altringham. There was, however, a court hearing with the result as Con Cluskey's talk page. The case was never heard due to timing irreguarities in filing documents.

As regards “Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography” I am looking at the book now as I type. It is among the racks and racks of historical Bachelors memorabilia which I treasure.

As regards : ~~“As of 2008, only Con and Dec - the Bachelors are still touring” which again is not true~~ there are no tour dates listed on Mr. Stokes webpages. There are two show presentations, both in contempt of the High court of England. I do not feel that this constitutes touring, in the accepted sense. I have tried many times to acquire information on forthcoming tours but as the gentleman is clearly in a precarious situation legally no details are forthcoming. No tour details are posted anywhere and Email enquiries are never answered. Con and Dec The Bachelors are actively touring and the dates are available at www.myspace.com/thebachelorsconanddec . They post details each month of their activities on their website. www.thebachelors.co.uk

As the No. 4 in line expert on all things Bachelors I can assure any reader that all references are checked and correct and all information is precise to the best of my knowledge, having researched the subject to death.

However the page is constantly vandalised to support the claim that Mr Stokes is somehow allowed to use the name Bachelors. The legal documents he signed in his High court action against messrs Con and Dec Cluskey are easily available and in fact are merely a click away http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm . He is most certainly forbidden by law to use the name Bachelors in any way at all.

The page as is, without the constant vandalism, represents the most accurate referenced information about The Bachelors from inception to the present day.

Please help stop this constant vandalism. It is upsetting to all Bachelors fans.

Thank you. I apologise for not being a Wikipedia expert and not being familiar with notation etc.

Contributer67 (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)]

The first thing that jumps out at me is that both sides are using "competing" web sites of The Bachelors as sources (www.thebachelors.co.uk and www.the-bachelors.com). I question the reliability of both pages as sources here, as they seem to be Primary Sources as defined here. The Con & Dec site, and the John Stokes reply on the other site, both have their own POV issues. Are there any external, unrelated, and most importantly verifiable third-party sources related to this disagreement? Such 3rd party sources will hold the most weight when it comes to inclusion on Wikipedia. Arakunem^Talk 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

As a contributor only interested in the correct and legally accurate history it has to be said that the john Stokes reply mentioned above was not a reply. The statement on his website is considered to be legally inaccurate and in fact laden with untruths. This fact is verified legally [outside this forum].

The Con and Dec page JohnStokesTheTruth has only recently to my knowledge been uploaded. As a Bachelors expert I can confirm that this page is accurate and all detail on there can be verified from the multitudinous sources available. As an interested party in all things Bachelors I would feel that this page was presented as a rebuttal to the clearly untrue statements on John Stokes' site.

As regards third party sources, surely there can be no better third party source than the High Court Documents signed by John Stokes which are available at http://www.thebachelors.co.uk/johnstokesthetruth.htm. These documents are widely held by interested parties in British show Business. He is precluded by the High Court of England from using the name Bachelors or any colourabloe imitation. therefore it follows that he is in contempt of court in the way his site is titled. He is simply not allowed to use the name in law. It follows that the site is deemed to be illegal and that any links to the site are colluding in a contempt of court.

As Wikipedia is a trusted source I strive to ensure that the law is upheld in this instance and that no assistance is given to lawbreaking. I was recently sent the Wikipedia entry for The Bachelors by an eminent lawyer in London. He was astonished that a link to a patently obvious contempt of court page could be displayed on Wikipedia.

In supplying links to a rogue site Wikipedia does not do itself any favours. My only wish is for Wikipedia to display accurate verifiable and legally correct information and links. It is mainly the links on The Bachelors page that are the problem.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

I concur with Arakunem. The two websites are hardly objective, but given the small scope and weight of this dispute to anyone but direct participants, I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had. This dispute is further aggravated by the words and actions of at least one of the participants, who claims continuously (on the article's Talk page, for instance) that his side is right, objective, and a bringer of 'evidential truth.' My personal beef in this is the very description of the two websites (or 'sources,' if that word can even be applied here)--I have attempted a NPOV edit, twice, which keeps being reverted by one of the participants in this dispute, someone with an axe to grind. This participant refers to my edits as 'vandalism'--I wouldn't mind a third editor, or an administrator, to judge that.

Perhaps the solution is to cut this article to a few paragraphs, and mention some of the basic facts of the divorce, but without too much detail. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

>I would doubt very much that there is independent, verifiable information to be had<

There is a mountain of verifiable information.

There is no axe to grind only a wish for correct, accurate information. The many Bachelors fans worldwide simply want correctness. In my experience the links to a legally unnacceptable site are distressing to many readers.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

As I am being attacked by Contributor67 I would like to point out it was me who brought this to this noticeboard (and told Contributor67 on his talk page so he could have his say), it was me that added much, including references, to the article which has not been removed by Contributor67 which proves, hopefully an independence and integrity to facts. If all I was interested in was attacking the members of the Bachelors I could have quoted more fully from the Ian Whitcomb article (a link I added) - Furthermore I think my record of edits on many other articles will prove beyond reasonable doubt that I am not engaged in "vitriol" as claimed above. Let somebody who is non-partisan edit this article - which is why I was happy to bring the article to the attention of other editors. Like any other WP article I am all in favour verified Non-point of view facts --Richhoncho (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

No attack was intended only, the truth. Mr Wilcox stated that he would desist from editing the Bachelors entry. He still does. And additionally grabs any opportunity to malign Dec Cluskey.

The Ian Whitcomb article on The Bachelors is known to contain many inaccuracies. Attempts have been made to contact him to correct this matter but no reply has been received by anyone.

The article on the Wikipedia page is now accurate and fit for purpose. And the Bachelors community are grateful for the help from other interested parties. The problem is the continual undoing of the edit re. the links.

If the principal is accepted that Wikipedia should not promote sites which clearly tell untruths and are legally off track then my edits of the offending links should be accepted. There is no Point of View involved only the quest for honesty and truth. That would satisfy the many Bachelors fans and would provide the legal profession with an accurate and legally correct Wikipedia entry.

To support the argument that any link, no matter how illegal, should be given is to support the argument that links to paedophile sites should be given on children's entries for the sake of a complete picture.

Or links to burglars on Housing Companies entries?

I simply ask that the links to John Stokes site which is in contempt of court and is passing off as The Bachelors should be permanently removed.

(Contributer67 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

One of the problems is that you insist on repeating that John Stokes is guilty of, and continues to be, contempt of court. The only confirmation of this claim is from your own website, and is disputed by John Stokes on his webpage. No independent, third party reference can be found for the claim either way. Whether your claims are correct or not the references to contempt of court should be removed immediately - see WP:BLP. Likening Stokes to burglars and paedophiles merely shows who is really venting their spleen. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is the problem that I mentioned above. Claims such as this need to be verifiable, from a source that is unrelated to the subject. Saying "Con and Dec say <x>, and for proof, see their site" or "John Stokes says <y> and for proof see HIS site" are not reliable sources for the purposes of the Wikipedia article. The standard for dealing with contentious claims like this, can be summarized as Verifiability, not Truth. Especially when dealing with a living person, ANY claim like this MUST be sourced from a Reliable Source, or it MUST be removed. In this case, Contributor67, the claim that Stokes is in contempt of court, can not be cited from the Con & Dec web site. Likewise, John Stokes' denial of this can not be sourced from HIS site. You've got to find 3rd party, unrelated sources in order to include either of those, or we HAVE to remove the claims under WP:BLP. Arakunem^Talk 23:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, Arakunen. It should be also noted that Contributor67 is disputing the facts with himself - the bottom of his webpage says, "Please note that this is a historical site for reference only. This site does not purport to be a promotion of Dec Cluskey and Con Cluskey as 'The Bachelors'. Con and Dec [who recorded every Bachelors' Hit] are familiarly and legally known as Con and Dec The Bachelors." [22]. Copious comments are also on the article's talkpage --Richhoncho (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell To Sea

This page badly needs a neutral viewpoint added and seems to be chiefly edited by members of the campaign involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustycrusty (talk • contribs)

I've spent a bit of time at it, think it's much better now! Thanks! Fin©™ 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Mediation in progress. Arakunem^Talk 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This page badly needs new eyes on it. It has devolved into a simple "undo" war between two different descriptions of an event, both of which are factually true. The question is over the proper characterization of what happened. The two versions are below. I wrote the first one, and another author (whom I suspect to be a sock puppet for the subject) repeatedly deleted it, finally replacing it with the second version (which I believe to be a sanitized version). Both of us agree that both versions are factually true, but clearly the two versions portray the results of the investigation in a different light. We have been unable to resolve the issue through discussion. Would someone please be willing to read the two page summary of the report cited on the page (you have to skip through some letters first on the .pdf file) and help us to resolve the dispute? I'd be so grateful. The two versions are below:

Version 1

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee.[9] [10] [11] Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations.[9] [10]

The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with the standards expected for senior Government leaders" and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style."[7] "[W]itnesses described him as a demanding, confrontalional manager, occasionally displaying anger that demeaned subordinates and caused them to minimize their interaction with him. Some witnesses further indicated that BG Kimmitt resorted to threats of job loss or career harm as a 'motivational' tactic and made demeaning comments when criticizing individual work products." [7] "[T]estimony indicated that morale In BG Kimmitt's organization was negatively affected by BG Kimmitt's leadership style, combined with the heavy workload and long hours. Finally, we found that BG Kimmitt's leadership style discouraged subordinates from free and open communication with him.... While some witnesses, to include his supervisors and several detractors, viewed BG Kimmitt as 'effective,' we also found credible witnesses who told us that they obtained other employment to escape the unpleasant work environment." [7]

At Kimmitt's request, the IG also "obtained testimonial evidence that tended to mitigate the adverse impact of BG Kimmitt's leadership lapses. In that regard several witnesses, primarily BG Kimmitt's superiors, emphasized that BG Kimmitt brings superb qualifications and intellect to his position; that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office; and that he operates in a stressful, demanding environment, which could trigger confrontation."[7]

The Department of Defense Inspector General's office, in a separate letter to the committee, also disclosed "a substantiated allegation that Mr. Kimmitt . . . failed to properly safeguard information, in violation of Army regulations," but it did not elaborate.[9] [7] The exact nature of this violation has not been disclosed.

Version 2

Kimmitt's nomination for Assistant Secretary of State was delayed because of two investigations into anonymous letters sent to the Foreign Relations Committee. Upon receipt of each letter, Sen. Joseph Biden requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG) investigate the allegations. The IG concluded after the first investigation that "BG Kimmitt's leadership style was occasionally inconsistent with applicable standards", that "several witnesses...emphasized...that he has strengthened the overall performance of his office", and that "cognizant management officials should continue to monitor his leadership style." The IG reported at the conclusion of the second investigation that the allegation was not substantiated and warranted no further investigation, and that the complaint provided no details that would convey creditability to the allegations.[7]

• This dispute is being mediated here. Arakunem^Talk 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the Yamashita's gold article, an editor makes dubious claims that several court documents lend credence to their opinion of events. The wording is twisted and skewed, at best, to advance the editor’s point of view. There are no independent third-party sources that support these opinions.

The section is a mish-mash of legal piffle, and the talk-page is a battlefield of redundancy

Yamashita's_gold#Related_legal_action

Talk:Yamashita's_gold#Removing_False_References

Talk:Yamashita's_gold#False_References.2C_Dubious_Statements_and_Personal_Opinions_in_Article

Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. The edit warring has to stop, and somebody other than me needs to tell the IP editor they need to cite the proper references to support their opinion(s).

It is hard to have a discussion with an editor who states on the talk page: “I have a law degree and over 15 years of solid experience analyzing judicial opinions. I also have spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case. I know what I am talking about.”

I posted this over @ the OR noticboard as well: Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

___________

The section in dispute concerns a lawsuit. The best source as to what transpired in the lawsuit are the official statements of the Court -- the official history of the lawsuit. The statements of the Court are clear (to anyone who can read) and are consistent with the contemporaneous news reports (which are also reliable sources). JimBob has some vested interest in the theory that Yamashita's Gold is an urban legend and resists any material that debunks his pet theory. The sources are irrefutable that Roxas prevailed on his claim against Marcos for converting the treasure. 67.120.59.46 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is mistaken. Court documents are regarded as a primary source and should not be relied on as a source for WP. We are looking instead for good secondary sources. An example would be the coverage of the court case in serious newspapers and broadcast media. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has some recent inappropriate additions.

Taken care of now. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) The overt POV of the September 11 attacks article is a serious and continuous dispute at Wikipedia.

(2) On 9/10/08, "World Public Opinion", a very reliable source, published the results of its comprehensive poll (16,000 in 17 countries) on the question of who perpetuated 9/11: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=

(3) 54% of the people surveyed globally doubt that "al-Qaeda" committed 9/11.

(4) This result proves that the September 11 attacks article violates NPOV. MichiganMilitia (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This arguement seems to hinge on the fact that 54% of the people "doubt" that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks of 9/11. The problem with that statement is that the source only says that 29% believe a group other than al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. MichiganMilitia would have us believe that the 25% that say they "don't know" also do not believe that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. The source does not support that contention. Nowhere in the source does it lump the people that "don't know" who did it with those said that someone other than al-Qaeda did it. This appears to be an original synthesis of the data by MichiganMilitia to support the position that the article is not nuetral. While this is probably a good source to add a statement somewhere in Wikipedia about the worldwide public uncertainty of who perpetrated the attacks, it does not prove that the article is not nuetral. Jons63 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

MM has been blocked as an agenda/sock puppet account. Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the following here, from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs here or on the talk page for this project page ... Kenosis (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC):

• Wow, a "brand-new editor" who has waded straight into a policy debate in order to support a fringe POV on the 9/11 articles - that's really unusual! I suppose this is one of the Usual Suspects, blocked until he owns up to which. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No way Guy. Look at those references, they really support his POV. And of course, the very neutral user name adds to my AGF'ing this posting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Guy, assume good faith. This is just some poor deluded sock soul. . dave souza, talk 15:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'd probably say the "Don't know" and the like shows ignorance, not necessarily buying into a conspiracy. I'm sure if you asked a worldwide poll of who did the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway you'd get a lot more "I don't know"s, but that doesn't mean that there's any real doubt that Aum Shinrikyo did it, just that people, put on the spot, can't remember their name. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Are ordinary people's opinions on subjects they know nothing about relevant? Eg, if you did a survey of Americans, you'd probably find a large proportion of them believe baseball was invented by Abner J. Doubleday in 1839, as stated in American mythology. Does Wikipedia have to treat that as a serious POV, or can it simply point to the mention of the game in the writings of Jane Austen, who died in 1817, & dismiss the views of ordinary people as ignorant rubbish? Peter jackson (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Page is being edited repeatedly to give it a pro-missionary slant. That the National Minority Commission has only members belonging to the minority communities is very relevant as its reports are being quoted at great length to substantiate the anti-Hindu slant. But the fact of NMC membership is being deleted repeatedly without discussion. A church fact-finding committee is being described as National Integration Council committee though the related link itself says otherwise.

The Page is without neutrality of view. The Page is best deleted as it is mere pro-Christian propaganda.

Jobxavier (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Three IDs are being used to slant-edit, presumably by the same editor. The Ids are Gabrielthursday,Recordfreenow and Lihaas.

Jobxavier (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The page Orissa communal violence won't be deleted as this is a notable set of events. The Christian version of the events does seem to be much more prominently represented than any alternative view. The article could do with some more pairs of eyes. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know User:Recordfreenow or User:Lihaas, and am certainly not the same individual. This kind of unfounded accusation is bedevilling the dispute between User:Jobxavier and myself. I've outlined some problems with Jobxavier's edits on the relevant Talk page. I would appreciate "more pairs of eyes" as User:Itsmejudith suggests. Gabrielthursday (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also did not see any likelihood of sock puppetry here. Jobxavier, you would need to take such an accusation to the appropriate forum. I agree with Gabrielthursday that HRW is (in principle at least) a reliable source, and that it would be a WP:BLP violation to make any nebulous connection between these events and any prominent individual without a very good source. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please search 'India'and 'Hindu' in HRW. The anti-India, anti-Hindu and pro-American Baptist POV might be evident.Jobxavier (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how we judge the quality of sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Page is under Mediation. However, several POV edits have been made during the past 72 hours.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping for some pearls of wisdom from experienced editors about the Fathers' rights movement article, and in particular, how we can navigate some of the difficulties about writing from a NPOV about it, given that the sources that we have are mainly from two sources: articles, books, journal articles by academics in the field, such as [23], [24] [25] and books, articles etc. by members of the fathers' rights movement, (and in fact largely one member of the FRM, Stephen Baskerville) such as this one [26] To wit....

1. If multiple academic sources suggest an analysis (for example of the composition of the movement) and this view is not contradicted by any reliable source, is specific attribution (to the academics) necessary or desirable? Is personal disagreement about the truth and/or bias of the sourced statements by WP editors enough to require attribution?
2. How does one cope with the academic and other mainstream sources saying one thing, and the movement itself saying another? This problem is exemplified in the lead paragraph: academic sources (and even some FRM sources) state that it is a "social movement", but some in the FRM itself would prefer it to be known as a "civil rights movement". This point is currently being argued in the lead. More globally, how much weight (if any) do we give to what to the mainstream academic view in the article?
3. How does NPOV work when one source (Baskerville, a father's right activist) is being used almost exclusively in sections, and yet this is being introduced by "Members of the fathers' rights movement state...."? This issue is particularly acute in these sections of the article. [27][28][29]

Thank you for your help and insight here.--Slp1 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Baskerville is a leader of the fathers' rights movement. He is a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children. In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement state...." In some cases, the attribution reads "members of the fathers' rights movement including Stephen Baskerville state...." In some case, the attribution reads "Stephen Baskerville, [a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children] states.... In my opinion, the level of attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.

The fathers' rights movement is a "rights movement" and it is also referred to as a social movement. It would be highly biased to only include the view of some scholars who have described it as a social movement. The current lead is not misleading in any way, and the statements are clearly supported by sources.

Reliance on "scholars" in this article, especially without attribution, is not NPOV because "scholars" are not necessarily neutral. Law professors have been cited as scholarly sources. Some sentences include no attribution, while others do. In my opinion, the need for attribution should be based on the judgement of the editors and based on consensus.

For example, the article was recently expanded to include the sentence "some fathers' rights activists...viewing feminism as an enemy." (Am I the only person who sees the term "enemy" as a strong word for scholars to use?) There are many different forms of feminism, and so the statement is misleading and relies on a prior phrase "original goals of feminism" to fill in missing detail.

The section is additionally misleading because members of the fathers' rights movement view those who oppose a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting as opponents, regardless of their views with respect to how specialized or equally capable men and women are as parents, and feminist organizations currently oppose the enactment of laws to create a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.

Further, a source for this section clearly implies that these categories of fathers' rights activists are artificial constructs "for analysis purposes." The background and history section is being used to add artificial constructs of scholars. These artificial constructs are not necessary to the article and are unrelated to the background and history of the fathers' rights movement. Most of all, the section is unclear to readers. Michael H 34 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

In these series of edits, I replaced three uses of the term argues or arguing. What is wrong with the use of the word state as in "members of the fathers' rights movement state..."? [30] Michael H 34 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

This article was created to appease Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) who was repeatedly inserting POV and, IMHO, WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk. The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates WP:POVFORK has been loosely compiled with little context of why they would be involved with Jim Jones who had enormous political influence through the community work of his church and the volunteers, and votes, he could direct. Each statement by itself is technically true but the synthesis infers that these politicians should be held in some way accountable for the cult's mass suicide/murder in Jonestown. The related articles on Jones and Peoples Temple have also been populated with identical and similar cherry-picked bits from the sources which would also seem to violate WP:RS and/or WP:OR. I've had little sway in reasoning with the two editors there, Mosedschurte and to a much lesser extent Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs). I would very much appreciate uninvolved editors to step in and see if there is a path to improving this article. Mosedschurte has shown, IMHO, resistance to following NPOV policies elsewhere and has yet to understand why this content is sourced and presented poorly presently. Any help appreciated as my input seems to be largely disregarded. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. User notified of this thread.[31] -- Banjeboi 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "WP:Fringe theorist supported content on Harvey Milk."

Just to begin with, this is a rather ridiculous charge and the sort of sniping I've tried to avoid. I've never posted a single "fringe" theory, or even just theory, on anything.

In fact, the events are rather non-controversial facts reported in numerous major newspaper articles (NY Times, San Fran Chronicle, LA Times, etc.) and the most well respected books on the various topics at hand (e.g., Raven, Gone from the Promised Land, The Mayor of Castro Street, Willie Brown A Biography, Seductive Poison, etc.).

Re: "The Milk article has since, and apparently inspired by this content, been subsequently fully researched and rewritten to what looks to be FA status with the same editor again edit-warring to re-insert the disputed content. "

This is, again, inaccurate. One can see this simply examining the article's history.

The one sentence about Milk's support of the Peoples Temple during investigations was deleted during edits and then re-added. That was subsequently deleted, and then an even smaller 3 line sentence was simply added to the "Supervisor" section.

Re: "In Political alliances of Peoples Temple every minute scrap of information all seemingly to discredit the politicians (I believe all are Democrats as well) which likely violates which likely violates WP:POVFORK"

This is simply false.

In fact, the article goes further into explaining their motivations. Such as the large political pull of the Temple, that Harvey Milk was scared of the Temple, etc.

That they all "are Democrats" is simply a ridiculous charge. Jones (who was a socialist) almost entirely dealt with Democrats and independent socialist activists. Mosedschurte (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mosedschurte has a solid track record of red herring misdirects and obfuscating policy concerns with verbosity. They are an an WP:SPA that edits only on articles involving Jim Jones and tries to inflate the connections to Jones on biographies. See George Moscone, Donald Freed, Willie Brown (politician) and Angela Davis, for some examples. They exhaust opposition with verbal gymnastics and voluminous posts all while avoiding the real problems of original research, synthesis and undue weight thus also violating NPOV. If something wasn't a significant part of one's life, it plainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia bio about them and should be treated NPOV in other articles per WP:Fork and WP:UNDUE. I'm quite familiar with the material on Harvey Milk and the section on Milk is completely unbalanced and undue as if Milk was strongly aligned with Jones. Instead reliable sources have affirmed that Milk's only involvement was limited to routine work as a politician like speaking at a church and writing thank you notes. You wouldn't know it by reading the voluminous and cherry-picked minutia and extensive quotes. Based on the complete mischaracterizing of Milk's involvement I have no confidence the rest of the article is accurate and sources vetted to correctly portray their content. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Mosedschurte's edits and choice of sources, the plain fact is that support for Jim Jones/Peoples Temple by these various politicians and public figures is an encyclopedic topic. Agreed, not everything a politician does is significant or encyclopedic -- supporting non-controversial legislation, for example, or cutting the ribbon on a new freeway overpass -- but support for, and involvement with, a figure like Jones and Peoples Temple was, at the time, the focus of widespread public and media attention, as shown by the sourcing in the article(s). (In Milk's case, it was clearly not limited to routine work, as the cited letter to President Carter shows.) Asserting that Peoples Temple "wasn't a significant part of [Milk's, et al.] life" is, given the historical record, an unsupported, conclusionary opinion. --MCB (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling for the article to be deleted but that it needs cleaning up and Mosedschurte seems either incapable or unwilling to do so. As for the Carter letter? It's a primary source: a letter allegedly written by Milk, that is hosted on a website that also appears to deal in conspiracy theories. As such, a primary source (presenting the danger of WP:OR) and also hosted on a website that would not be consider reliable, it is doubly inappropriate as a source. It's also mischaracterized as has been pointed out to Mosedschurte at least three times. I've come here after Harvey Milk was rewritten doing a rather exhaustive search on sources which has shown very little notable connection. There were significant connection to the mayor and Milk was a trusted ally but the rest is puffery and relies on cherry-picked statements out of context to give the Milk section, at least, undue weight. I have little confidence the rest of the article is NPOV and RS. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. After further dealings with Mosedschurte who seems to have done the vast majority of work on this article I see no reason to believe that this article will be cleaned up for neutrality in any meaningful way. Further I concur with Itsmejudith's talkpage suggestion that instead merging the article might be the elegant solution thus preserving anything meaningful in the parent Peoples Temple article, which itself is full of NPOV problems, but is more likely to contain NPOV from spiraling too far out of control. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I give up, I don't want to go through any of this anymore and I really don't want to see this article until it's completely rewritten. Good luck. -- Banjeboi 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and proposed the merge back into Peoples Temple. It would be good if everyone would contribute to the discussion on the article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort but this ((SPA)) seems to enjoy the process of arguing too much for my taste. My initial foray into this world of all Peoples Temple nonsense only concerned Milk and my concerns were spot on. Mosedschurte has introduced identical or similar content that was thrown off the Milk article into this one and Tim Reiterman's and similar sections inflating the prominence of this suicide cult onto at least four other biographies. I know it will all be eventually removed but it's doing nothing but adding stress for me to deal with them. They enjoy it, apparently, and I'm in no mood for endless circular arguments and a protracted effort to clean-up all their work. If an effort to quickly merge doesn't take hold I would suggest send it to AfD a hopelessly POV fork or coatrack concern. It has an added benefit of a set deadline and more formal structure. If you go that route I'll participate there. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Update The article has been redirected to the main article on the Peoples Temple - however Peoples Temple in San Francisco has largely taken its place with many if not most of the same issues intact. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The user Adoniscik and me were in an edit war. I warned him that he needs to put neutral sources for his controversial claims. He evades my ideas and reverted ALL my edits until now, putting his own article with non-neutral sources several times again and without any negotiation of neutrality. He claims that "his sources are right" when his claims are revisionistic and use sometimes denialist sources like happened years before in the Armenian Genocide article. (His claim is to promote a book that has been cited to support marginal arguments, such as the claim that Ottoman Armenians deserved their fate). Here are his reverts of my all edits [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. The same happens with his "friend" or sockpuppet Arsenic99 [37] [38] [39] [40]. Notice that I am NOT counting the before continuous edit war between us and the former continuous vandalizers [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. My version of the article is more or less neutral and warns about that the authenticity of the book is not clear. --Vitilsky (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside Vitilsky persistent personal attacks, I forward editors to the discussion at WP:AIN#Hovhannes Katchaznouni. In short, Vitilsky's interest in neutrality is a ruse. There is nothing controversial about the claims I have made and supported by a veritable wall of sources. It is downright amusing that he challenges me to provide neutral sources given the fact that he has yet to produce one. All he has is shoddy OR. If you read through the talk page, you will see that Vitilsky's position has flip flopped regularly. Initially he refused to admit even the possibility that the booklet could exist. He found that position difficult to stand behind so he revised his line to saying that the booklet is a forgery or something. Not a shred of support for that claim, and his canvassing isn't as successful as he'd hope. Isn't it telling that Armenian historians don't see anything controversial about the booklet? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside your strange paranoia and denial of your lies, I answer to your last question: No. PD: Which historians? --Vitilsky (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely the question you are obliged to answer. Who debates its veracity? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

the definition of this disorder should not be categorized by sex,there is no link to differences regarding gender associated with this disorder

example of text

In females Women with HPD are described as self-centered, self-indulgent, and intensely dependent on others. They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships. As well, they over-identify with others; they project their own unrealistic, fantasized intentions onto people with whom they are involved. They are emotionally shallow to avoid distress and have difficulty understanding themselves or others in any depth. Selection of marital or sexual partners is often highly inappropriate. The majority of the time their partners will have symptoms of personality disorders, equal to, or far worse than their own. Women with HPD often tend to enter into abusive relationships with partners who increase the abuse as time wears on. Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology. Women with borderline tendencies often form entirely negative convictions towards the male gender and treat them like pawns as a defense mechanism concealing their own inadequacies. They may engage in self-mutilation and/or manipulative suicide threats as one aspect of general manipulative interpersonal behavior.[2] In males Males with HPD usually present problems of identity crisis, disturbed relationships, and lack of impulse control. They have antisocial tendencies and are inclined to exploit physical symptoms as a method of false control. These men are emotionally immature (although they tend to believe the exact opposite), dramatic (although many are adept at covering it up), and shallow (although they tend to believe their feelings are so deep that no other single person could ever understand). Men with HPD may dwell on their own emotions and create a false sense of reality, effectively convincing themselves of whatever they need to believe to feel comfortable in their relationships. HPD males with antisocial tendencies shift between periods of isolation and those of extreme social conquest (each shift can last a matter of days to periods lasting several years). They may require isolated retreats in order to obtain a comfortable level of understanding and acceptable functioning. HPD antisocial males are dependent upon no one in particular, but crave the dependence of others. Although males often have chameleon-like social skills (similar to HPD females), they tend to have trouble keeping lengthy friendships afloat as their paranoia (real and imagined) may eventually lead to a near complete and permanent disposal of all interpersonal relationships at a given time, effectively eliminating any emotional responsibility and accountability. They tend to genuinely search for intimacy (many believe in "the one") while remaining unable to regulate their perceived level of intimacy for any given interpersonal relationship, making it very difficult to build anything other than turbulent relations. Males with HPD may believe in the supernatural, such as fortune telling or telepathy, including the belief that there are many hidden messages and notions in public works that are specifically meant for them. When HPD antisocial males believe they are being manipulated, they may morph into sociopathic relations with their perceived enemies, yet remain overtly loyal to perceived friends. HPD men are oftentimes intensely driven by their quest to conquer life, despite having no real sense of direction or control, resulting in frequent changes of overly passionate interests. [2] Both men and women with HPD engage in disinhibited behavior, such as promiscuity and substance abuse.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The article uses a very deceptive selection of his congressional actions, and is misleading voters about one of the closest and most-funded Congressional races in 2008.

It boasts that he won an award from the League of Conservation Voters, portraying him as a pro-environment candidate. It neglects to mention that the same League of Conservation Voters also gave him a "F" grade last Congressional Session.

His position on Iraq is described solely as, "In May 2007 Kirk was the leader of a Republican delegation, of 11 congressmen, who explained to Bush his actions, in respect to Iraq, were hurting the Republican party." The article again neglects to mention the fact that Mark Kirk co-sponsored and was selected by Bush to help author the House Resolution to invade Iraq in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.94.125 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)