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

Issue: discussion about the practice of polyandry by Nairs in Nair article. The issue is no coverage versus moderate coverage.
My argument: Not discussing the ancient practice of polyandry adequately and/or providing a link to Polyandry among Nairs at the appropriate place in the article is a violation of NPOV.
Evidence: abundant. please see here for some articles i have listed from JSTOR. google books, Nair polyandry in Google scholar, Nayar polyandry in Google scholar
Previous outside discussions: I have sought ouside opinion at ANI. User:DGG, User:EdJohnston, User:TFOWR and User:Silver seren have already commented before. I have listed their comments here for convenience. User:DGG, User:TFOWR and User:Silver seren support a moderate coverage. User:EdJohnston recommended WP:RFC.
Other side: Shannon1488 (talk · contribs · count), Thankappan Pillai (talk · contribs · count), Vekramaditya (talk · contribs · count), Pulayan Punchapadam (talk · contribs · count) and Suresh.Varma.123 (talk · contribs · count). All of them have no edits outside Nair and larger section Kshatriya related articles. Some socks have been blocked. --CarTick (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To Admins: This issue is already discussed 4-5 times in the past month in the ANI and other places. Users like Cartick are wasting everyone else's time due to his own personal ego. Last week, a compromise was reached in ANI and everything seemed fine. But just after a week, Cartick is again trying to push his propaganda / hatred. Despite what he says, the admins who reviewed it stated that the issue is complex and needs expert opinion. Only one of the admins agreed with Cartick (Take a look at ANI archive). If you want to allow Cartick to use the wikipedia as a tool for spreading propaganda and anti-Nair fanaticism, then ban all of the other users and allow only CarTick to edit these articles. Atleast a dozen users have voiced their opposition to disruptive edits by Cartick and their voices are not heard. Whatever I had to say about this, I have written in the ANI. I am not going to waste any of my time on this.Shannon1488 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, could you please explain, why saying that Nairs practiced polyandry is hate speech? Would it be worse if I said Nairs were homosexuals? What exactly are the sexual practices you find so objectionable? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether you want to portray all Nairs as homosexuals or not. But wikipedia should not be used as a propaganda tool. CarTick had an argument with a Nair editor one month ago in the Nadar article. Right after he went for a wiki break, this guy started vandalizing Nair articles. Almost all the Nadar related articles in Wikipedia are full of POV and loaded with anti-Nair hatred. And here is the reason why Polyandry is not relevant to the Nair article:

• Primary practitioners of polyandry were not Nairs, but Kammalars and other artisan castes.
• Polyandry, although very rare was last practiced among Nairs during the 19th century.
• Most of the reliable research done on Nairs, including the works by CJ Fuller and Thurston contains no mention to polyandry, which means they disagreed on whether the practice is polyandry or not.
• Even some of the research works Cartick quoted, states the inaccuracy like "Although I have never met a Nayar woman whom I have definitely known to be polyandrous, I heard, from Nayar, of several cases of non-fraternal polyandry in recent times both from Walluvanad and from the Trichur taluk of Cochin".
• Cartick's edit's like "Under Nair polyandry, the only conceivable blood-relationship could be ascertained through females." smells of hatred.

We have voiced our concerns. If you want to side with Cartick, do it. Unfortunately there is not much I could do about jealousy and inferiority complex. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If any of you have the time and the inclination would you please take a quick look at this article. It has been tagged as having POV issues and, for the life of me, I can find no POV on the entire page. Per the conversation on the talk page Talk:Greg Hicks a claim is being made that the article is purely promotional, but, to me it looks like most actor articles that are stubs. I think a fresh set of eyes might clear things up. My thanks ahead of time to any editor who can assist in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing about the article that violates NPOV. Your interlocutor is making WikiDrama. I don't know if it is disruption to make a point or just social awkwardness, but anyone whose first reaction to your remarks is to direct you to WP:WQA (not for your remarks, but for their behavior) knows enough about Wikipedia to ought to know better. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check into this RJC. The POV tag was replaced with an Advert tag but another editor has removed that also. Again I appreciate your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A question about "Philosophy" sections in school and org. articles. Are these sections appropriate, especially when unsourced (as in above article)? Just wanted some other opinions before making an attempt to edit. Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion would be not appropriate. But frankly I think a larger issue is that the entire article is in pretty blatant contravention of WP:NOTADVERTISING. NickCT (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Following this comment, I wanted to clarify. Re "Are these sections appropriate, especially when unsourced (as in above article)?" - My opinion is that those sections are not appropriate. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. "Would not be", "Would be not" = me reading too fast for my own good. Thanks for the clarification. The Interior(Talk) 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Article in question: Microdermabrasion

Problem: The article is (and has been in all previous edits), no more than an ad for microdermabrasion, a cosmetic procedure. There is no information on potential risks or drawbacks of the procedure. Title headings are things like "How microdermabrasion renews the skin" - that is, non-facts stated as facts. This type of language is not tolerated on other sites e.g. plastic surgery, body cleansing, etc, and should not be tolerated here.

Discussion: Talk:Microdermabrasion Other users have pointed out this problem, and a few of the more egrigious claims (acne removal, scar reduction, etc) have been removed. However, the main issue of Neutral PoV remains in the article proper. One user defended the article saying:

Utter rubbish, yes there are quacks doing this but true professionals get good and even excellent results. It is one of the most popular treatments of the last few years so I doubt it would be that popular if it did not get the results!

Which again fails several tests of bias (it's hearsay, and something being popular doesn't mean it effective, see body cleansing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozieg (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a recommendation what to do about the issue? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanos5150 (talk · contribs) insists on removing any criticism of Zecharia Sitchin from the lead section, and burying it farther down in the article. I see this as a violation of both WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. Additional experienced opinions welcome, probably better on Talk:Zecharia Sitchin than here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an article that is having POV issues and I have to admit that it is a little on the WP:FRINGE side, but there is WP:UNDUE weight towards debunking instead of being neutral. There is an article Here in regards to Zecharia Sitchin and it was right away squashed as not WP:RS. There are a number of editors and Admins who verge on the WP:OWN regulations and police it without consensuses. Opinion? - Pmedema (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A little while ago, on the talk page an IP suggested that this be used as a source, and one other editor said it shouldn't be used. The IP was 216.191.219.194 (talk · contribs), apparently Pmedema logged out from what I can tell at [1]. I sympathise with the editor who said it shouldn't be used. The reporter describes his/her article as " a very condensed form of Sitchin’s writings and researches" and we can use Sitchin himself. As for WP:UNDUE and the article not being 'neutral', I think Pmedema misunderstands what NPOV requires here. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by accident I was logged out when I posted the suggestion and no, I don't "misunderstand" NPOV. By all means, there is plenty of debunking of Zecharia Stichin articles and some that are cited with questionable sources, but there is an WP:UNDUE weight to the debunking. Yes Zecharia Sitchin, in my opinion, is a crack pot, but articles should be balanced. The WP:POV is not what is written into the article but in the way that it is policed (sometimes rudly) when attempts to repair the WP:UNDUE are conducted. - Pmedema (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of a disagreement with a couple of editors on the Conservatism in the United States article. Rjensen originated and The Four Deuces has perpetuated these changes. I'll copy a portion of my objections from the talk page:

I object to this language on two counts:

1) It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to label the Tea Party as "angry conservatives". Certainly we don't see this sort of language at the Tea Party movement article or references to "angry liberals" at Opposition to the Iraq War. While anger is perhaps a socially appropriate emotion in certain contexts, labeling a political movement as "angry" is biased and demeaning.

2) The sources do not support the notion that the Tea Party is universally angry, nor do they support the notion that the Tea Party has "paid little attention to foreign policy". Being split on something and ignoring something are two entirely different concepts. The Tea Party has not ignored foreign policy and the sources do not indicate that they have.

Can I get a POV check on these edits? My primary concern is the lack of multiple, reliable sources to support broad and sweeping assertions. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A term like "angry conservatives" is not an objective characterization. POV declarations like that should be attributed to a noteworthy source, something like "X has described the groups as 'angry conservatives'." As for the other issue, in general we focus on what a person or group has focused on rather than what they have not. Rather than saying they've ignored foreign policy, it might be better to say that they've focused on domestic issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick neglected mention that the foreign policy assertion is based on a New York Times citation that "a review of the Web sites of many Tea Party candidates suggests that they have not spent much time exploring foreign policy specifics. Many do little more than offer blanket promises to keep America safe." It seems reasonably sourced to me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

While some Tea Party candidates have been coy about their foreign policy views, others (like Ron Paul and Marc Rubio) have been outspoken. I don't think there is enough evidence in either direction to make the sweeping generalization that the Tea Party has "paid little attention to foreign policy". Some candidates have and some haven't. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's what you believe, then you should find some sources the describe the Tea Party as having a viable foreign policy outlook or a non-angry viewpoint and include them in the article for balance. Otherwise you're just doing original research. Keep in mind, however, that the Tea Party movement is (at best) only a couple of years old. Political movements often (I'm tempted to say 'always') begin as relatively thoughtless expressions of outrage over some failed policy or another. It will probably take the Tea Party another five to ten years before it begins to have an explicit, consistent, and properly theorized set of platforms, assuming it survives that long. And even then, the question is whether it's going to survive as a major party or dwindle into 3rd-party purgatory. It's base (so it seems to me) lies in midwestern 'home-town' conservatism, which is more concerned with values - morality, fiscal responsibility, protection of individual rights - than with nation. That's been the uneasy alliance in the Republican party for the last few decades: capitalist-nationalists (big-business advocates with foreign economic and military concerns) working with right-of center moralists (small-business advocates and religious conservatives who are largely isolationist). That's one of the problems with two-party systems: you actually have three major interest blocks in this country - capitalist-nationalists, moral conservatives, and democratic-progressives (along with a couple of major minor perspectives such as the libertarians). it's all going to boil down to whether the TP can (a) organize successfully, and (b) draw off moderate conservatives from the DP and CN groups in sufficient numbers to supplant one of the other parties (most likely the Republicans). --Ludwigs2 16:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

An RfC is in process here, the purpose of which is to decide which version best fulfills this directive in terms of Wikipedia policies and standards. Version 1 Version 2

Comments are solicited from participants of this noticeboard.. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

On the GNU_Multi-Precision_Library article there is one anonymous user from Stockholm ( 90.132.75.8, 81.225.14.148, 130.237.222.220, 81.225.10.223 , 83.185.6.75, 130.237.222.220 ) that is repeatedly removing, without giving sound justifications, a wiki link to MPIR, a fork of GMP.

The line that is repeatedly removed is the following one:

• MPIR - a LGPL fork of GNU MP with fully compatible interface which (among other goals) aims to provide MSVC-based compilation system for Windows platforms.

Main argument for keeping it as given by a couple of users (ALoopingIcon and MTarini):

MPIR it is a legitimate LGPL fork of GMP. Fork of open source projects are usually included in the main page (see for example the Forks section of Mindmapper)

Main argument for not having MPIR cited in the GMP article:

A link moves away the from the focus of the article

Given the fact that MPIR is a legitimate fork, and that the knowledge of this fork can be useful to a variety of user of the library (e.g. the ones that require compiling GMP using microsoft compilers, something that the GMP community actively does not support) I would ask to keep the link. I have stopped reverting the removal of the anonymous user to not incur in the WP:3RR. I could be wrong, but googling around it seems that the MPIR fork was not a smooth one, so there could be some NPOV issues in the anonymous user's steady will of continuously removing MPIR references. ALoopingIcon (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like a press release. If you google Arthur Wolk, the top links are about his unsuccessful libel lawsuits; he has sued over thirty different people or organizations for libel, and has never won a libel case in court. I looked up the Wolk article after reading about his threat to sue Reason for writing about his libel lawsuits, and found that the article was nothing but advertising. Two editors (one of whom who has said he is drafting this article on Wolk's behalf) keep deleting my attempt to add well-sourced discussion of his libel lawsuits, which are notable and have received press coverage in multiple sources. They argue that I cite to primary sources (though I cite to secondary sources, too), but the article is full of primary sources and mentions of cases that don't have any secondary sources. I have classes and work and my edits get deleted as soon as I make them by editors who have all day to spend on Wikipedia, so I will drop the issue, but it seems unfair that someone can use Wikipedia to advertise like that. (Note: Boo is a single-purpose account because I don't want Arthur Wolk to sue me for my regular account and Wolk threatens to sue anyone who writes about him.[2] I got accused of a conflict of interest, but the other editor who has done nothing but write about Wolk on Wolk's behalf hasn't. I'll stop using this account.) Boo the puppy (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A summary of this issue is available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Vote_again_-_about_removing_regional_stats_in_summary .   Again in summary editors agree there is bias. One group of editors wish to remove sources that have obvious bias for browser usage share statistics, summary, and intro reporting. Another group claims that all sources have bias and prefer to add more sources as to mitigate the bias. Would appreciate your thoughts and comments on this issue. Because of the controversy I deleted the summary statistics in the summary table. But there remains an issue of which source(s) to use in the wp:lead.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DavidR2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ott jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.39.98.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Article in question is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

After reading the source articles I think that this could possibly be an attack attempt on the company. Could we have it checked for misrepresenting sources,fact finding and Neutrality please?

Some notes to consider:

The issue is not at all about whether the sources are reliable or not.

The website that the FDA Warned was www.acai-berry.com which is not created or run by the company of MonaVie.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html Is a review of Orrin Woodwards Organization called TEAM and not a review of the Company of MonaVie.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/nbty.shtm I am unsure what connection this source article is to the company of MonaVie.

I cant find any proof in the sources of the CEO being involved in any false health claims other than he had a senior post and quit a year before the FDA shut that company down. Possible Scandal Mongering?

Monavie Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MonaVie

Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathon A H explained much of this and your statement looks like a WP:IDHT of about every point he raised. Point 89 and 93 of the "Quixtar Inc. Plaintiff, vs. MonaVie, Inc., MonaVie LLC, John Brigham and Lita Hart, Jason and Carrie Lyons, Lou Niles, Farid Zarif, John Does 1-10," document pretty much spell out the CEO has issues with the FDA.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand now so you are saying that it is mainly this PDF this is the main source of what is written in the wikipedia article about MonaVie? DavidR2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is the final conclusion then leave no reply and I will take these findings back to the talk page in order to attempt to achieve consensus. DavidR2010 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that Jonathon A H addressed the points you are raising and there is nothing here that shows anything counter to what he or 65.95.238.137 pointed out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced something fishy is going on here there is quite a bit of slander of that company in that article with little proof to back it up. This source here http://www.amquix.info/pdfs/monavie/2-08-cv-00209-db-02.pdf is merely a complaint made by attorneys of a competing company how can that even be a reliable source. Yeah those guys didn't raise any good points either are you friends with them? I think you are a WP:IDHT Thank you. DavidR2010 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of fishy things, the ANI discussion[3] alleges that the SPA David is a sock of another user who is known for being a MonaView cheerleader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A single editor is responsible for adding considerable content to Paul Robeson and creating related articles, including Paul Robeson and the labor movement, Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson, and Paul Robeson and communism. Together with considerable positive content, she has left an incredible amount of POV in those articles, and attempts to discuss the issue with her at Talk:Paul Robeson have been fruitless.

Can some fresh eyes take a look at the articles and chime in. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The sub-articles don't seem to be the right way to deal with the length of the bio. There's an enormous amount of bad faith on the talk page, with people going into the rights and wrongs of the bio subject's beliefs. Everyone needs to be more disciplined, perhaps collapsing talk page posts when they go right off topic. In a quick trawl around for parallels, I saw that Malcolm X is a featured article. There's no reason in principle why Paul Robeson shouldn't also be taken to that standard, since there are plenty of reliable sources already cited. Would the editor who is adding all this material be interested in taking the article forward on those lines? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"attempts to discuss the issue with her at Talk:Paul Robeson have been fruitless."

I appreciate this forum and the time you are giving the article but that above assessment is a tad biased and I feel you know this Malik. I have not only gone into articles and removed as much POV as possible (please see the changes made in the past few weeks) I am not responsible for all of it! I was faced with a very short article about a very complex and hugely world famous 20th century figure mired in pov and editing conflicts and who's life spanned the era when black children's parents had been former slaves up until 1976. I did the best I could and still really want to improve what is there and make it much, much better than it is while working with others.

There are numerous urban myths and conflicting accounts surrounding key parts of his life. Much of what I see as an issue is stemming from the fact that this was a once an immensely famous international figure who has been mostly written out of history so therefore one has to explain: 1.Why he was one of the most famous Americans of his time 2.Why he was is unknown now 3.Why he was once considered a threat to the power structure on two continents 4.Why he was considered a Communist sympathizer

all without any povs and taking into consideration that Robeson's opinions/writings should ideally be quoted as often as possible. Robeson stayed silent on many of his views towards the end of the red scare but in tandem maintained his opinions in his autobiography had never changed. Regarding the CP/USSR which seems to be the flash point for everyone, I think there DOES need to be a separate article. It is a huge source of controversy with lies propagated by both sides of the spectrum. I have added to both articles, cited sections that feature many of his views and actions regarding the USSR/CP that the Left wants sanitized but many conservatives are still very upset. My solution is that we offer the reader a very well cited section of the article with abbreviated theories about his Communist views by the far right, right, liberal, left, far left historians and all of his major biographers. This can edited in a similar fashion to this article (much more brief of course): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories

As stated before, if someone of minute historical stature like Jessica Simpson warrants a portal and numerous sub articles, it is ludicrous to not have an in-depth availability of Robeson study in a similar fashion for his massive work with Labour unions in the US and abroad and the incident with Jackie Robinson. It is also saddening that he is invisible on all the Civil Rights portals and articles and has no portal and project of his own, he was active in Civil Rights his entire life. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, it is great that you want to develop a good biography of Robeson, who was, as you say, a very well known figure in his day. You will find it useful to look at some biographies that are featured articles for comparison. Harvey Milk might be of interest. It isn't necessary to quote biography subjects frequently, by the way. You need to work closely with the best published biographies. This is only an encyclopedia article, at the end of the day. People will use it as a first stage for further research. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am one of the editors who clashed with Catherine. My one attempt to remove POV pushing from the very long intro - I hadn't looked at the further text - was immediately reverted by Catherine, who apparently thinks herself the owner of the article. After that, I have began to overhauling the entire article elsewhere but due to real life commitments this only proceeds slowly. But I think I will be able to present the result soon.

Her POV pushing consists not so much of hiding facts but of an overly laudatory language towards everything Mr Robeson ever did, an equally condemning language towards his opponents, who are constantly imputed the most vile motivations (such as racism, being anti-civil rights etc.) never any reasonable concerns, such as a concern about Communist activities. (And that's not to say that Robeson had trouble with racist bigots or discrimination - only it is not the whole story). The recent changes Catherine has made have been minute compared to the problem.

Oh, and the way she treats Robeson's opponents, she treats her "opponents" as well, repeatedly imputing either racism or ignorance of the - indeed horrible - plight of blacks in American history. Repeatedly does she insist that the U.S. 1950s (or even today's America) was/is no better than Stalin's Soviet Union. That is what has dominated the talk page discussions. No one has attempted, as she claimed, to turn the article into a hit piece on Robeson (and I have even expressed understanding for how he got to his more problematic opinions). It is not WP's role to either laud or condemn Robeson's actions - but we must truthfully report them and the reactions.

Another issue is her insistence that Robeson is such a great man (and a great man he was indeed) that he deserves not just one article but several. She has repeatedly compared this to more recent celebrities such as Madonna or, as I see now, Jessica Simpson. No matter what anyone thinks of these women's importance, they are (for some reason) notable and thus have their articles. However, nowhere - and Catherine has provided a supposed list of how Madonna has many more extra articles (these actually were different people, groups, places, events somehow linked to the singer) - have I thus far found a string of articles that merely cover the subject's relation to this and that, there is Paul Robeson and the labor movement (which is basically a list of activities over a long period of time) but nowhere, let's say, Madonna and sex. The various extra article's topic can easily be covered in the main article, if concise language is employed and endless repition is avoided. Most of these articles through their topic only concern a short span of events (so far as really notable activities are concerned), so that they can be subsumed under this or that period of his life. The worst in that regard is Paul Robeson and Jackie Robinson, which concerns only a single event in both man's life and which doesn't even have a proper title to subsume what it's about. (For instance, no one would think of a Madonna and Sean Penn article.)

One exception among the extra articles is Paul Robeson and communism, which is a valid topic since it is the main controversy of his life and a topic that stretches across many time periods. I'm in favour of keeping it, though it suffers from the aforementioned POV problems.

The four questions asked by Catherine above are all valid ones and must be explained (though not necessarily in a "He is now unknown because ..." format) - however even in her questions she gives evidence of her POV pushing - though she talks about "without any povs and", making Robeson merely the victim of being "considered a threat to the power structure on two continents" - what about the power structure he supported?

I also disagree with her view that "Robeson's opinions/writings should ideally be quoted as often as possible" - his views should be given comprehensively and, if that best serves that purpose, he should be quoted. But we need not include a quote on everything, certainly not repetitive quotes or mere attacks.

Among editors, there never was a dispute whether Robeson changed. That he didn't should be noted. But just as much as I wouldn't have the article condemn him for "obstinately sticking to his support of a totalitarian regime", neither should the article laud him for his "unwavering" position. However, that is what Catherine's version is doing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, without going over what has happened in the past, do you want to work with other editors on improving the article in a way that's consistent with policy - NPOV, avoiding WP:QUOTEFARM, quality rather than quantity, working from sources? If you do, could you please enter into discussion on the talk page. Working together to draw up a to-do list for the article could be really effective, as could asking for the article to be reviewed in relation to Good Article criteria. In relation to subarticles, some of them will need to be merged back. I'm not at all sure about Paul Robeson and communism, even, because his political views were such an intrinsic part of his life events. Robeson and the House Committe on Un-American Activities, perhaps, if that constitutes a series of events with a beginning and some kind of end. Again, keep looking at how other biographies are treated and when subarticles are used. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope such a cooperation is possible.

My point about the communism article is: the overhaul I am working on and which I have in mind more rigorously follows a more chronological approach and thus mentions many items relating to PR and Communism in different places a) because this improves an understanding of the context of this or that development, and b) because they were relevant to others things too - as opposed to the current version which basically puts everything into one section (with subsections). But I thought maybe the extra article could then present these items in a more thematic way (it already does this, but then the PR main article would not).

That doesn't mean that I would object to the disappearence of the communism article. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

itsmeudith, Hi thanks for your feedback. I will take your advice.

Str1977: Anyone can go read what I wrote for themselves and see you are false. "The Belgian Congo does not approach the scope of Stalin"s horror" you say? Had their never been western European conservative right wing Christian/Catholic lust for slavery and imperialism and a ruthless monarchy (which was buttressed by the former) there never would have been a Stalin or a Marx. Do realize that when I moved material to the PR and CP sub-article that much of that NOT mine. I moved it, cited it and tried to flesh it out. Once again, so much is unproven conjecture. Even I wrote, with no sound scholarly proof other than his son's claim (which could be easily called bias and thrown out) that he was "aware of state sponsored murder by the USSR" I put that in so bias can I be? You just seem to want him put in the "convenient idiot box" and it can't be done.

As for the power structure Robeson supported that would first and foremost always be the United States. Post war II when that same power structure failed to end the systematic apartheid and wholesale genocide of blacks and even merrily lauded it (John Rankin added: "After all, the KKK is an old American institution.") Even then he still supported pro-American domestic causes like civil rights and trade unions. He also WAS a threat to the USSR in speaking out about Feffer in Tchaikovsky Hall. I said TWO continents. First and foremost , Robeson wanted PEACE with the USSR and globally. He did not want the USA to be telling other countries how to govern themselves. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that the advice may have been helpful. If I may add one further one point, please resist the temptation to discuss the substantive points of the article with people on the talk page. People can write really good biographies about people whose views they agree with, disagree with, or are undecided about. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I absolutely agree. It is not one's opinion of the subject that counts (mine regarding Robeson is mixed, with a note of sadness) but one goes about writing the article. For Catherine, it seems, there (UNFORTUNATELY AND THUS FAR) is only praise of Robeson and condemnation for his opponents possible - this also shows in her postings here, which a) totally misrepresents my points (e.g. re: the Congo), b) thinks anecodotal evidence makes her case, c) actually distorts Robeson's views (who clearly said, he wanted peace with Stalin and Mao because their regimes were decent).

But, as you, Judith, said this is not the place to discuss the article's issues aside from the POV factor. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to put in a piece correcting a very common misconception that Weston Price was called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition". However I have hit a snag with two editors. One doesn't seem to understand that is to correct an already existing problem (Talk:Weston_Price) and the other is hung up on the quality of the second source ignoring the fact it is basically parroting the higher quality first source

Here is the latest version of the piece:

However, an article in the 1950 edition of American Otological Society's journal The Laryngoscope stated the opinion that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" and this was repeated nearly word for word in Modern nutrition the publication of American Academy of Nutrition who Price had had given his complete nutrition library to shortly before his death.((1950) The Laryngoscope, Volume 60; American Otological Society)((1951) Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7; American Academy of Nutrition; pg 32). This statement of opinion would be presented as fact many decades later.

Given:

• Laryngoscope is published these days by Wiley and is the "Official Journal of The American Laryngological Association"
• Modern nutrition was (and is) published by the somewhat questionable American Academy of Nutrition
• The "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition" mistake is everywhere even on amazon

My questions to my fellow editors are:

1. Does this in any reasonable form violate WP:PEACOCK?
2. How can something clearly labeled as an opinion be read as as statement of fact?
3. Given the circumstances wouldn't leaving this out be problematic?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As the "Editor who does not understand...", I have been trying to explain to Bruce that placing this passage in the article in this form (or one of the numerous other incarnations that he's tried) actually tends to imply that Price is considered the Charles Darwin of Nutrition - a fairly drastic misrepresentation of Price's place in history - and would tend to confuse relatively uninformed readers, who would have a hard time understanding why someone on Charles Darwin's level of significance is actually only a minor theorist who advocated a now-refuted theory of dental medicine. The passage is not used with proper historical context. It's fairly clear to me that the original context of the phrase has more to do with the fact that Price did cross-regional research (comparing western/'civilized' nutritional intake with tribal/'natural' nutritional intake, similar to Darwin's work) than with any belief that Price's research was groundbreaking or extra-significant, but that nuance is not brought out in the way Bruce keeps using this phrase.

I'm not averse to the phrase, mind you, if it could be properly contextualized. But Bruce just keeps pumping in variations of the same material without really engaging any of our discussions or critiques. anyone else want to give it a shot? --Ludwigs2 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I'm the other editor mentioned by Bruce.) I'm not sure we should give any significant weight to an opinion in an article published in 1950 in a specialty journal for otolaryngology (ENT) about how this man is viewed in the field of nutrition (which is way outside their usual purview). The article itself spends more time talking about Price's theory about nutrition and pregnancy than it does anything remotely related to the field of otolaryngology.

As a context, we have contemporaneous book reviews that give rather tepid positive reviews of Price's book as rather pedestrian in its nutritional advice - hardly a Darwin-like achievement in the field as far as prominence goes. Unless we give proper context, the comparison with Darwin would certainly be misleading to any reader. (I'll leave aside Bruce's biased peacocked wording of naming the journal's associated society, implying the opinion made by authors of one if its articles is somehow the official position of the society itself.) The second source used probably isn't a reliable source (see discussion here) so using it as a way to prop up the other citation seems disingenuous at best. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"The passage is not used with proper historical context." SAY WHAT?!? It says right there it is from 1950, shows who made it, states it was their opinion, states it was reprinted the next year by a group Price gave his collection to and this opinion is being presented as fact many decades later. Just what more "proper historical context" do we need?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The context which shows that this was a momentary linguistic fad that didn't last into the 1960's, maybe? Or maybe the part which explains in what way he was like Charles Darwin, and what ways he was not? or maybe the part that shows what the general opinion about him actually was (i.e. a well-regarded but not particularly exceptional academic researcher)? either he was literally being compared to Darwin (in which case we should explain what about his work drew that kind of high praise), or he was rhetorically compared to Darwin for some reason (in which case the phrase is excessive and misleading). even you don't think he was 'literally' being compared to Darwin, so why are you so determined to point this phrase out in the article? --Ludwigs2 06:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This theorizing of yours is nothing more than WP:OR at the end of the day. Let me be blunt here; is there anything factually wrong with what I have posted?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I see if I've got this straight? The argument is over whether the article should include the statement that "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition", (compare Lizst as "the Paganini of the piano"), and sourced primarily to the academic journal Laryngoscope. Is that right?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument is actually this:

1. Price shortly before his death make a sizable donation to the somewhat questionable American Academy of Nutrition
2. academic journal Laryngoscope makes the opinionated statement "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition."" in 1950
3. Modern nutrition (published by said American Academy of Nutrition) prints a near copy of the Laryngoscope statement
4. Decades later the opinion turns into the statement "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition."

Effort is to show where this idea came form, what the idea actually was, and how (without going into WP:OR) that statement is being used (or rather in this case misuse would be a better term) today.

Original: "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition."

Current: "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition"

See the key difference between what Laryngoscope actually said and the way it is being mistated today?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to appear slow about this - does that contradict the basic formulation I put above? (Do you mean there is a promise of more modern sourcing to show contemporary usage?). To make a judgement, I need to know what the editor wants to do, separately from the arguments about whether it's a good idea. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my explainination on the Talk:Weston_Price was crappy.

1. There is 5,300 plus hit parade on google effectively proclaiming "Weston Price has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition". This is duplicated in several books including the 6th edition of Price's own work.
2. Laryngoscope actually said he might be called that not that he was called that.
3. I am trying to correct the mammoth amount of misinformation out there by showing just what was actually said, who said it, when it was said, and hint (can't do WP:OR remember) as to why it likely has changed.

Does this help?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, if I understand what you said above, you are trying to correct "misinformation" that's present in sources by quoting a somewhat more mild statement of the same assertion. However, you are doing this without any mention of the fact that there is any "misinformation" to be corrected. This does nothing to correct the misinformation, and simply informs people who know nothing about Price that he might have been considered a Darwinesque figure. It's a bit like trying to counter Tea Party arguments that 'Obama was born in Kenya' by saying instead that 'Obama may have been born in Kenya'. would you consider that an effective approach?

Honestly, the more I listen to your arguments, the more difficulty I have with AGF. I cannot imagine that anyone would seriously suggest that one can counter a perceived misinformation by restating the misinformation without further explanation. How is that supposed to work, exactly? If I say "the moon might be made of green cheese", do you consider that a resounding refutation of the idea that the moon is actually made of green cheese? is that what you're trying to suggest? --Ludwigs2 09:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it would be really helpful if one of you could provide a concise description of the editing action that is in dispute. That is, the text and the sourcing, without a commentary attached telling outside editors what you think of it. It's very difficult to give input when it's not clear what the specific edit action proposed is. To be honest, my immediate impression is that you don't agree on what that edit action is, so let's work on that first. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I haven't read this full discussion, but in response to the original question I have two comments. 1) The existence of an opinion an be a fact. "According to Smith, the peasants were angry". "Jones called the painting 'inspired'". "Thorndike has been called the 'father of plate tectonics'". Those are all opinions which are presented factually. 2) The posted text seems to over-analyze the situation, and appears to contain on original research. One middle-length sentence would seem like sufficient weight. "He has been called the 'Darwin of Nutrition' by several writers". If readers want to see the details they can look at the footnotes.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it does over-analyze the situation but that is just because I am trying to avoid WP:SYN and be as accurate to the sources as possible.

On your point 1 perhaps I'm being a little dense here but I don't see any real difference between your examples and "an article in the 1950 edition of American Otological Society's journal The Laryngoscope stated the opinion that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition""

On the "He has been called the 'Darwin of Nutrition' by several writers" idea there are two major problems with that version: 1) that is NOT what The Laryngoscope article says and more importantly 2) the sources that do say that do not seem to qualify under WP:RS I mean look as what a google books search of "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" with the quotes produces: three Yoga Journal articles, five nutrition books of unknown value, Modern nutrition: Volumes 4-7, and The Laryngoscope: Volume 60. The Laryngoscope is clearly the most WP:RS of the bunch so why not go with it being the main source instead of what the first five say especially as their WP:RS is really shaky at the moment?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I have to say that I'm leaning more in Ludwigs' direction on this now, namely because I was under the impression that you wanted these opinions factually attributed for historical context--to show that Price was called the C.D. of N. But now that you're explaining you merely want to counteract a misconception, I think that you should consider if this accomplishes that; and if it does, place the information in the modern section related to Fringe proponents of Price rather than the historical one about his critical reception.

Putting a refutation of modern (false) beliefs in the historical section makes it seem as if there was a rational basis for the modern beliefs when in fact you are [trying to show that the however false modern beliefs were rationally based on a false basis?] I'm just not sure what the purpose of that is. If you want to go back to regular old critical reception, plainly stated as such, I'll look through it again. Ocaasi (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points and the wording is likely problematic but I would ask you to really look at the Nutrition section again because it has an entire paragraph based on a 1981 article challenging Price's views and research methods. In terms of chronology I think we can all agree that 1950 (when the original "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition" claim was made) and 1976 (when Yoga Journal stated in two separate issues "Noted researchers such as Dr. Weston Price, known in nutrition circles as "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition," and ""Dr. Weston Price, a dentist and anthropologist known as "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition", in his extensive studies of native dietary patterns in every part of the world...") both come before 1981. As I pointed out in the Talk:Weston Price page there are at least four possible articles written in Price's lifetime (1935-1939) that challenged his concept of a healthy savage so why resort to a 1981 article in the historical section?

If what I am trying to do belongs in a legacy section then the 1981 article stuff does as well especially as the might had been turned into a was some five years previously. The logical of your position just doesn't hold given the way the article's historical position is currently written.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@VsevolodKrolikov: See this diff for the most recent iteration of Bruce's proposed change. Yobol (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, that helps tremendously. OK, here's how I see it:

• It's not the job of Wikipedia explicitly to correct "misinformation" in this manner; we need notable, reliable sources that directly address the misinformation. (The formulation "this statement of opinion was treated as fact many years later" doesn't actually make sense without more explanation.) Instead, we simply say what is notable and with due weight, and let the reader decide.
• That the Laryngoscope made the comment is notable enough. Even though it's not quite the right specialism, someone writing in a scientific journal would have been aware of what it meant to compare someone to Darwin.
• Later reference to Weston Price as "He has been called the Charles Darwin of nutrition" etc. do not seem to pass RS, and should simply be ignored, unless there is RS that talks about it.
• Bruce's insertion into the criticism section was in the wrong place, disrupting the good review - bad review structure. Any insertion should be after the Hooton foreword reference.
• I did a date limited search on google scholar and found this review from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which praises the book (and as near as dammit calls him the Ivan Pavlov of nutrition).

In short, I think a reference to what the Laryngoscope says should be inserted, along with CMAJ, in something like this (I've tried to balance it with a fuller quote from JAMA):

Anthropologist Earnest A. Hooton's 1939 foreword lauded Price's contribution to research on dental caries and the aetiology of their lower prevalence in "savages" compared to Westerners. In 1940, a review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal called the book "a masterpiece of research", comparing Price's impact on nutrition to that of Ivan Pavlov in digestion. In 1950, the American Otological Society journalThe Laryngoscope went as far as to say that "Dr. Price might well be called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition". However, other reviews at the time, such as in Scientific Monthly and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1940, were less sympathetic, criticizing Price's controversial conclusions about morality as "not justified by the evidence presented", "evangelistic rather than scientific", and downplaying the significance of the dietary findings.

This makes the providence of the quotations clear, and doesn't get into the OR business of what modern publicists and fringey nutritionists might claim. In terms of details or quotes, I think we should also beef up what JAMA and Scientific Monthly say more, in respect of their rather more weighty authority than Laryngoscope and the foreword to a book. Anyone searching for Price and Darwin on the internet will likely find this page near the top of the search, where the criticism is also there. It also highlights the need for a page on the AOS. Can we all agree on something like this? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it as it's wording is a lot better than what I was using. I have reworded the section to pretty much match this. The problem regarding WP:RS with the "Dr. Price was a Cleveland dentist, who has been called the Charles Darwin of Nutrition." claim is that amazon has this annoying habit of mixing different editions. They have this claim with the 6th edition (2003) of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration which was put out by Keats Publishing which is part of McGraw-Hill but says it refers to the 8th edition printed by Price Pottenger Nutrition. Ugh. This give the impression (if you don't pay close attention like I didn't the first time) that McGraw-Hill was making this claim rather than Price Pottenger Nutrition. I really hate when Amazon does that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My view of the Amazon citation is that (a) Amazon is not RS for those kinds of comments (it's PR) and (b) if there are good reasons to believe that a source is dodgy, even if it in principle passes RS, the simple solution is - don't use it. RS is a quality threshold, not an obligation to include.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

True though Amazon is good for telling you who publisher the particular version you are looking at. I should mention the 1939 (aka 1st edition) of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration was printed by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers making it a WP:RS for 1939 in its own right. Sadly the 1945 version (4th) was self published by Price himself so the extra material it contains doesn't have the same level of WP:RS as the 1st edition.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter in this case who published Price's book; it's only important that secondary sources treat it as notable. I think you're mixing up secondary and primary sources. For this article, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration isn't RS, it's a WP:PRIMARY text. That is, it's only useful on Wikipedia as a source for what Price literally said, not on the correctness or implication of what he said. For an article on nutrition as science, it's not RS, as it's too old, regardless of the publisher. We don't cite Darwin on the modern evolutionary synthesis, except by way of illustrating the history of the idea. As for Amazon - yes, it's fine for technical information such as page count and ISBN (it's their job to get that right), although I personally would prefer a publisher's website. We actually don't usually give sources for that kind of information anyway.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is rather marvelous progress. VsevolodKrolikov, thank you greatly for your input here. I think this is a positive solution to the problem being discussed.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree though I should correct VsevolodKrolikov two misconceptions here.

WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY: it does matter who originally published Price's book in 1939. Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers like Wiley-Blackwell today had a reputation to uphold so they were not going to just publish anything. Harper & Brothers were going to check to the best of their ability that what they were putting out met the criteria of the Medical Book Department as it was in 1939.

Besides Price references an insane amount of other papers in his book: chapter 2 has 21 references that are NOT to Price, 6 and 8 have 1 a piece, 9 has 3, 12 and 13 have 2 a piece, 15 and 16 have 6 a piece, 17 has 5, 18 has 19, 19 has 19, 20 has 5, and chapter 21 has 5. So Price's book is a MIXTURE of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY depending on what you want to use it for.

Second, WP:RS and WP:RSMED are not always the same thing. The insane amount of information I dumped regarding views of nutrition of Price's time (Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_1) are all reliable sources for examples of the pattern of thought of that time but they are no way are reliable sources in term of medical knowledge today. Edward Mellanby's BMJ article is still a reliable secondary source for ideas of 1930 but not for modern medical ideas--it is as he says too old.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor named Leadwind is deleting a lot of cited material off of Gospel of Luke and with it pushing a heavily skewed POV. He is deleting material because he says the publishers are "sectarian" even though they are some of the largest and most recognzied publishers in the world. Unfortunately I am outnumbered and cannot do a whole lot, but his reasons for deleting "sectarian" material certainly go against wikipedia policy. Will some editors go over there and look at some of his edits as well as the talk page?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored some of Leadwind's POV pushing here. I am sure he will restore it, but just look at his methodology. He completely discounts the legitimacy of non-skeptical schoalars, even when they comment on the views of scholarship at large.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems to be "one non-skeptical scholar" who wrote the source 20 years ago (actually, more like 30 - the 1990 is revised edition, not a new book), at a time when he was already retired 8 years. Guthrie probably was a notable voice in his time, but using him to make claims on current opinion is problematic, at best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources being used by the other editor are older. Sources originally published within the last 10 years have also been deleted by him. The issue has nothing to do with age but with what the editor labels as "apologetic". Besides, in biblical scholarship 20 or 30 years is a short span of time. Very little new information is discovered, so opinions don't change much over time.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This article explains an ongoing dispute over ownership of a small group of islands between PRC, ROC, and Japan. While much about this article is in dispute, I need input on a single sentence that we've been arguing about for a long time. The sentence is:

"The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that Senkaku islands is the part of Japanese territory in 1953.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}"

According to the best translations we have (which have been confirmed by native Chinese speakers and as far as I know not been disputed by any editors), what the People's Daily article explicitly states with respect to the Senkaku Islands is:

"The Ryukyu Islands are scattered in the sea northeast of Taiwan and southwest of the island of Kyushu (Japan), consisting of seven groups including the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa islands, Oshima Islands, the Tokara islands abd the Osumi islands. Each group has many small islands, a total of more than a total of fifty four hundred names unnamed islands and islets, the total land area of four thousand six hundred and seventy square kilometers."

The seven references in the sentence in our article are from two divisions of the Japanese government, a Japanese newspaper, a Chinese book, and a two US researchers. All of these sources believe that the above quotation from People's Daily means that, in 1953, the Chinese government (its assumed that People's Daily prints only officially approved opinions) considered the Senkaku Islands to be a part of Japanese territory. Now, I will say, this is a pretty believable analysis. My concern for the article, though, comes from exactly how we treat and attribute the sentence with regards to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Specifically, as far as our translations show, the People's Daily article never explicitly states that Senkaku Islands are a part of Japanese territory. As such, it appears, to me (and some other editors, although not the majority), that the claim that PD said that is an opinion, and thus must be explicitly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As such, I have argued that what our article should state is something like the following (exact wording is flexible):

"In 1953, the People's Daily, a Chinese newspaper which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written that the Senkaku Islands are a part of the Ryukyuan Islands (Okinawa).(+citation for original PD article) The Japanese government, along with some journalists and US researchers, have interpreted that article to mean that the Chinese government considered the Senkaku Islands to be a part of Japanese territory in 1953.(+all or most of the current citations)"

Opposing editors argue, essentially, that it is not nor has it ever been in dispute that China always considered Okinawa a part of Japanese territory (a claim I have no ability to evaluate, nor do I think is relevant), and thus it's not really an interpretation or opinion to make the transitive analysis that Senkaku Islands = Okinawa = Japanese territory. So, NPOV board, is this really, as I believe, an issue of the need to attribute NPOV, thus governed directly by policy? Or is this merely an editorial decision governed primarily by editorial consensus? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'd point out that it was mentioned several times that the PD article itself considered Ryukyu Islands to be an independent geographic entity. Also, the Okinawa Prefecture in Japan did not exist until 1970. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, You said many times "Okinawa did not exist until 1970". I question your knowledge of Okinawa. The Ryukyu Islands became Okinawa Prefecture in 1879, a hundred years before your recognition. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. The Okinawa Prefecture did not exist between the period of 1945 and 1970. As far as I know, it became U.S. territory as the U.S. army demolished a crumbling Imperial Japanese army through a series of island hopping campaign. In the end, I'd remind you that it is unproductive to bring up irrelevant matters. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In the explicit context of Senkaku Islands dispute, Qwyrxian's arguably reasonable formulation is smoke and mirrors. The framing is misleading.

Our policy is plain, straightforward:

WP:V + WP:RS trumps zero citations from zero reliable sources.

Absent any discernible foundation, this is speculative -- unhelpful in our talk page threads, and unhelpful in this venue as well. In wiki-terms, this is "original research", is it not?

The underlying premises conflate fact and factoid, which is defined by the 2008 edition of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary as "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact". In other words,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

These are not inconsequential issues. --Tenmei

(talk) 01:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, of which WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is also a core policy, of equal standing with WP:V and WP:OR. I wish you would address this issue, instead of continuing to repeat complex formulations and strange links that don't directly bear on the subject being raised. The question being asked here is whether the formulation "People's Daily said Senkaku is a part of Japanese territory" is opinion or if it is fact. If it is opinion, it must be attributed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you ignored a discussion whether such weird attribution is necessary in Japanese POV section "Arguments from Japan". Are you going to change the wording each time a new citation is added to the sentence? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to mention that. Yes, the sentence is in the section titled "Arguments from Japan." However, that section contains specifically attributed statements, as well as factual statements. I feel that the attribution in the title of the section doesn't the issue clear; when I read this, the way I interpret the section is "Fact: PD said Senkaku belongs to Japan"; along with the title of the section, I then read "Implication: Senkaku really does belong to Japan." I don't think I've seen any other article where just adding a section title like this removes the need to distinguish at each point the difference between facts and opinions. However, if the consensus is that that attribution is sufficient, I will accept it. Personally, I think the whole article structure should be changed to solve this problem (going with a topical structure like is found in Sea of Japan naming dispute), but that is clearly going to have to wait for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Looking at the actual wording in the sources cited for the statement, it's difficult to understand how it has been transformed into a statement of fact in the Wiki article that takes the form "the People's Daily said the Senkaku islands are Japanese territory". That isn't what the sources say. The current statement does look like an unattributed interpretation of what the People's Daily published so I think Qwyrxian is making a fair point policy-wise. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This thread is putting the cart before the horse. This becomes a case of the wrong issues proposed in the wrong venue with the wrong background and with no seeming awareness of the potential adverse consequences.

The article published in The People's Daily was unnoticed until 1996. Today, it is an illustrative example in a counter-argument which Qwyrxian fails to mention. It is not proffered by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the express purpose of evoking the interesting quandry Qwyrxian describes.

Yes, the reasoning is alluring, but there is much more that Qwyrxian withholds -- the context of this one sentence and the consequences.

Especially the consequences.

This rhetorical exercise functions only to overwhelm, obscure and devalue. We turn our project upside down. This begs a question: What is the practical effect of insisting on this plausible non-question as if it were an a priori matter?

We do best when we are guided by these words:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

In this thread, Qwyrxian devalues this threshold concept, converting it into a kind of afterthought which can be marginalized at will. It is a bright line distinction. --Tenmei (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the current wording is unsatisfactory. However, I do think that the article - if only indirectly - was acknowledging Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. As far as I know the Ryuku Islands have been considered Japanese territory for over a century. Accordingly if the People's Daily clearly stated that the islands were part of the Ryuku chain, that meant they were Japanese as well.

I suggested something along the lines of "An article in the P-D...organ of.... on DATE acknowledged Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands, when it said that QUOTE." Control is probably the wrong word, but I was trying to improve on the current situation by making it clear why the article was acknowledging that these islands were Japanese. John Smith's (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@Tenmei: I want to point out the following quotation from our behavioral guidelines on gaming the system. One example of gaming is Cherry-picking policies: "Example of cherry picking policies: demanding support for an edit because it is verifiable [WP:VERIFIABILITY] and cited [WP:CITE], whilst marginalizing or evading the concerns of others that it is not based upon reliable sources [WP:RS] or fairly representing its purported view [WP:NPOV]." Now, please understand, I am not saying that you are doing this on purpose; i.e., I am not accusing you of gaming the system. However, I believe that you are unintentionally holding up only one policy (WP:V), and not also simultaneously applying WP:NPOV. The sentence must be appropriate with regards to all policies, not only with regards to one. The question being asked here is whether or not the policy violates WP:NPOV, which I think it does.

@John Smith: While I think that version is better, I don't think it fully solves the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian, I am surprised you said User:John Smith's version is better. As far as I know, it solved nothing. Somehow, he still thinks PD acknowledged the islands were Japanese. That's just the same idea as the original text that we found to be problematic. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, The purpose of an attribution is to prevent a reader from confusing a POV opinion with a generally accepted opinion. The implementation of such an attribution is not limited to a sentence-attribution like "X claimed Y" but a section-attribution placing the sentence inside "Argument from X" section. In the former method, a "sentence" is attributed to X, while the latter method, a "section" is attributed to X. Therefore there is no problem with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The People's Daily article sheds little light on what the position of the Chinese government was in 1953. Government control, especially in 1953, did not include intensive consultations with diplomats and international lawyers with respect to every statement. The quotation can be used, but used, exploited, is the operative word. Information about that use, if adequately sourced, can be included in the article, but not as evidence of the considered position of the People's Republic of China. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't use a reference to an article to support something the article doesn't say. That is basic, whatever the context. The onus is on those who want to use the PD to summarise correctly the content of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Fred Bauder -- Your comment is framed by the misleading context Qwyrxian which has contrived in this thread.

Our problem is not easy; and it is mis-parsed because of factors Qwyrxian failed to identify.

Consider this objectively:

Example: Fred Bauder's analysis does not consider the crucial relevance of a Latin maxim venire contra factum proprium which is explained in different words in corollary Wikipedia articles:

Estoppel only comes into play when the other party relies to its detriment on the posture adapted. Then a change in position damages the party that relied on the original posture. To say nothing of the fact that this dispute is not a proceeding in equity. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE @ Fred Bauder -- There are two aspects to this rebuttal:

• A. Your comment suggests that you think this is my personal argument; but it is explicitly sourced from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Possibly you too casually dismiss it based on your understanding of American law.
• B. If the example list is perceived as unhelpful because it is a list of articles about estoppel in private disputes, then an alternate list of corollary articles about international law serves a similar illustrative purpose. --Tenmei (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

An illustrative example of a list of related Wikipedia articles:

Analysis: As we know, Wikipedia articles are not considered WP:RS, but the existence of this array of articles is itself a fact. This list is accepted as fact in the context of a counter-argument which rebuts a denial of existence of the list of articles.

In the same manner, the People's Daily article is part of a list which is significant in the context of counter-argument. In this NPOV thread, both (a) the existence of a Senkaku Islands counter-argument list and (b) the subject of the argument/counter-argument remain unacknowledged.

It is noteworthy that subject Qwyrxian does not acknowledge is venire contra factum proprium. This is non-trivial in the Senkaku Islands dispute.

Qwyrxian presents an arguable question which is plainly alluring; but it is a straw man which functions only to divert and distract. Also, this straw man has an additionally complicating context which Qwyrxian has explained succinctly: "... in other words, what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him. In fact, Qwyrxian has abandoned WP:V again and again.

This thread has a skewed perspective because we have not addressed the essential, irreducible threshold in which WP:V + WP:RS is more important than zero citations from zero reliable sources.

When threshold issues are glossed over, it produces unanticipated consequences. --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone here understand what Tenmei is saying? One of the problems we often have at the article talk page is that Tenmei gives us a very long analysis, often with all sorts of links to other wiki articles, and, overall, doesn't actually seem to address the issue. I really don't understand how any of that addresses my point that while the interpretations are validly verified, the lack of attribution isn't neutral. Phoenix7777's point (that the section title is all the attribution needed) I at least understand, even though I disagree. In other words, if a consensus of editors said that the section title is sufficient attribution, then I could accept that consensus, but whatever Tenmei's point is, I just don't understand, so I don't see how it helps us reach consensus. Is this just a failure on my part to fully investigate all of the links and details of Tenmei's argument? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If Tenmei can't explain his argument in plain English, then he can't explain it at all. Here's a suggestion for editors on the article. Everyone suggests sources that address the topic of the Senkaku Islands. Everyone agrees which sources are relevant. If no agreement, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Then summarise each of the sources, getting passages translated if necessary. Then write those summaries together into good English prose. No Latin tags in sight. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan was occupied by the Allied Powers from 1945 to 1952. It was a military occupation. The occupation ended in April 1952 when the Treaty of San Francisco went into effect. In the article 3 of the treaty Ryukyu Islands, Daito Islands, and Nanpo Shoto were put under the U.S. trusteeship. So, Bobthefish2, it is inaccurate to say "the Ryukyu Islands were U.S. territory" in 1953. The islands were a United Nations Trust Territory and they were Japanese islands only administrated by the U.S.A. I want all editors on this thread to check historical facts more and think about this matter again. Tenmei, sorry, but your posts were too long to read. Oda Mari (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that changes anything. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It shows that the Ryuku Islands were Japanese even when being administered by the United States. Ergo recognition that the Senkaku Islands were parts of the Ryukus was by default recognition of Japanese sovereignty. John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see...

• "Sovereignty" according to Oxford Dictionary
• "Sovereignty" according to Webster Dictionary

I guess what the two of you proposed is not important after all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? I assume that there is a good reason for you to say our last comments weren't important, and that you're not playing some sort of word-game. John Smith's (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do, my British friend. Is there any reason for you not wanting to click the links to Her Majesty's Dictionaries? I was hoping this wasn't too much to ask for. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Webster is an American dictionary, as any knowledgable person knows. And yes, oddly enough I did click on the links. I didn't see anything significant there that somehow renders my or Oda Mari's comments unimportant. So again, I urge you to back up your assertions with some detail. And as I previously said, I hope that you're not just going to play a wordgame. John Smith's (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I knew it was a subsidiary of Encyclopedia Britannica, but didn't realize Her Majesty's Encyclopedia now belongs to Americans. However, since you apparently require help for such trivial task of reading comprehension, let me give you a hand:

• Her Majesty's Oxford Dictionary said:
  • sovereignty
    • Pronunciation:/ˈsɒvrɪnti/
      • noun (plural sovereignties)
      • [mass noun]
        • supreme power or authority
• Her Majesty's Webster Dictionary said:
  • sov·er·eign·ty noun
    • \-tē\\ˈsä-v(ə-)rən-tē, -vərn-tē also ˈsə-\
      • 1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
      • 2a : supreme power especially over a body politic

Now, can you tell me how the Japanese managed to have sovereignty over Ryukyu Islands when they practically had no power over the islands? Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary. Supreme power or authority - I'm surprised you couldn't be bothered to read your own reference. You don't have to have power over something to claim sovereignty. John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Guess I am an idiot for continually entertaining your posts. Here's Oxford dictionary's definition of authority.

Next time, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, you should stay quiet and let the big boys do the talking. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Y'all are arguing content again, instead of arguing about the article. To me, Oda Mari's comments don't match up to the relevant question. To me, it really is very simple: PD did not explicitly state that they considered the islands to be a part of Japanese territory. To me, our article should reflect that fact. I think the article should definitely include the info about PD, along with the citations to say that this is evidence that China considered Senkaku to be a part of Japan in 1953. But I don't think our article should state something about the PD article that isn't actually in the PD article. I don't understand how people can support the article saying something false. I don't understand how you can support this after every non-involved person who has commented here has said the same thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Good. This echoes a post I've made roughly... 26 days ago. I consider this RfC to be very productive (honestly). It facilitated some interesting discussions and successfully portrayed the intentions of everyone involved. With all that we've learned from this, I think we are ready for another round of discussion about something else.

Thanks everyone. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just want to point out that no country definitively "owns" any territory. A country owns what it can defend, and loses what it can't defend. For example, California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas used to be part of Mexico. There's no denying the fact that those states were taken from Mexico, but there's little chance of Mexico getting them back any time in the near future, no matter how rightful their claim. So arguing over who "really" owns the Senkaku Islands is as pointless as arguing who really owns Gibraltar or a certain temple in Cambodia. Japan owns them until China decides to take them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To summarise; someone feels we should use Japanese sources to verify the stance of China in a conflict between the two and in a manner that is clearly favorable to Japan. Could someone tell me why we consider these sources reliable in this context? Because that makes no sense to me. Taemyr (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the more important issue is that the article said "the primary source said A" when the primary source said B and then the article cited some secondary sources that said "the primary source said A". In a sense, it's like putting words into someone else's mouth. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless the chinese newspaper issues an official translation, which I see as unlikely, we are forced to have someone put words into their mouth. That is in essence what a translation is. My proplem is why we consider partisan sources as reliable for this translation. Taemyr (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are actually translations of the articles that are fine at a syntactic level. Let me define a simplified scenario:

• The primary source A said "X -> Y" in Chinese.
• Some reliable secondary source B said "A said X -> Y" in English.
• Some other secondary/tertiary sources C said "A said X -> Z because Y = Z".

In short, B translated A correctly in syntax. C mistranslated A on a semantic level by equating Y = Z and possibly misinterpreted B's translation of A.

Another example to help you understand:

• Ahmadinejad said "The problems in Israel would be cleansed" in Farsi
• A translator said "Ahmadinejad said the problems in Israel would be cleansed" in English
• American News said "Ahmadinejad said Iran will kill every Jew in Israel".

Since the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (referred to as MOFA here) actually had a syntactically correct translation of the primary source, you don't actually need to know Chinese to notice the problem. Hope this helps. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sources are Japanese. Others aren't. The newspaper clipping itself is Chinese. John Smith's (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Those editors we have that speak chinese seem to be arguing that the chinese newspaper does support the statement. Taemyr (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the description of the photo scan and the article itself says the words Ryukyu Islands in the first sentence, not the word China. No matter what the original author was intending to refer to when he wrote the words Ryukyu Islands, an editor would be choosing an interpretation when he ONLY writes one of those possible intentions on the disputed page. If there are secondary sources choosing the same interpretation as you, then the sources should be presented that way, as one of the multiple interpretations of the original article. But since there are secondary sources that make the other interpretation, those sources PLUS the other interpretation should also be presented somewhere. And to be clear:

Interpretation 1 - When Ryukyu Islands was mentioned in the article, the author meant Japanese territory.

Interpretation 2 - When Ryukyu Islands was mentioned in the article, the author meant the physical islands themselves.

cybmx (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I support Qwyrxian's reasoning on this issue. STSC (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

An edit was proposed during a mediation to deal with accuracy issues in the article Gibraltar. This proposed replacing

with

The sentence is accurate, supported by reliable sources and provides more accurate information than currently. The accuracy of the statement is not disputed, rather those opposing it insist that if it is changed, then it must be followed by the caveat:

There are a couple of national narratives to consider here. Generally, Gibraltarians insist that Gibraltar has been British since 1704. Previously, based on the account of Ayala it was the Spanish claim that the British captured Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne. Both national narratives are rejected by modern scholars, both British and Spanish, eg Hills, Jackson, Bradford and Sepulveda. The mainstream opinions support the fact that Gibraltar was captured by a force under the command of Prince George of Hesse-Darmstadt on behalf of Charles III, the Austrian pretender to the Spanish throne.

However, there are a diverse range of opinions among historians as to the point at which the British obtained control over Gibraltar. For example, the British historian George Hills demonstrated that Gibraltar was considered a Hapsburg posesssion until 1712 and suggests Britain started to acquire de facto control from 1708, while the former Governor Sir William Jackson states in his book Gibraltar remained an Anglo-Dutch base until March 1713, only becoming British following Utrecht. This debate is far from settled and there is a wide range of opinions in the literature.

Hence, I do not consider that the caveat as demanded is either accurate or compliant with our policy of a NPOV, which suggest that if appropriate the range of opinions in the literature should be represented. Such a bald statement coming straight after a sentence referring to the events of 1704 rather infers that the British were immediately in control, something not supported by the range of opinions in the literature.

The counter argument has been to search through google books, using google snippets to find fragments of text that appear to support the simple caveat above ie searches predicated on satisfying the edit rather than looking at the literature to see what the weight of opinion is. See WP:RSN#Google Snippets regarding the reliability of this as a source. The argument presented is that these snippets are suitable cites and the diverse range of opinion in the literature can thus be ignored.

I would welcome outside opinion. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If the sources present a range of opinion then you should use the latest reliable date rather than detail each claim. For example something along the lines of "By 17xx, it was clear that Gibraltar was unequivocally under de facto British control." Wayne (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That is one possibility. The other is that you do mention some of the dates given by historians, attributed to those historians. You could do it in a footnote or in mainspace. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have a concern regarding the separation of facts from points of view in the article in French about the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It would be more in line with Wikipedia’s Neutral point of view policy and Wikipedia: Criticism guidelines if points of view were collated in a separate section. These guidelines state that “criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section’s flow”.

The citations in this article criticising EFSA’s work are currently published in sections to which they are not directly related. For example, the section explaining EFSA’s objectives also contains specific statements outlining points of view regarding EFSA staff and other detailed information not related to EFSA’s core remit. These would be more appropriately included in a section clearly identified as containing points of view.

The articles in other languages about EFSA follow a different structure and any criticism is presented in a separate section, such as in the German version.

I am an editor at EFSA. In line with Wikipedia’s rules regarding conflicts of interest we should and will not edit the article ourselves. We have tried to ask for a modification of the structure on the talk page of the article but have received no responses. This is why we are asking for your advice or help in this matter. Thank you in advance.

--Haga Caroline (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Several different issues are raised. 1. English Wikipedia generally finds "criticism" sections and articles to be less than utile. It is better to place criticisms in context in the sections to which the criticisms relate than to have a catch-all section or article. 2. Invariably if one seeks to have a section present a positive picture of an organization, any criticism will "interrupt its flow." That is how NPOV is reached in WP - by having statements and counterstatements in some proximity. 3. Positive statements about any group (or negative ones) are gerally considered to intrinsically represent a "point of view" thus segregating out all "points of view" would have the effect of blanking an article. As long as the criticism is properly sourced (extremely important if any of the topics fall under WP:BLP, all you should do is try to prevent excessive weight being given to specific criticisms. Collect (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a different perspective on this than User:Collect.

First, Wikipedia's rule's regarding WP:COI do not say that you should not edit the article yourself. It says that your staff should be conscious of WP:NPOV and present unbiased information, particularly such information reported by third party publishers, and including information which criticizes your organization. Everyone has biases and people contribute to articles which interest them. The fact that your interest partially involves money does not mean that you cannot maturely and fairly contribute to articles, but you still follow the same rules as everyone else. I would advise you to create a user page describing what COI you have because if you are honest and do good volunteer work for Wikipedia instead of only using it as an advertising platform then you will get respect. See also WP:SPA to learn what to avoid.

Second, English Wikipedia has very little to do with French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. It would be best for you to discuss those articles on those language boards. If you want to learn about inter-Wikipedia relationships then you could read about Wikipedia:Meta but I do not think you need this.

Here is the policy on WP:Criticism sections. You should WP:BE BOLD in proposing the changes you would like to see in the article. Thanks for writing. Does that answer your question? Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This post is entirely about an issue on French wikipedia. Our article doesn't have a criticism section. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

The user Reisio has started PoV editions on these two articles by redirecting both pages to the ones related to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, while these pages were disambiguation ones explaining the fact that the territory of Western Sahara is disputed and offering an overview of the Flag/CoA of each claimant.

I tried to explain to him [4] the WP:NPoV case related to these articles, and that any redirection to Morocco's or SADR's Flag/CoA is clearly PoV but I didn't succeed (and I will make no comment about his answer [5]).

If an admin can explain this thing to him, it will be nice.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone put this ^ POV-pushing Moroccan straight. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Explanation:

• Case: Western Sahara
• Status: Disputed, no sovereignty recognised
• Claimed by 1: Morocco
• ... then: POV1 = The flag/CoA of Western Sahara are the ones used by this claimant (I didn't put a redirect to Morocco's ones)
• Claimed by 2: The government in exile of the SADR
• ... then POV2 = The flag/CoA of Western Sahara are the ones used by this claimant (Reisio putted a redirect to this claimant's ones)
• So: Neutrality = nor POV1 nor POV2.

Regards,

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's all a conspiracy between me and 99% of the rest of the universe: http://images.google.com/images?q=western%20sahara%20flag. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, take it either here or here. Pick your favorite and stop edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What is it you think there is further to discuss, Seb, that can be settled (merely temporarily at best) by anything but an admin's threat of punishment? You reverted him as well, a good contribution to the situation — and now you've decided what exactly, that you take neither side? You take the side of not edit warring, is that it? That should be quite useful the day everyone is an admin (or no one is), meanwhile we're seven years in and this wiki-wide war continues. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history for Flag of Western Sahara, this seems to be a case of WP:OWN. Reisio started on this page as early as November, 2006 with edits that seem to promote the idea that the flag for Western Sahara is the same as the for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Since then there seem to be dozens of reverts from Reisio against multiple editors pushing the same idea (e.g. 1,2,3,4,5), with virtually no discussion on the talk page. I'm mentioning this not b/c I necessarily disagree w/ Reisio's POV here, but b/c the edit history is fairly extraordinary.

Two things need to happen here. 1) Reisio needs to stop the aggressive editting behavior, or he'll probably find himself in AE. 2) As Seb said, users need to go to the talk page and discuss there. Omar should consider starting an RfC. If he likes, I'll help him with it.

Good luck guys. NickCT (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't seem to have read the edit summary of the first diff you linked to. It is as accurate and indisputable today as it was then.

Secondly, you seem to have missed all the preceding history, including that many editors have been involved in this on both sides, and that the article used to be flag of Western Sahara (seriously, look at the history) before wave upon wave of Moroccan propagandists decided it should not be so.

Thirdly, if you're having trouble finding discussions, it's because (as previously mentioned), this edit war is nearing a decade in age, and spans across countless pages (and Commons). This page on the flag barely scratches the surface. You might use this ancient incident noticeboard discussion as a jumping off point, but I doubt you will ever in all your years set your eyes upon all the discussion that has taken place, nor would you want to as the bulk of it is completely inane. Administrator intervention is the only thing that will ever curb this edit war. I would welcome it, though it rarely occurs. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for these comments.

In response to NickCT's advise, unfortunately discussions are failing since 2007 [6], and I don't think that starting a new discussion can help by any way, since I'm sure that it will be a new wave of monologues (as you can see in article's talk page). I chose to ask for a WP:NPoV "arbitration" because of that, because no results can be expected from a discussion with people who are judging that "you can't be neutral since you're Moroccan".

Btw, I used to revert even Pro-Morocco PoV on this kind of articles.

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these pages should exist. "Western Sahara" is just a provisional name adopted by the United Nations to denote a disputed territory. It doesn't have a flag, or a coat of arms. For the benefit of the uneducated reader, however, if links must exist, they should be without question Dab pages, not redirects to either one. I'm also concerned at the lack of good faith shown by Reisio. Whether Omar is Moroccan or not does not automatically mean he cannot edit objectively on topics relating to his nationality.

Redirecting to one or the other is unacceptable. However, this is also unnecessary. Take a look at Flag of China or Flag of the Congo for a better style. Nightw 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Reisio - Look, the bottom line is that I've never seen an editor single handedly defend a particular POV against so many other editors, over such a long period of time. You may want to consider whether your behavior constitutes healthy editing practice.

@Omar-Toons - If the discussion has been failing, it's likely b/c you're not doing it right. If you like, we can work together (i.e. you, me and Reisio) to format an RfC which would settle this question permanently.

@Nightw - Your position re deletion seems quite reasonable. I think these could definitely be AfD candidates. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@NickCT - When I was talking about failing discussions, I was meaning all the discussions on the article's talk page, since Jan. 2006 when an user changed the name of the article [7], not only my own discussion with him, which consists of only 1 message from each. I say it again, I can't have any discussion with a person who judges me basing on my nationality.

Omar-Toons (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation: On this article, Reisio, in what seems to be a WP:OWN case, reverted edits [8] made by me, PBP, Xiquet, Vispec, A Jalil, Wikima, Louse and Juiced lemon. All these users explained the disambiguation on the page.

If we take a look on the talk page ([9]&[10]), we can easily see that, despite the fact that most users consider that a redirection to SADR's flag or the association of territory's flag to the one of the RASD is clearly PoV, Reisio continues to act following his own PoV vision.

This is just to give an example on "how can go a discussion with Reisio" and "will a discussion with Reisio make him quitting reverting other users' edits event if the majority agrees on these edits".

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Omar-Toons - If you are having difficulty dealing with another editor b/c they are judging you based on your nationality, the appropriate response is to try and get third party opinions. It was probably good that you posted on the NPOV noticeboard. Now that you've got the attention of third parties, the thing to do is to bring the third parties back to the article's talkpage to discuss there. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But... what I'm telling you is that, since the discussion between Reisio and 5 other users didn't give any results, bringing more users will have, in my opinion, no different results. --Omar-Toons (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Omar-Toons - Well my opinion is that there will be a different result. But regardless, if you aren't trying to get 3rd parties to look at this issue, why did you come here Omar? What do you want to happen exactly? If you really think you've clearly demonstrated consensus (which I don't think you have), and that Reisio is edit warring against consensus, you ought to go to AE. NickCT (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a behavioural noticeboard, so let's steer this another direction. If there are issues with Reisio's editing behaviour, it should be brought up at ANI.

@Nick, the editor has obviously come here looking for opinions from those familiar with WP:NPOV, and I don't see why he shouldn't be able to get that.

@Omar, I suggest following through with Nick's advice, and allow others to offer assistance. I know what that page should look like under WP:NPOV, and I'll be more than happy to help you bring it to that. Nightw 05:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara is a physical territory/area, not an political entity. It doesn't have flag and coat of arms. Morocco and the Sahrawi Republic (the two political entities claiming the Western Sahara territory/area) have flags and coats of arms. So, IMHO the pages Coat of arms of Western Sahara and Flag of Western Sahara should be disambiguation pages simply including links to Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Coat of arms of Morocco, Flag of Morocco and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Alinor (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's essentially the same as what Nightw said at 05:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and I agree both of you. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Well, 4 uninvolved editors have chimed in here supporting the idea of a disambig page pointing to both Flag of Morocco and Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I'm thinking this constitutes consensus, and I motion that the change be implemented. I've drawn up a draft (if anyone wants to tweak, please be bold). The coat of arms page should likely be treated similarly. NickCT (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You really aren't getting it. "Flag of Western Sahara" does not refer to the flag of Morocco. Moroccans call their flag the flag of Morocco, and to Moroccans (holding the state's view), there is no Western Sahara, there is only Morocco's Southern Provinces, so there is only the flag of Morocco. The flag of Western Sahara, as a name, predates Morocco's occupation, and has nothing to do with the conflict, it is quite simply one name of the flag that the POLISARIO uses.

The flag of Iraq is not the flag of the USA; the flag of Tibet is not the flag of China (occupation does not disappear a flag or its name). The flag of Florida is not the flag of the USA (a smaller part of a whole can still have an independently named flag). The flag of the Holy Roman Empire is not the flag of any of the states it coincided with then and now. Take your pick.

Even if there were a consensus to change the pages (there isn't), changing the pages would still be against policy and scope. You simply cannot make something what it isn't.

¦ Reisio (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We really don't get it huh? And you apparently do? I see some logic in your argument, but the fact is, that keeping things as you want them give the impression that there is a recognized flag, for a recognized nation. Clearly that's not the case. The only example you offered which involves a "disputed territory" is flag of Tibet. Frankly, I think there could be some NPOV issues there too, as the wikipedia listing for Flag of Tibet is not actually the official Flag of Tibet.

I agree it's sorta messy to offer the Moroccan national flag, for what the Moroccan's claim is actually a region of Morocco. Perhaps we could find and use the regional flags of the Southern Provinces? NickCT (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that there are no "Southern provinces' flag" because, since Morocco doesn't recognize the colonial borders, Western Sahara isn't a "Moroccan province", but a territory divided to 3 provinces, from which to are only partly in the territory.

As an answer to Reisio: Western Sahara" isn't internationally recognized as a country or a political entity, but only as a regional entity, then your "argument" seems to be biased.

The NPoV on this kind of issues (the most representative one being, imho, China's one) is accepted and shared by most of wiki's users, and not accepting a consensus is likely an edition warring ans vandalism.

Your argument is based on a "common view" on Western Sahara, but the fact is that the international law doesn't share this view, and as WP hasn't the role to innovate (WP:OR) or to chose a view without taking note of the other (WP:POV), we, as wiki users, can't consider this case as an exception.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

@Omar-Toons - re "there are no "Southern provinces' flag"" - Believe that there are flags for each of the three provinces, no? (e.g. [11], [12]). NickCT (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are no known flags used for Moroccan "regions" and Moroccan "provinces" (subdivisions of a region [13]), they only have (or had?*) Coats of Arms. The flags you mentioned are no longer in use, and I don't remember having seen this kind of flags (I was born in 1985).

(*)Some CoAs have changed for the last years (example: Rabat's one (old, new)), and most are not used nor known ; and they were removed from the official page on which they were officially shown.

The issue is more complicated than what I though...

Omar-Toons (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are the old provincial flags. They were phased out in 1997, according to FOTW. The most ideal and accurate outcome would be deletion. Considering reader ignorance, though, it may be necessary to keep it, in which case it should be dab'd under WP:NPOV. Nightw 11:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. It appears to me that we have three proposals here. 1) redirect to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (apparently supported by Reisio alone). 2) Display both the flags/CoA for Morocco & Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or 3) Delete. I really think we should RfC this. Would anyone be opposed to an RfC? NickCT (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Nightw 15:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not opposed --Omar-Toons (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Displaying both SADR and Morocco will duplicate content with their individual flag/CoA articles. I think that instead of delete there should be an option "disambiguation page" like the China and Congo examples that Night w gave at 05:45, 1 March 2011. Alinor (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to you if you can manage to find a single administrator to support this POV nonsense. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok Reisio. Well, 1) there is absolutely no reason we need to or should seek an admin's opinion here, & 2) you've been sort of stand-offish throughout this conversation. Calling the opinions of others' who do not agree with you "POV nonsense" will not help your case. It will only cause people to try and work around you.

I'm going to work on drafting an RfC when I get a chance. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Night opened an RfC here NickCT (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There are controversies over this goddess, in particular her possible row as "God's wife" (see all the publicity on the new BBC2 dcoumentary on this, not yet in the article) and as "Queen of Heaven". These are covered by a section heading simply labelled 'Controversy' which I don't see as helpful. I changed this to "As God's wife and Queen of Heaven" to make it clear what the section is about, and this was reverted [14] with an edit summary "(Rv - 'controversy' is far more factual)". What would be an NPOV heading that allowed the readers to quickly see in the toc what this is about? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn;t think it was that big a case, but the change seemed to imply that the controversy had somehow suddenly been resolved. It's still definitely a controversy and you seem to agree, so how about "Controversy regarding Asherah as God's wife and Queen of Heaven"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy" seems much to generic to me. Perhaps keep "controversy" or "controversial" in the section title with something else that is descriptive of what the actual controversy is over. In other words a combination of what Doug tried and the current heading.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Something like "Possible role as God's wife and queen of heaven"? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a descriptive heading is much better than "controversy." The section itself doesn't seem to attest controversy - it gives the opinions of different scholars, but that doesn't constitute "controversy" unless a secondary source has reported such. Without sources that actually talk about there being controversy, titling the section "controversy" is a NPOV violation, yes, because it prejudices the reader as to the opinions of these scholars, but it's also just a V violation. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When you get this far back, there are a lot of issues over which scholars don't agree. That doesn't necessarily make them controversies, and I agree that calling this section controversy prejudices the reader. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't "controversial" in the sources then of course I take back my suggestion. I was assuming that the controversy aspect was being accurately represented but if not then a descriptive heading without the term is preferable.Griswaldo (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading and re-reading several times I've retitled with something that will hopefully satisfy all those concerned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this properly, but some recent edits by a new user have introduced a lot of text, some of which seems to violate this policy [15]. See also a couple of edits at Al-Azhar_University [16]. --Copper button 18:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the first edit, not sure all the added sources qualify as reliable, that's always the problem with stuff you find on the web. However, MEMRI is a legitimate organization. There the question is simply whether their report is represented accurately. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 11:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI is a legitimate organization but it is not necessarily a reliable source. It's been discussed several times at WP:RSN. See this discussion for example but note that two of the editors who commented in favour of MEMRI are blocked (User:Tundrabuggy a persistent sockpuppet is banned[17] and User:Malcolm Schosha indef blocked here). So, if MEMRI is to be used at all to make statements opf fact it would need to be discussed. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Did the Armenians deserve to be deported and exterminated because they revolted and because Muslims also died during that time?. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Did 365 Egyptians deserve to be shot dead because they revolted? Obviously not. Chesdovi (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"violent and extreme viral campaign"? How violent can a viral marketing campaign get? This seems to me to reek of BLP violations all over the farm, but I don't know the players well enough to comment beyond that. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I could really use some help or advice for this article on general neutrality issues. The current version of the article suggests that although there is criticism, there is equally valid scientific support for the test. My impression is that the MBTI is generally not accepted as a valid psychometric tool in psychology, and that the evidence is overwhelmingly not supportive of it. And I think it might be the case that most of the studies supporting it have connections with the same people who sell the test. I could be very wrong about this, but I'm having some trouble finding what the actual scientific consensus is on this issue. --Aronoel (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise but I read a lot about it after taking the test myself. In my case, the results (INTP) were incredibly accurate based on how, on reflection, I see myself. From what I remember non acceptance is a slippery slope as it is based on reliability and validity with different academics prefering different standards (ie:lack of consensus). The main critique on validity is that the BMTI doesn't take into account conscious or unconscious lying. Also, the test relies on Jungian personality types and some academics don't believe there is enough evidence to support their existance. Additionally some academics believe all personality tests are unreliable. Briggs Myers herself said that the results are only hypotheses needing further verification. The only real consensus in the community is that there have not been enough quality studies on it's efficiency to justify it's use for career counseling. Do a search for university papers on the test that contain both criticism and praise. Wayne (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I will, thanks for your advice. --Aronoel (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the standing of MBTI in the world of professional psychologists, but I know it has been used by some. I took it years ago (I am most definitely an INTP, by the way) and I found MBTI to be very accurate and helpful for me. I'm not a psychologist, though. Famspear (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The content featured on this page conveys a consistently *negative* slant of TCM, a slant that is generally inconsistant with the majority of accepted views of TCM. This issue has been addressed on the Talk board:

"I logged on to read about TCM today, and this page is in desperate need of some moderation. It reads like it's been written by someone with a personal vendetta against Traditional Chinese Medicine! I'm a western person and see MDs like the rest of us, but these articles are supposed to teach objectively, providing a balanced portrayal of a subject. Instead, every paragraph follows with statements attacking the credibility of TCM or bringing up controversial issues that may or may not be true (because they don't have citations), and re-using old stereotypes that everyone knows are not true (ie, "Snake Oil" isn't even used by TCM practitioners, according to my acupuncturist!)

Anyway, my problem isn't just that things aren't cited. The big problem here is that even the things that ARE cited are simply very slanted or misleading, highlighting only one side of controversial issues that, ultimately, really only ought to be in ONE of the later sections of the article. Why doesn't this article begin like a history book, explaining the origins and practices of the medicine, rather than begin with attacks on whether or not TCM holds up to scientific rigor, etc? For example, why would the oldest and the planet's single largest medical system contain these sentences in the INTRODUCTION (!) (one being in the first paragraph!): "TCM is subject to criticism regarding a number of issues," "It uses metaphysical principles that have no correlates in science based medicine, and would generally be rejected by it", "...found to be ineffective...contain dangerous toxins," "ineffective medicines" etc? These things may or may not be true--this is beside the point. They're just extremely biased, and I, furthermore, challenge the neutrality and organization of this article.

Finally, how is it that 7 of the 8 photos on this page are of grotesque or controversial animal substances yet some basic internet research reveals that the VAST majority of substances used in TCM practice today are simple PLANTS (most of which seem to also be native to north American traditions). Obviously there are also some definite controversies that should be mentioned, in this article, but that ought to be put in a section to deal with skepticism and criticisms. This article is just so very misleading in layout and organization. It seems odd that the medicine that lasted 3,000 years of practice (something you don't learn reading this article) would have endured all the cultural and political invasions it did if this article were representative of its merits. I'm not asking for a pro-TCM page, but let's seriously organize this thing like adults."

It seems that whenever the information is updated and the offensive pictures are removed (the "snake oil" advertisement, the pictures of human fetuses, etc) they are almost immediately reposted. I am concerened that someone out there has a personal vendetta against TCM, and has made it their mission to make this medicine look as negative as possible, in spite of the many documented positive benefits of traditional chinese medicine. Please look into this, as this consistently interferes with wikipedia's stance on neutrality and is an unfair assessment of TCM and it's practitioners.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vantagelogic (talk • contribs) 07:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

— Vantagelogic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You are asking for another person to contribute many hours of work to sorting out a particular article, and you are not coming with any offers of help. You may not get a good response to this kind of request.

If indeed there is a NPOV problem, you should get on the talk page and start a discussion with other users about specific examples. Spend more time using Wikipedia and learning to be a good contributor. WP:BE BOLD and start making the changes you want to see in this article. If someone reverts your changes, then talk to them about why on the talk page. If they treat you unfairly then come back to this board with a link to the discussion where you were mistreated and I assure you that someone will help you.

Lots of people are here to help; not many people are interested in doing work for you. Please start your work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

On a less negative slant, I am aware of the problems on the page. the article has recently been edited heavily by a single editor who has a poor understanding of the material but a hell of a lot of energy - I've been waiting for him to lose steam before I go back and start revising it because I didn't want to get in one of those interminable squabbles. but if people are complaining about it, I suppose I should start revisions this weekend. I'll do that.

Bluerasberry: please do not bitch editors out for making complaints: that's what this noticeboard is for. --Ludwigs2 16:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, it is being discussed whether the georeferenced image illustrating the GH topography and Template:Location_map_Golan_Heights based on it are violating Wikipedia neutrality principle. Thank you for your input. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, you should have asked, why that map is better then the CIA maps and the other location map you want to replace it with. Also the issue with the map is not only if its non neutral, but also if it has inaccuracy problems. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No claim about CIA map, we're lucky to have it, both map could be used and have their uses: political vs. topographical. Other questions about topography map, which we discuss, were addressed on the article talk page, like sourcing. There is genuine consensus on the article talk page that GH is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. However, the article talk page discussion produced a split among editors on question of neutrality of the the georeferenced image illustrating the topography: some editors feel that the map is POV-less and does not take sides (Israel/Syria), however others believe that topography image does not reflect international consensus that GH is in Syria, thus under-presenting Syrian POV. As a side note, previous discussion about categorization of GH images on Wikipedia Commons was closed with consensus that GH images should be categorized in both countries (Israel/Syria) in order to achieve neutrality. Maybe wider audience is required to resolve the stalemate and to reach clear cut consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of GH images on Wikipedia Commons has nothing to do with this, as that discussion was not based on Wikipedia policy or any sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember that consensus that you've been part of was reviewed by more than one administrator. Do you feel that all those administrators were biased? It spells WP:IDHT. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing there and that entire discussion was not based on wiki policy.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why the political dimension of the Golan Heights should be secondary to the whole article. A grave mistake has been made up to this point by giving the article a decidedly political flavor. Remember, we're talking about a region. The article is (that is to say, should be) about the Golan Heights – not about The Golan Heights Territorial Dispute. The article should not be political, and the map should not be political. Elaborate on the politics and represent them visually in another article, if they're that important. But make this article primarily about the Golan Heights.—Biosketch (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The political issues is an integral part of the area. By having a map that puts Israel in the same position as Syria, it is already political, (incorrectly aswell) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But politics is not the only issue. Luckily, one editor came in and actually added non political info to the lead sometime ago. Another editor has even proposed splitting the article due to the scope being so aligned towards politics instead of other aspects commonly seen in articles about locations.

In regards to the map, a new ma is up which works just fine. However, it does not label the area as Syria so SD will not except it. This is the exact same emphasis on nationalistic pride that has caused SD to be brought to AE multiple times. We should not take sides in the real age life debate here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia even has the potential to shift perceptions of the debate with its high readership, which I believe some editors wish to take advantage of. The infobox is not intended to describe the conflict in detail and the map supported by SD would need tons of detail to explain. Sidestepping the issue in the map does not take any sides while still allowing the prose to clearly lay out the issues. And of course: it functions as part of Israel whether it is illegal or not. Pretending it does not isn't a benefit to the reader. Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have stated the reasons for not wanting the edited CIA map on the talkpage, it is not neutral as it puts Israel in the same positions as Syria, which is not the international community view, therefor violation of npov, and it does not show it as Israeli-occupied.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The view of the international community's legal interpretation is just one aspect. You have not once provided reasoning to disregard how it functions, regardless of international law. According to my argument, how it functions should place it on equal footing (if not greater) than the ignored opinions of the international community. So not taking any side is the best option for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to manipulate public opinion.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting Israel in the same position as Syria is taking a side. Also read npov: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't a tiny minority. Plenty of sources back it. It might also be illegal but that does not change the facts that it is part of Israel according to the sources. We are again having the same conversation over more than one article. Your thought process is so trained on legality that you continue to not consider that it can still function as part of Israel under its control and laws while being inhabited and commercialized by its people. Wrong or right is not the issue. Just how it is. Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a tiny minority, "The international community maintains that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan is null and void and without international legal effect" p 23 Or this GA vote about "occupied Syrian Golan", 161-1 [18] "the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal" p. 8. EU: [19]. Arab League:[20] Amnesty International: [21]. So just because you can find sources supporting the POV of one country, does not mean we can disregard all other sources and the international view that shows it to be inaccurate. Here is a National Geographic source calling a place in the West bank "in Israel" [22], but its not in Israel. Other sources, the international view proves this.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

GH is not the only conflict place on Earth. Look for instance in Northern Ireland, CIA map embedded there in body. GH could also integrate political map inside the body, for instance in Aspects of dispute. Political information is important, agree with SD. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness, clearly the political issues are integral for you and for some other editors involved in the article. But the fact that you insist on viewing the Golan Heights through a political lens only confirms your biased approach. (And I'm using "you" in the plural sense; my critique applies to a handful of high-frequency editors involved in the page, on both sides of the dispute.) The Golan Heights are a region – with a distinct climate, distinct geological features, a distinct demographic profile, a distinct pre-WWII history, etc. The territorial dispute between Syria and Israel is so recent to the region that frankly I'm baffled as to how anyone could consider it "integral." If the article had been written 30 years ago, would politics have been integral? I submit that they would not. For the page's sake, even though at this point the damage done is too extensive to undo without serious revision, it would be best to isolate the political dimension of the region to its own place in the article, rather than having it seep into every corner of the page. There's a reason the maps at Northern Cyprus and the Falkland Islands are they way they are: they avoid the POV traps by transcending them altogether. Is Northern Cyprus a part of the Republic of Cyprus or of Turkey? You'd never know from the map. Are the Falkland Islands British or Argentinian? The map won't indicate one way or the other. That's a healthy situation. It's the best way to achieve NPOV.—Biosketch (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As I already said before, the edited CIA map already puts the region through a political lens (incorrect one) putting Israel in the same position as Syria. I also said before, Northern Cyprus and Falkland Islands are not internationally recognized as part of Turkey or Britain, so its not the same thing. Its an inaccurate POV to place Syria in the same position as Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to repeat yourself unless you have something new to bring to the table. People disagree with your argument and saying it over and over again until people are sick of replying is not going to help the project.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

— this is a recipe for going in perpetual POV circles
— these are ways to guarantee NPOV:

—Biosketch (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on these maps does not address the issues I have brought up above. Again: It is putting Israel in the same position as Syria to a place internationally recognized as part of Syria, neither northern Cyprus or Falkland Islands are internationally recognized as part of Turkey or Britain.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the point. The maps above avoid taking sides by preferring neither party's claim to sovereignty. The international community does not recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, yet the map does not impose that POV on the visual representation of the territory. The same goes for the Falkland Islands. Rather than embracing one of the two party's POVs, the map maintains a neutral, NPOV position. The Golan Heights page should follow these models.—Biosketch (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues are not the same as northern Cyprus does not claim to be part of Turkey and the Falklands does not claim to be Britain. The unedited CIA map "imposes" the same kind of "POV" that the Haifa article does when it states that Haifa is located in Israel, why are we "taking sides" at that article? you can read about my Haifa analogy at the GH talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about Haifa. If Syria were to come along and claim Haifa as its rightful territory then, per my argument, we could not mark Haifa as being situated in Israel, for that would be adopting Israel's POV. Is that what you're saying?—Biosketch (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Today we have about 20 countries that say that area is Palestine. Yet at Wikipedia we still say that all city's and villages in that area are in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Palestine" as in the state? or "Palestine" as in historic Israel? Which Palestine are these 20 countries invoking? Anyway, though, as far as I know Palestine itself doesn't claim Haifa for itself, nor does any other state or autonomous entity. So there's no question here how to mark Haifa on the map. It's one thing if someone says Haifa belongs to Palestine, but if Palestine itself doesn't put forth that argument, then there's really no dispute. So it's different from the situation with the Golan Heights. There there are two sides, each claiming the territory for itself, and we're trying to avoid favoring either of the two sides. In the case of Haifa, there is no entity besides Israel that claims Haifa for itself, so there are no two sides to choose between.—Biosketch (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, many countries call the area Palestine, whether its the Palestinians themselves or not, so there is a dispute about that area. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, you are filibustering. You are POV pushing. You should be banned from the topic area again. Stop it.

If you do not understand the Falklands then don't comment on it (I almost pissed myself reading your response earlier). If you do not understand showing an only geographical presentation of the area with no labels then I can only again call you a POV pusher and ask for your ban from the topic area. Since this is not the article discussion but instead a noticeboard I can do that without being in violation of civility standards. You have been presented with options that take no side in the debate. You should be happy that your viewpoint gets any play and stop trying to manipulate Wikipedia. Get it together or get off Wikipedia since you are begging to be banned from the topic area again. The maps of the other disputed locations (they are disputed even though you obviously know nothing about politics outside of the Middle East) but have NO writing at all. So how about you try that? No highlighting BS. No writing. Just a simple map of where in the world it is. If you actually care about this project more than your own POV pushing you will create a map that has zero names on it or accept a version that comes close. You needing Syria to be highlighted in name or by color is POV pushing and should be stamped out. POV pushing is not welcome here and you have worn out your welcome.Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

comment - My preference for the infobox would be to have a simple map similar to say Western Sahara, a (corrected) topo map in addition would be good too.

However, I have to say that to an innocent passer-by reading this thread it might almost seem that SD is disruptively trying to impose a Syrian nationalist view of a dispute between 2 equal parties, Israel and Syria, onto poor old Wikipedia. In fact, SD is simply advocating the use of a map and not tampering with a map produced by Israel's closest ally, the United States, that accurately represents the consensus view of the international community. The dispute is Israel vs the international community, not Israel vs Syria.

• The notion that 'taking no sides in the debate' is neutral is wrong. Wikipedia absolutely takes a side in the evolution "debate" because there is a consensus in the real world.
• Absence of information in the name of neutrality isn't neutrality, it's embracing a tiny minority view and inflating it to the same scale and weight as the consensus view.
• The notion that wanting a map published by a reliable source, the CIA, that represents the consensus view of the international community is POV pushing is wrong. It isnt. It's NPOV pushing.
• Leaving a reliably sourced map that represents the consensus view of the international community unchanged isn't "needing Syria to be highlighted in name or by color", it's just leaving a reliably sourced map unchanged.

In Wikipedia, in this topic area, an editor who advocates not tampering with reliably sourced information that accurately represents the consensus view of the international community can be accused of POV pushing both on an off wiki. Think about the craziness of that. It's like the creationist Discovery Institute running the talk page of the evolution article. It would never be allowed to happen there.

Having said all that, I see no need to use that map in the infobox although I see no reason not to use it. The infobox doesn't need to deal with the political aspects. The CIA map, unaltered, could be used in the current status section. Removing the factually accurate "Israeli occupied" label as has been done in File:Golan heights rel89B.jpg makes a neutral map non-neutral. That is the kind of thing policy-minded editors should be complaining and filing AE requests about. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree: "My preference for the infobox would be to have a simple map similar to say Western Sahara, a (corrected) topo map in addition would be good too." The article is called "Golan Heights," not "The Golan Heights Territorial Dispute." The political reality should not be the prism through which the entire article is filtered, and it certainly should not dictate how the Golan Heights are represented in the infobox. The Western Sahara map, in a fashion identical to the Northern Cyprus and Falkland Islands maps, leaves the political dispute to be addressed by the article proper. The infobox is used to orient the reader's geographic context.

Acknowledge: "However, I have to say that to an innocent passer-by reading this thread it might almost seem that SD is disruptively trying to impose a Syrian nationalist view of a dispute between 2 equal parties, Israel and Syria, onto poor old Wikipedia." That would be unfortunate. Whatever his reputation on Wikipedia may be, his interactions with me – and as far as I can tell with everyone else – have been civil, even if his passion for the debate is perceptible at times.

Qualify: "In fact, SD is simply advocating the use of a map and not tampering with a map produced by Israel's closest ally, the United States, that accurately represents the consensus view of the international community. The dispute is Israel vs the international community, not Israel vs Syria." That's arguable, and also arguable is the degree to which it's relevant to our purposes. The CIA is not an organ of the Pentagon, wherefore Israel's extraordinary defense treaties with the United States do not impact the CIA's research output. The fact that the U.S. is Israel's closest ally is immaterial, as we can only speculate as to how that relationship affects the operations of the CIA. As to the dispute being between Israel and the international community, there are problems with making that observation. The problems arise from the semantics of the word "recognize." We're invoking the term in the sense of "accept," i.e. the international community does not accept Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. However, I would wager that the international community acknowledges Israel's annexation, in the sense that if a foreign diplomat were to want to cross into the Golan Heights from the Israeli side, he would not demand to pass through a Syrian checkpoint and have his passport stamped by Syrian immigration authorities. He does not accept Israel's claim to sovereignty, but he acknowledges it. Now, the semantic scope of the word "recognize" is sufficiently broad to be able to mean either accept or acknowledge. The map SD endorses purports to show the Golan Heights as being Syrian territory, per the international community's recognition of Syria's de-jure sovereignty over the region and rejection of Israel's. For an infobox, that is exceedingly misleading. A casual visitor to the page, upon seeing SD's political map, would in all likelihood mistakenly conclude that he could visit the territory from the Syrian side just as he crosses the street in front of his house. We all agree that's not the case, though. Then why insist on projecting the political angle onto the infobox. Like I told SD a while ago (I still posted with all kinds of university IP addresses back then, for fear creating an account would lead to my spending too much time editing articles – a fear that has turned out to entirely valid), it's an abuse of the spirit of Wikipedia to force one's political motives onto an article that is not about a political dispute. Which brings us back to the fact, again, that this is an article about the Golan Heights, not about The Golan Heights Territorial Dispute.

Raise eyebrow: "Wikipedia absolutely takes a side in the evolution "debate" because there is a consensus in the real world." Is that so? If by "real world" you mean to say "intellectual community," okay. But is there a consensus in the world that human evolution is best described by Darwin's theory? Personally I would hope the world would embrace Darwin's theory of evolution, but I'd be awfully surprised to learn that it does.

Agree: "Having said all that, I see no need to use that map in the infobox although I see no reason not to use it. The infobox doesn't need to deal with the political aspects. The CIA map, unaltered, could be used in the current status section." Right, though I would articulate the point in less equivocal terms. Use a geographical/topographical map in the infobox; reserve the CIA map for the current status section.—Biosketch (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• SD has stated that “Northern Cyprus and Falkland Islands are not internationally recognized as part of Turkey or Britain”, yet the maps do not indeed show the international consensus on the matter, since there is a political dispute. i.e. NC is not shown as being part of Cyprus. SD is totally wrong when she states: “northern Cyprus does not claim to be part of Turkey and the Falklands does not claim to be Britain”. The reality is the exact opposite.
• What Bioketch has said, namely that “political dimension of the Golan Heights should be secondary, strikes me as valid. Although the GH nowadays almost always refers to the bit controlled by Israel, for accuracy, we must remember that Syria is also in control of some of the GH. That bit is not highlighted on the CIA map. It should also be remembered that by some accounts, the GH stretches till the Haj Road, much further east. The CIA map is reliable for showing which part of the GH is controlled by Israel. That was that maps function. However, this page is about the GH in their entirety, therefore the topography map should be used with the words “Golan Heights” put straddling the armistice lines. Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between an area being part of a country and connected to a country in some way. Neither Falklands or NC claim to being parts of Britain or Turkey. NC for example is a proclaimed own separate state, not "Turkey". So its not the same thing as the GH which is internationally recognized as being part of a country. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey occupies NC. Period. Chesdovi (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And at the Cyprus article:[23] the international view is shown in the infobox: a one, unified Cyprus, as NC is not internationally recognized.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I think I agree in principle that if currently proposed maps do not show Golan as it really is as a geographical entity then an alternative map would be preferable. This is only really useful if someone is able to provide a map confirming that things are as you describe them, though. And, in general, I can't see how proposing entirely hypothetical alternative maps helps - no map can really be considered until its available to look at.

Seems to me that a key question here is about the circumstances under which it is acceptable to photoshop shop an image you have found purely so as to distort the POV of the original, as has been done with the image currently in use. I wouldn't say that can't ever be done, but surely there ought at least to me a clear rationale and consensus (maybe there is). Although we don't apply the same rules to images and text, it seems to me to be arguably analogous to tip-exing out key words in a passage from a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already done it:

We need to remember that the whole page needs to be sifted through, to make sure that statistics mentioned, such as area2 and population, etc, are clarified as belonging to the recently drawn political boundaries only. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You've just reproduced the CIA map with some POV tweaks ("occupied" becomes "disputed", the border is redrawn so that Golan appears to be part of Israel, the word "Syria" is moved a few hundred miles east). Why, when we could just use a map taken from a reliable source, should this proposal be taken as anything other than fervent POV-pushing? --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovis/Agadads pov map [24] was already discussed at the GH talkpage showing its inaccuracy and pov problems. It shows the area as part of Israel, it calls it "disputed" instead of "occupied", it has inaccurate borders and ceasefire lines both in placement and in colors. Compared to the CIA map it also doesn't show that its internationally recognized as part of Syria, it doesn't show the settlements, villages, DMZs, roads. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I, and some other editor as indicated by the edit history, think that material published in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice is unworthy equal validity and thus that one other editor is breaking WP:VALID and WP:UNDUE when insisting on including specific findings into the article Insite. We additionally think that the journal, despite its claims to the contrary, lacks peer-review. The other editor lay more weight with the journals self-stated status while at least I think that is a violation of WP:3PARTY. The other editor brought it to WP:RSN where the discussion is inconclusive (here). Nobody is really say that the article can't be cited, it already where before the other editor started edit the Insite article. The disagreement is rather for what it can be cited. So I where recommended to bring it here.

This is some quotes on the journal indicating lack of credibility and lack of peer-review:

• "When asked to clarify what evidence Mr Clement was referring to, Mr Waddell confirmed it was a commentary published in January 2007 in a non-peer-reviewed journal called The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which receives funding from the US Department of Justice." [25]
• "Efforts to undermine the science specific to HIV prevention for injection drug users are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One new and worrisome trend is the creation of internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals. One such example [is The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice]." [26]
• "Even if a journal has a website, though, it doesn’t mean the publication is credible. Librarians say the website of a journal should list its editorial board, indicate if it is peer reviewed and contain instructions for authors. [...] By way of example, Ufholz points to the lack of submission instructions on the website for The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice". [27]

Additionally:

• The journal is not listed in MEDLINE. A search for "drug policy" in NLM Catalog [28] only returns The International Journal on Drug Policy, a different journal.
• I have a strong memory that Ulrich's Periodicals Directory lists it as lacking peer-review. Although I do not have access to that site. Maybe someone else could verify?

I would appreciate comments on this. Steinberger (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is not peer reviewed? [29] They say they are. Tentontunic (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And The Lancet has an article which says it is peer reviewed as well Evan Wood and colleagues1 refer negatively to the Institute on Global Drug Policy and the peer-reviewed medical journal The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice [30] Harm reduction drug policy Eric A Voth. Tentontunic (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a little suspicious, NLM Cat which yo usay does not list them, Does. Tentontunic (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I did say that they say they are peer-reviewed. And look at the authors answer to Voiths, the JGDPP editors, letter that the Lancet tellingly concludes the debate with and you will see that third-parties do think it lacks credibility.

Second, MEDLINE is a subset of NML. If you only want to receive journals indexed in MEDLINE, and thus meeting strict standards, you need to include "currentlyindexed[all]" in the search. I am sorry I did not explain that. Steinberger (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• The above mentioned letter is not published in The Lancet, but in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, but that is a minor point only. What is more important is that this is a letter to the editor (and therefore not the opinion of the editors of TLID), written by Eric A. Voth, who apparently is the Chairman of the Institute on Global Drug Policy. The journal is indeed in the NLM Catalog, but it is not indexed for any of the NLM databases, so this is pretty meaningless. BTW, I came to this discussion because of a remark at the AfD for this journal (the article having been created earlier today and not meeting any notability criteria as far as I can see). I have personally no opinion about whether this is peer-reviewed or not. Much, of course, depends on who selects the "peers" to review and there are journals that basically constitute a kind of walled garden to lend credibility to some fringe ideas. I'm not saying that is the case here, only that I don't think this is a notable journal. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities#Ted_Williams_but_not_RWJ.3F

Basically my question is whether a neutral point of view is a requirement for a source to be considered 'a go'? I thought that was a requirement for writing an article and not explicitly a concern for sources. I know the specific link likely doesn't qualify for other reasons, but this question I feel is something I should know. 72.209.160.88 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the viewpoint of a source has to do with that discussion, but to answer your question, no the viewpoint of the source is not relevant. All sources have a bias. What matters is whether the source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. But looking at that discussion, the issue there is whether a source meets our definition of a reliable source. I didn't recognize most of the web sites discussed, but I'm guessing that many, if not all of those, do not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia's standards. I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with our WP:RS guideline. If you have any questions about a specific source, feel free to ask on the reliable source notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CNN and the newyorktimes are acceptable sources, and I have looked into reliable source.72.209.160.88 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Acceptable" depends on the context. Editors should not simply parrot every "interesting" remark made about their subject: Wikipedia is not a gossip column. It is an encyclopedia, and tries to be a serious, credible encyclopedia. Which means that the material in article should be researched. The first requirement is that everything is "sourced" (traceable back to some source that presumably knows what they are talking about). Hopefully these sources are reliable, and even neutral. But even if Satan himself says 2+2=4, we do not despise the arithmetic "truth" of 2+2=4. In some contexts, sure, you might find good reason to quote or take material from a very non-neutral source. But editors still have a responsibility to produce neutral material ("balanced", see WP:WEIGHT). CNN might have some pertinent material about Ted Williams, but (esp. in this case) it might also be highly biased; an editor would be expected to check a range of sources, and evaluate the entire context. So strictly speaking the specific answer to your question is "no". But more fully the answer is: depends on how you use it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Biased sources can be used with attribution and balanced with other opinions. That's WP policy, explained clearly in WP:RS#Statements of opinion and in WP:NPOV#Attributing and specifying biased statements. For op-ed as sources, see WP:RS#News organizations. If someone deletes your source because it is biased, evoke WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality and WP:NPOV#Balance. Of course, do not delete their sources either. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem as demonstrated by the Weston Price article other editors can invoke WP:OR or WP:coatrack to remove WP:RS even if said material is direct quotes from peer reviewed sources!--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As of late, a new user has taken steps to turn the page on the "Redemption" conspiracy theories into blatant advocacy. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• As of late, Lenin and McCarthy is preventing the Redemption article from maintaining NPOV, with his recent deletions of cited article text for no apparent academic reason. Additionally, Lenin and McCarthy has not joined the discussion group or offered any compelling reasons as to why the article should revert back to the extremely biased version of a few days ago. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's bad enough that almost half of the claims currently made in the article cite NO sources whatsoever, but when someone going against that POV places one tiny little paragraph of text in the article with sources, it immediately gets 'yanked', as Lenin and McCarthy puts it. This is not fair. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• The text I added is hardly "blatant advocacy", and I might add that the current tone of the article is "blatant dis advocacy", without merit. Furthermore, the term "conspiracy theory" is unwarranted nonsense, made by someone who has obviously not studied the subject, but is reacting out of haste and dis informed judgment. I was trying to work with another member to create an unbiased article, and while I do admit that I am on the side of 'advocacy', I am not deleting the other POV text, as I am mature enough to let both sides of the story be told. I would appreciate an environment where this behavior is encouraged, not ridiculed. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I may be a 'new user', but that doesn't mean I don't know how to edit an article, or engage the discussion group in meaningful debate. It seems like Lenin and McCarthy wants to use his 'veteran' Wikipedia status to enforce his beliefs on others. Visitor10001 (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Lenin and McCarthy did not answer any of my questions in the article's discussion page before resorting to this dispute resolution. As Wikipedia states in it's steps to resolve conflict, #4 is "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." I would say that the reason he neglected to do this is because he doesn't really have any compelling reasons as to why he deleted the text of the article. Thank You. Visitor10001 (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Disregard: Nothing to see here except a clear case of WP:OVERREACT and possibly WP:BULLY because a blatantly WP:POV article is now being shifted towards a more neutral presentation. Visitor10001 is indeed a new user and I have counseled him in edit summaries, in several instances of the article's talk page and on his personal user page on how to deal with opposing editors on a controversial article. The Wiki-Jungle has a steep learning curve but it appears that he is trying to get the hang of it. Though I personally disagree with Visitor10001's position I defend his right to be heard and for his views to be included in a reasonable discussion because the end result should be a more rounded and useful article to readers of all flavors.

Even though I personally support the government, and by extension Lenin and McCarthy's view actively presented in the article in question, the POV and tone of the article was blatantly and arrogantly one-sided in the government's favor. One new editor wanted to defend the movement's point of view but the very structure of the article at that time invited conflict. The editor was and is new and was overwhelmed as a newbie in the Wiki-Jungle.

I counseled the new editor and then I made a first attempt to rewrite the lead as NPOV as I could and then tagged the overall article as POV while tagging the main part of the article which presents the government's POV as blatantly uncited and poorly sourced. I restructured the theory section to provide a section for the supporters of the theory to explain their viewpoint without being in constant conflict with the pro-government editors. I also created new discussion sections on the articles talk page inviting civil discussion to work towards attaining balanced coverage.

Lenin and McCarthy undid several of these NPOV initiatives and started new discussion with a confrontational tone proclaiming that he "Yanked the Buhtz section". Then it appears that because an opposing editor dared post views opposing the existing status quo in the article, within nine minutes, he posts here complaining about NPOV but failed to contribute to the POV discussions already initiated on the article's talk page. I was quite surprised to see this referred here and firmly believe this is a clear case of WP:OVERREACT, possibly WP:BULLY and at the very least, it was severely premature. In the very least the complainant failed to adhere to point "4" at the top of the page. "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Give a link here to that discussion, and the final answer to your question will be posted there where other users can read the result." Veriss (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, here's a diff link for the current article to the stable state from January of this year. I think there are some problems with the current state, but also some improvements. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, the direction this article is now taking is unsettling.

Visitor is trying to defend something that doesn't work. If the people who try to use this are lucky, they'll just get their "bills of exchange," or whatever some variation used calls them, refused. If not, they'll just get charged with fraud. What seems to be happening is that this reality is now being framed as merely a "government POV." It is set up against the words of one "investigative journalist" who was convicted for counterfeiting for trying this. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And as for point 4, I felt that, given the relative lack of editors on the page, there wouldn't be much of a debate on the talk page. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not using the talk page because of a relative lack of editors is not acceptable - you need to use the talk page to work out content disputes. If you don't think there are enough editors, you can post on a relevant noticeboard, file an RFC or go through any of the steps listed on the dispute resolution page. But without discussion, nothing good happens. You end up in an edit war, and usually someone gets blocked. Talk page good! Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, it looks to me as if posting to a relevant noticeboard is exactly what L&McC did when he came here. The response to this was a wall of text accusing him of several different kinds of misconduct, none or which apply to anything he did. Furthermore, when every single person who has ever tried this redemption shit has gone to federal prison because of it, I don't think it makes sense to find some imaginary "neutral" position halfway between "it's a federal felony" and "it's a perfectly valid legal position". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's be blunt: Redemption theory and the redemption movement are scams. This is a fringe theory in the same way that the tax protester phenomenon is a fringe theory (or set of theories), and like tax protester theories it has no legal validity. However, I think the article can be slowly worked into better shape. It needs more sources, and some clearer presentation. User Visitor10001 is new at this, and I hope he/she can work with other editors to improve the article. The article should not be used as advocacy either pro or con. Famspear (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@Steven J. Anderson, et. al. Please do not throw red herrings out there. We all know perfectly well that the supposed "situation" about a new editor struggling to make a point in the Wiki-Jungle does not meet the threshold for posting to this noticeboard; period, cut and dry -- it simply does not belong here at this point. Also, even if you do not like the essay WP:OVERREACT, as you posted on the article's talk page, the point remains that the complainant did in fact overreact by any common definition because a reasonable effort was not made on the article's talk page before crying wolf, also known as a nuisance alarm, as this noticeboard clearly requires. I strongly agree, I have been here long enough to know to read the notice boards' prerequisites about complaints before I get all flustered about what may very well be yet another non-incident in the Wiki-Jungle. If and only if, the situation meets the threshold for the noticeboard in question, post away, otherwise, work to establish WP:CONSENSUS per WP:POLICY. There was no attempt at the latter.

Visitor10001 is a new editor with only 57 edits. How much WP:BITE do you propose is acceptable indoctrination pain for a new editor attempting to express a minority viewpoint? I stand by my assertions of overreaction, crying wolf, nuisance alarm and WP:BULLY on the part of the complainant and others piling on. I also now add WP:BITE as an additional appropriate tag for turning this learning period for a new editor into an overblown drama. Now let us stop WP:LAWYERING and turn to more productive things like fixing this broken article. Regards, Veriss (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#You just can't keep a good man down where Visitor10001 was blocked for a week last night for blatant incivility and threatening to sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sunday Times has been discussed previously on the reliable sources noticeboard.[31] I am of the opinion that the material, recently removed, is OK. Here is a bit of discussion on the talk page. The editor who wants the material gone said "The article referred to NICE in three places whereas at no point has Palin referred to NICE in the UK. Referencing NICE three times was undue weight." Jesanj (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

These two papers are two of the world's most respected and have the same reliability on reporting on U.S, stories as major U.S. newspapers. TFD (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the article Death panel referred in three different places to NICE. Both Jesanj at the talk page and TFD are claiming that these are reliable sources (but it has been brought to NPOV!). We must have hundreds of articles about Palin's claims, most of which are from American sources and these do not verify the claim of two British newspapers that Palin was talking about NICE. The view that Palin was talking about NICE is highly dubious (she has had plenty of opportunity to say what she was talking about and at no time has she even mentioned NICE in the UK or any comparative effectiveness body in any other country). Jesanj has elsewhere tried citing verifiability not truth, but the claim that Palin was talking about NICE is not even verifiable against all the sources we have including Palin's own words.

But it can be looked at from a NPOV perspective also. If the claim that Palin was talking about NIVE is neither verifiable or widely held, so it is definitely against NPOV and in particular WP:UNDUE to mention NICE in three places in the Death panel article. NPOV says we have to reflect all major POVs, and I would argue strongly that the dubious claims of two British newspaper journalists do not constitute a reasonably mainstream POV. What I have done is to delete the two references to the British journalists making claims that cannot be verified against all the American sources that we have. I have still left behind one reference to NICE in the article that have been made subsequently (about what might be considered to be death panels in other parts of the world) which I have left in because it does not fall foul of verifiability rules. I therefore think the delete was highly appropriate on NPOV as well as verifiability grounds.Hauskalainen (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I think you're failing to explain clearly why you think the sources in question are "dubious". You seem to be suggesting that "British" is not consistent with "mainstream". I'm pretty sure you can't be intending that suggestion but, in any event, in is pretty obvious why an angle on a US news story that connects it to something British would be picked up in the British press but not in the American press. If there's a discernible NPOV question here, it may be about whether the article should include viewpoints from countries other than the US where they are known to exist and can be found in reputable sources, and I think the answer to that is well-established.

I think you're also getting confused between verifiability and truth. An opinion is verifiable if it is contained in a reliable source, and that's the end of the matter. We don't have any requirement that the opinion be correct, fair or agreed with by the person who the opinion is a about. --FormerIP (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2011(UTC)

You seem to be deliberately trying to move the argument by claiming I said something that I did not. I said nothing about British reporting not being mainstream. I am saying that the two British journalists made a statement that is simply NOT VERIFIABLE against either Palin's own words or against American journalists' reporting of Palin's words or her underlying intent. The only verifiable thing is that the journalists made the claim. It tells us something about those journalists' reputation for accuracy in reporting because their claim that Palin was talking about NICE is not verifiable against any other source. Your other claim is that this tells us something about opinions in other countries is inaccurate. You have no way of assessing what the opinion of the British people is, only what these reporters said. I am not confusing verifiability and truth at all. I have said that the claim made by the journalists (that Palin was talking about NICE) fails the verifiability test. The many many articles we have about what Palin was talking about, nearly all focused on what Palin's spokesperson said she was talking about (Advanced Care Directives) or Palin's later claim that she was talking hyperbolically because she believed that it would be impossible to provide care for 45 million previously uninsured Americans without rationing care. She was not reported by any mainstream American source as talking about NICE. Why? Because she simply DID NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO NICE!! It is inaccurate. It is neither true OR VERIFIABLE. It would be POV to include demonstrably inaccurate and non verifiable claims. Hauskalainen (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Please try not to shout.

We verify information using reliable sources. That's, in a nutshell, the extent of our policy on verification. To suggest that we also need to verify British sources using American sources or secondary sources using primary sources is to misunderstand the policy.

It's not even as if we have contradictory information to consider. What we have is a take in the British sources which includes a particularly British aspect of the story not apparent in the American sources. Which is something we can and should cover in the WP article.

Whether Palin has ever made any reference to NICE is really not the issue. If she didn't, that doesn't make anyone's interpretation of her words invalid. Commentators commentate in order to give us an understanding of how different things are interconnected. If they just repeated what politicians said verbatim then we should really ask for our money back. --FormerIP (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreeded, if RS make the claim and link we can report that. It might be best if its placeed in an international perspective sub section. LAo I could popint out that if her intent has been mis-represented she had had every opportunity to make her possition clear. We can verify the joounalists have claimeed that she intended NICE.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) It is misleading if they say "Palin was referring to" when they have no reason to say that and our job is to inform and not to mislead the WP reader. If this was a comment section then I agree we could take this as the opinion of the writers. But clearly this is not an opinion piece. It is supposedly factual reporting and from that point of view we can definitely conclude that because Palin made no reference to NICE (or anything like it) it is very clearly inaccurate reporting. As I say this is verifiable as to the fact that the reporters reported inaccurately but it cannot be used to verify that this is what Palin was referring to because of the weight of reporting to the contrary. It is also undue weight to refer to NICE three times in the article when the view that she was referring to anything to do with the UK is not held by any American sources. As I say, if these were the only sources we had for Palin's intention then we would be obliged to use these statements. But we have lots of other sources so we can verify that these were inaccurate reports. Mentioning NICE three times when we know that Palin had not been talking about NICE is WP:UNDUE on a grand scale. Putting it in its own subsection would only add to the weight. I have left one reference in the article to NICE. Three was just way too many.Hauskalainen (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I take it then you will provide the sources that say that she did not mean NICE?Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, I think there are faulty assumptions at the heart of your thinking here. You say that the British reporters said something they had "no reason to say". But they clearly thought they did or they wouldn't have said it and it is not clear why you think they didn't. You say "we can verify that these were inaccurate reports", but it is not clear how you are proposing that we can verify this. I'm guessing you think that a lack of corroboration from Big Country newspapers is enough, but that is obviously not logically sound. Lack of corroboration in a particular geographical location is not mean that the reports are inaccurate. --FormerIP (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would put to Slatersteven the obvious riposte, what evidence is there from Palin that she WAS talking about NICE? If there is none, why isn't there? Hauskalainen (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and pass WP:RS. If there is still any questions, you should continue the content dispute at the articles talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be something that has been lost in the confusion, but this is actually NPOVN.--FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, do you understand the phrase "don't shout"? Do you understand that it is not a mere matter of upper-case vs. lower-case letters, but rather of tone of voice, of being too involved emotionally to rationally discuss something? Like, I hardly even know what issue you are arguing about here (and really don't want to get into "death panels"), don't know any of the other editors here, but I get a strong feeling that you are too wound up about this to really have a good discussion. Which is not at all to suggest that you don't have a valid issue, but at the momement you are not presenting it well. Ask if you need assistance. Or take a short break? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not being emotional. My use of caps is to add emphasis to words that I would empahsise if I were speaking them, and that would certainly not be emphasis through shouting. I have no idea why you think that it is. it is your interpretation and not my intent. To answer Jojhutton's point, I agree that the Daily Mail and the Telegraph are mainstream newspapers in the UK and are usually reliable sources. That is not the issue here. We are at NPOV and discussing a claim that three mentions of NICE in three different places in the article constitutes WP:UNDUE given the fact that this has been said only twice and not by any American sources or by Palin herself who has been asked several times about her use of the term. We have no evidence that Palin was talking about NICE. Yes this does imply that the two articles got it wrong and that is for a reason. They DID get it wrong on this occasion. There is simply no evidence that Palin was talking about NICE. As FormerIP said, it may have been their way of putting a UK angle on an American story but that does not make it either true or verifiable. The only verifiable thing about this is that journalists said it and not Palin. If anyone can show me a direct quote where Palin said she was talking about NICE or anything to do with the UK I will give up the ghost here, but frankly we have a duty to our readers to prevent factual information to our readers just as the Telegraph and Daily Mail are supposed to do to their readers. The claim that Palin was talking about NICE is neither true nor verifiable. I repeat neither/nor (and not either/or as those citing Verifiability not Truth have implied above). It is simply not verifiable that Palin said or implied this. It is misleading to present this without any explanation that no other sources have reached this conclusion and that we have no direct quotes from Palin to substantiate them. We already have a reference to NICE in the article as a supposed death panel without those from the two British journalists who seem to have "gone rogue". The easiest solution is to delete the reference to these articles for all the reasons that I have given. Hauskalainen (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouting (in internet terms) is regarded as Caps and Bold, moreover you do not need to emphasis your points like we are morons (AFTER ALL WE KNOW WHAT SHOUTING ON BOARDS IS, IT APPEARS YOU DO NOT). Again I ask you to provide sources where she denies she intended to imply NICE (rather then just you interpretation of what she intended). If she has not denied she intended to mean NICE we cannot assume she did not intend to mean it. I agree that we need to make it clear that this is an interpretation of her words (and this is exactly what was done). Omission is not evidence of non existence, either provide a source that says she has refuted the accusation or accept she has not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And finally we have a subject area (a claim that NICE is a Death Panel) which is a fringe idea in itself. I will leave other editors to point out the fallacy in SlaterSeteven's argument of logic regarding logical proofs. He would do well to educate himself by reading Wikipedia in this area and beyond to extend his knowledge. This is prima facia evidence that there is some connection between these editors that is beyond the norm here. That is all that I am saying and I stick by my words. Fortunately we have rules such as NPOV and WEIGHT and RS and FRINGE which can be used to counter these efforts.

As to shouting, as I say I am not (stessing here the word "not") shouting and I use caps to add stress to my words in places where I would in real speech add emphasis without shouting. If you can point to a WP rules somewhere which means I have to stop using caps in this way then by all means tell me where to find it. If there is such a rule I'd like to know how I can add emphasis without seeming to "shout" as you put it. Telling me I cannot add stress to my words is like cutting of the arms of an Italian....Hauskalainen (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  Please see WP:SHOUT (at WP:Talk page guidelines#Good practices), which says: "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate." This is a basic expectation. Any questions, see also WP:Shouting things loudly does not make them true. Nor, I might add, effective.

  The basic problem, where you feel your message (words) need more emphasis (stress) to be effective (to "get through" to any readers), is that your message is weak. But SHOUTING doesn't do any good, and annoys your potential audience. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It has been an accepted behavior to pass off The Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" from many sides as I have been reading. Though I would like to point out a few things, that seems to form a little pattern of bias against people of a particular religion viz. Hinduism.

I would like to point this our with hard facts. As it is, uncivilized barbaric events are difficult to describe in civil forms. Let me start by saying plainly therefore that ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits out of Kashmir region, J&K state, India, was a barbarian torturous "act" for all the Hindus. Same goes for burning of Hindu pilgrims of Godhra region in Gujarat state, India. These two are inhuman 'acts' of the lowest order, considering how ethnic natives residing in Kashmir since time immemorial have been brutalized and made to flee or how women and children pilgrims were burnt alive. These are rare 'acts' in deed, as no region ever tortures pilgrims and indulges in ethnic cleansing of whole set of religious hardworking people.

The Economist has hardly any words reserved, from its "reliable sources of the highest order", for these "acts". The Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own countries, or those pilgrims who were burnt alive, can hardly stand up and get counted against this unfair treatment by silence of "the reliable source of the highest order". Any reporting from the Economist, or for that matter any good reference media, is conspicuous by absence of reporting these 'acts' from the viewpoint of Hindus who suffered (thus forming the bias - If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor - Desond Tutu), unlike its articles, perhaps correctly or not, reporting from viewpoint of Muslims about Narendra Modi(http://www.economist.com/node/10251282?story_id=10251282).

On the other hand, the Economist has passed off troubles in Kashmir state as a result of mistreatment and a little by Pakistani militants, without exhaustive consideration of all sides viz. Indian State, Kashmiri Pandits, all other minorities in J&K state like Budhdhists, Sikhs other than Hindus, and so on. Same goes for demeaning elected Govt. in Gujarat state of India.

My point is therefore simple, do what you want to but don't call the Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" as far as anything related to Hinduism is considered. The question here is of balanced views(and its importance in reporting refer canons of journalism http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html), though an indication may come from its funding from people who have no interest in upholding human rights of Hindus, as per Universal declaration of Human Rights by U.N.

I would like to ask, if I should as a Hindu, if is it not inhuman to ignore human rights of Hindus.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." — Desmond Tutu. "Truthfulness is better than silence" - Manu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.236 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

you need to take this to the RSN board as this seems to be an RS question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Link to RSN board please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.188.234.236 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard I hoever don't think you will get very far.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have mentioned it there before and in fact I am redirected here from the same page. As you mentioned, I do not see going to far with this since this points to the same page from where I got a link to this page. The issue therefore will not go out of these two boards perhaps. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. 180.188.234.236 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

At Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, there are 3 world maps indicating recognition of and relations with Palestine and its derivitive institutions. This thread concerns the last of these maps (shown right), which shows different information from the other two.

The information in this map is supposedly derived from the table in the article, which is sourced. The table is divided into 3 parts:

• The top section lists states that have recognised the State of Palestine. These are coloured GREEN in the maps.
• The bottom section lists states that do not recognise the State of Palestine. These are coloured BLUE in the maps.
• A middle section lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position.

Unlike in the other 2 maps on the page, there is no neutral colouring for those unclear cases listed in the middle section. Instead, they're rendered as BLUE (i.e., not recognising the State of Palestine). Not only is this inherently confusing to the reader in its deviation from the sourced information in the article, it also shows POV.

The author of the map (Alinor (talk · contribs)) insists that discussion between editors will eventually determine to which of the two sections each of these cases belongs, thus rendering as redundant any need for a third colour in the maps. However, given the heavy disagreement between sources on a number of these entries, it is unlikely that anything will be determined regarding their positions any time soon. They have all been in the middle section since last year, while the map has shown them as belonging to the last section.

I agree that inconclusive evidence requires further investigation, but I don't think it's acceptable to show these cases, even in the meantime, as belonging to one category when the article (and the sources) show that they could just as easily belong to the other. Nightw 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, there's a reliable source stating quite explicitly that Lesotho recognises the State of Palestine, but in the absence of official word from the baSotho government, it's been rendered as inconclusive. But this map shows it, along with all similarly undetermined cases, as not recognising it. Nightw 05:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not discuss individual cases of the inconclusive entries - the talk page of the article is more appropriate place for that. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

??? I'm not. That was an example for the noticeboard. Read comments properly. Nightw 12:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First, all three maps are made by me, including these with special coloring for "inconclusive" cases. The other two maps not shown here, are unnecessary in my opinion, they don't add any information, but I agreed on making and adding them, as compromise.

The way in which Night w presents the information above is misleading ("the third map shows different information from the other two", etc.)

I have not insisted that we wait for ALL inconclusive cases to be resolved. I said, that before editing the map we should first finish the concurrently ongoing discussion about two of them (about the rest we don't discuss anything, because there is no new information).

My hesitation to include "inconclusive" as separate group is because of the additional colors needed (at least two). The map already has 4 colors (recognition, recognition+relations, relations, no recognition+no relations) and in the inconclusive group currently we have 2 more types ("maybe recognition", "relations+maybe recognition"). It's not just blue and green. Currently it's blue, green, light green, gray. I hesitate adding too much colors, because this is bad practice in general. But after Night w insisted so much I already agreed to do this.

What I said is - let's finish the ongoing discussion about two of the inconclusive cases and then we will change the map accordingly. Alinor (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary to wait for an outcome on certain entries. Meanwhile it shows possibly wrong information. If we must wait for discussion to close on some cases, then it should be removed until the POV colouring is addressed. Nightw 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait for an outcome not on certain entries, but of an actively ongoing discussion. We can't change back-and-forth every time the discussion swings in one or another direction. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The states that "lists states where sources conflict on that state's official position" should not be colored in blue as this is misleading to the reader. Later, if their position is clarified the appropriate color (green or blue) can be added. Meantime they should have a neutral color but in any case they should not be colored blue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you say that we should be "restrictive" in coloring - e.g. in case of conflicting or inconclusive sources the map should show neutral gray color ("no SoP recognition") until an official confirmation source is found? Or you say that we should add additional neutral color specially for "conflicting or inconclusive sources"?

Just to clarify - blue doesn't mean only "SoP no recognition", but "PLO/PNA relations + no SoP recogntion". That's why some of the conflicting and inconclusive cases are blue currently - because we have official sources showing "PLO/PNA relations" just like for other of the blue states. This is implementation of the "restrictive" approach described above (gray - for no relations+no recognition; blue for relations+no recognition). Alinor (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

...But it's unclear to as to whether these cases recognise the State. So it's POV to say that they don't. And confusing to the reader when the rest of the article says otherwise. Nightw 09:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let Keithbob reply. I understand him as supporting the "restrictive" coloring - e.g. for inconclusive cases we color as non-recognizing until we have official confirmation of recognition. And "the rest of the article says otherwise" is just the inclusion of these few specific cases as "conflicting and inconclusive". Alinor (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's happening with this. We have three editors asking for neutral colouring on the map. Is it going to happen? Nightw 08:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no three editors asking for this - you are asking for this, Rennell435 asks both maps to show the same thing (but doesn't insist on inclusion of "conflicting case" coloring), Keithbob hasn't replied yet. I assume that you would gladly disregard my position.

And there are multiple open questions that you haven't answered here and here - I ask you kindly to do so there. Anyway, when the article protection is lifted and we settle the Syria/Turkmenistan issue the maps will be updated. Alinor (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Keithbob said quite plainly that "they should have a neutral color". And Rennell's position is clear: match the maps up; there's only one discrepancy, and that's with these conflicting cases. I have no intention of revisiting that talk page until you do the right thing here. Once again, your stubborness is hindering progress. Nightw 11:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading Keithbob comment it seems that by "neutral color" he most probably refers to "gray" (no information).

Rennell435 said "they should all show the same thing." and this will be achieved by "neutral gray" in both maps.

I said, that I see no point in updating the map right now, when at the same time you are making some proposals to move Syria/Turkmenistan to "inconclusive" section. But, OK, since your stubbornness, non-cooperative and obstructionist behavior continues I may update the maps right now.

You are under AE obligations to discuss at the talk page. Of course you can breach that if you want. I understand your comment above as "I, Night w, won't participate in the discussion I'm under AE obligation to participate in, unless you, Alinor, do something in the way "I like it" without taking into account a related ongoing discussion and opinions of other users". In such case your refusal to participate in the discussion is sufficient for me to make the changes I proposed at the talk page. Alinor (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I have been busy with some real life issues. Regarding this statement by Alinor: "there is no neutral colouring for those unclear cases listed in the middle section. Instead, they're rendered as BLUE (i.e., not recognising the State of Palestine)". In my opinion it is incorrect and misleading to the reader to give a color (green or blue) to a state whose position on Palestine is unclear. If you like, you could have a neutral color such as grey for those states who have made ambiguous or conflicting statements. You could then use white for those states that have never commented in any way on the subject. A legend explaining the meaning of each color would also be needed for the reader. These are my suggestions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't my comment, but comment of Night w. Actually the "conflicting and inconclusive" are colored either gray or blue - not only blue - depending on whether they have PLO/PNA relations or not. About legend - in the article where the map is used there is a legend (see here). Blue is the color for "PLO/PNA relations". Gray is the color for "no information". So, in case of inconclusive source about SoP recognition, but firm source for PLO/PNA relations it gets colored blue. In case of inconclusive source about SoP recognition and nothing more - it gets colored gray. And these are not "states who have made ambiguous or conflicting statements" - these are states for whom we have conflicting/inconclusive/ambiguous sources (sources such as news reports, blogs, books, etc. not related to the state in question) - but actually we don't have quotes from the statements of the states themselves. In addition - there are some different cases with vague/ambiguous official statements (or cases, where we don't have official source at all) - but currently I think adding those nuances to a map will be too much. About white - we can't use white for coloring, but we can use yellow for example. Alinor (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you've added yellow, but only to two of the spots that need them. You've changed Lesotho and Swaziland to yellow, left Turkmenistan and Syria unchanged, and then gone and changed Cameroon to dark green...? This is map is getting more and more confusing (and thus useless) with every change. Can you please explain? Unless the map data corresponds to that of the table, I don't see how this map can continue to be shown. It's affecting the quality of the article. I may have to request deletion or removal through RfC. Nightw 10:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources about Syria and Turkmenistan SoP recognition, that's why these are unchanged. There is a source about Cameroon SoP recognition (see 22:10, 10 March 2011 comment in the "weakly supported" section at the talk page; the recent version of the table is in the sandbox) - that's why it got colored accordingly. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, being a contemporary rather than historical situation, either an official government source states official recognition, or it's not officially recognized, plain and simple. There is no "discussion" of the situation, that synthesis and original research--i.e., speculation on a situation based on non-official sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't agree to changing any of those. Reverted. Nightw 07:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then use the talk page and explain what you don't agree. [32] Uruguay or Cameroon? Alinor (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've explained it. The maps should match the table, and when the table changes the map will follow suit. Otherwise they're useless, and they're not an improvement to the article. Nightw 08:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The map discussed here is used only in the protected article, where the table isn't updated yet. But you should revert your [33] change to another map that is used at another articles and where the version you recently pushed disregarded three edits - my edit following a RS/N discussion [34]; Fjmustak edit with Uruguay source [35]; my edit with Cameroon source [36]. Alinor (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PЄTЄRS, so we should not add additional color for non-official conflicting or inconclusive sources? Alinor (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You made undiscussed changes to the map, which affects the articles. That went against your AE obligations. So I reverted until an agreement is found. The RS/N noticeboard concluded that Doebbler cannot be used as a source to support a particular claim. It did not conclude, directly or indirectly, that any item should be moved, and it's appalling that you should use it to justify such actions. For the record, I'm fine with updating Uruguay and Cameroon, but the point is that the edits were made without consent. Nightw 09:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't made "undiscussed changes" - all is discussed. Maybe you didn't want to participate or didn't have time to do it. Now, since you began participating I'm refraining from reverting your edits - so that we can reach some agreement.

Since "Doebbler cannot be used ..." I simply removed that data from the map (not the one under discussion here) that was added only because of that, what can't be used. If some new source is found for that, then the appropriate changes will be made to the map. So, far there isn't such (see here, here, here and here) - on the contrary, there are even circumstantial indications that Syria/Turkmenistan don't recognize SoP. Alinor (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide me the diffs where you proposed to make these changes to the maps. Did I consent to the changes? Was I even notified of the proposal? It seems quite poor behaviour to make changes where you know I disagreed and where there was an ongoing discussion over the matter (i.e., this very thread)! The noticeboard concluded that a particular source could not be used to support a particular claim. There are sources to replace it with, but you don't want to use them, and you don't want to open a RS/N thread to discuss them. So the entries will remain where they are, unsourced, until consensus dictates an outcome. Nightw 10:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is full of discussions about these topics. I asked you for a quote from the supposed source you suggests and you haven't provided such quote (and I couldn't see such myself). Controversial unsourced text can't remain. Anyway, this issue is separate - here we discuss the map and I suggest that we wait for PЄTЄRS and Keithbob responses. Alinor (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PЄTЄRS, is this map OK: File:State of Palestine explicit recognition per official sources.png? For comparison see File:SoP recognition and PLO relations.png (corresponding to the map in discussion here) and File:State of Palestine recognition.png. Alinor (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We have, at last count, seventeen (unless I missed a few) sources attesting false medical information propagated by CPCs; we do not have a single source attesting a CPC that does not propagate false medical information, nor do any of the seventeen sources attesting misinformation say that it is rare. Is the use of the phrase "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information" justified? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, not unless you have a source that says "[CPCs] have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information". It's a hasty generalization and therefore WP:SYNTH. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you have this source, Abortion Counseling: A Clinician's Guide to Psychology, Legislation, Politics, and Competency. It has some actual survey data from a Congressional study on page 11 e.g. 87% of CPC's in the study were found to have provided false and misleading information. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We cite the study itself; it's the ref called "Waxman." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that that study was commissioned by a very pro-abortion congressman from California and carried out by his staff. - Haymaker (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-choice is not the same as 'pro-abortion' so if you're truly interested in collaboration then you'll stop equating the two. -PrBeacon (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if a reliable source said that it's worth noting and why. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is somewhat different from "routinely providing misleading information." IIRC, more than 90% of IRS agents give out "misleading information" in tests, yet we do not say "The IRS routinely gives out misleading information" since 99% of the information the IRS gives out is published information, and not responses to complex queries (where its record is, indeed, abysmal). Perhaps "Many CDCs have been found giving out incorrect medical information in response to queries" or the like? The article surrently is a POV nightmare, however, and reads very much like an advocacy article. Collect (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That would simply be false, though, as these CPCs from all appearances give out this information completely unprompted as part of their MO. My problem with "some" is that I feel it's unnecessarily minimizing - that it implies we have fewer sources than we do, that we have sources about CPCs that don't do this, that our sources say not all CPCs do this. Actually, would it be easier to deal with the problem by removing all quantifying words and just say "...they have been found..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite for them deliberately giving out misleading information? And "they have been found ..." implies "They all have been found." To avoid any such implication, the most WP can say is "some have been found to give out some misleading information." At least, from the cites proffered. I would also caution that using "MO" implies deliberate action. Collect (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't say they do it deliberately, so why would we need a citation that says they do? (We also don't say it's their MO. I'm responding to your proposed wording, which is inaccurate and which does not reflect the sources.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: we have moved on to discussing other ways of wording the sentence. Bobthefish2 has suggested "CPCs have been found," which seems good to me as it is not a quantity, but hopefully will not be viewed by other participants as implying all CPCs. I have also suggested removing the "While they provide information..." part of the sentence which contrasts with the statement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Without a quantifier it does sound like all of them have been. - Haymaker (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Consider the example: "Muslims have been found to issue fatwas against infidels". Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit different with people than with businesses. Consider "Burger Kings serve fries". - Haymaker (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, it can be a different depending on how you express it :)! Consider "Burger King restaurants have been found to serve fries". Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Have been found to..." sounds weaselly, and I doubt if it is ever a useful wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it the passive voice that's the problem? We used to have it in active, and I've no problem going back. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been having various disputes with the editor of this article about noteability and NPOV of the article going on for a while now. The article does not provide any reliable third party sources and does not give sources backing up most of the statements made. The history of the article suggests that this is maintained by the companies' marketing or some other insider, given the users edit history. -- Arekusandaa (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a NPOV issue, rather one of notability. Its a promotional piece for a company that doesn't meet the WP:ORG criteria. I've nominated it for AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FPX (company). Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but i am not as familiar with the english language Wikipedia as i am with the german language Wikipedia. So since both applies (NPOV and notability) I thought i would bring it to attention here since i could not find a suitable page where you would discuss notability issues. -- Arekusandaa (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. Is the second sentence below a fair and neutral takeaway from the first one?

(1) The WP:RS's sentence: Corwin said she supports abortion rights — but does not support late-term abortions or federal funding for abortion.

(2) Our article's sentence: Corwin supports abortion rights — but is opposed to late-term abortions and federal funding for abortions.

Another editor says it's not, and posted this objection to the talk page for our Jane Corwin article:

"But" used as argumentative statement

If it is in the cite - then quote it, ascribing the opion directly to the person holding that opinion. It should not be used otherwise. WP:WTA: Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed. And the "but" is most certainly an opinion. Just give the full quote, attributed to the person making it as an opinion. Simple.

I've already spent a couple hours researching and adding cites to this article, and I'm not really interested in spending more time trying to find the press release or interview transcript or whatever it was that this secondary source based its statement on, just to satisfy this editor's demand. Relevant diffs. Help please? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I assert the "but" is an example of "opinion" and only ask that the source be used as a quote if we wish to use "but" and that the quote be sourced as opinion, as required by WP policies and guidelines. That is all. WP:WTA appears to also apply unless we attribute the "but" to a source. I do, moreover, object to my position being grossly misstated. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Note: The source does not say it is Corwin;s words, which would be an exception - thus the wording is the opinion of the source. It is Robert J. McCarthy who makes the connection. Clearly a transcript using the "but" ascribable to Corwin would then be citable as her own words, but that is not the case. McCarthy clearly adds other statements of opinion in the column such as "Still, she did note in her Thursday statement that she considers marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman." "But" and "Still"are clearly matters of opinion in this case. All that is needed is to attribute the words to Mr. McCarthy. Simple. Collect (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The applicability of our NPOV policy and its UNDUE clause is discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry. Editors here may be able to help. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper and even WP:SPECULATION (as the recovery is not yet started and the consequences largely speculative) trump any considerations of NPOV? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

More eyes on this would be greatly helpful. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We are having another dispute on the Weston Price article. The current version has a very misleading statement using the publisher PMPH-USA (whose quality in this field has NOT been proven) while I want to put in the following more accurate version:

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

I have Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc that show the PMPH-USA is wrong but we are getting NPOV tags thrown up as well as used as an excuse to remove reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1. If we're having a discussion here at WP:NPOVN, then the NPOV tag is warranted, right?
2. Is there agreement that the material does not belong in the lede of Weston Price?
3. Seems like a simple application of WP:MEDRS would solve the non-historical issues about focal infection theory, right?
4. Shouldn't the non-historical information unrelated to Price be left to Focal infection theory, which then should be linked and summarized as it applies within Weston Price? --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, you have dodged the real issue--the biography on Weston Price is being used to make a medical claim not supported by articles from the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc. To date nothing to show that PMPH-USA is a reliable source has been presented while the reliable of Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, JAMA, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc source are known.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, I noticed that, hence my questions #2, #3, and #4. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll wade back into this again. Hopefully we'll have a more reasoned discussion this time. --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm going to put this out here bluntly: I have not forgotten your 'fake retirement' gambit, and if you start in me again, we'll be right back in ANI and that trick will not work twice. Understood? --Ludwigs2 05:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop collapsing content you don't agree with, Ronz.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again Stop tying to use Wikipedia policy to hid what you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 07:22, 19 January 2011

1) As noted before, none of the sources you want to add speaks at all about Weston Price, which is the article you want to put it in. It is clear WP:SYNTH.

2) The source you say is not reliable, Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed, is currently published by PMPH-USA which is, by all accounts, a reliable publisher of medical textbooks (see their website). Also note that this title came to be published by PMPH-USA because they bought the entire book list from the original publisher, BC Decker, which is clearly a reliable publisher as they publish material in conjunction with the American College of Physicians, the leading internal medicine professional organization. Note also that Ingle's Endodontics 6th ed. is also published by McGraw Hill, as noted here, for sale in Canada and Europe. It is clearly reliable, so stop saying it isn't just because you don't like their conclusions.

3) The Weston Price article is not the place to get into a discussion about the relative merits of where focal infection theory stands now. The version that Price advocated for fell out of favor; discussion about any other forms of focal infection theory that may or may not remain valid belongs in the article about focal infection theory, not the Weston Price article. Yobol (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Several things

1. The Ingle's Endodontics at McGraw Hill states Only for sale in EMEA, Canada, Tailand If this was such a good quality textbook way isn't allowed to be sold in the US?
2. The referenced edition is 2007 while the McGraw Hill clearly states on the link you provided "Pub Date: MAY-08".
3. The referenced statement of "Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These theories fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities" is not supported by other known reliable source--including one by the same original publisher:

"It is now realized that oral bacteria and their products and their products, particularly ipopoysccharides and proinflamunary cytokine, induced local in response in oral infections, enter the blood stream and may subsequently activate systemic response in certain susceptible individuals" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136)

"Manila et al utilized sound scientific methods to reintroduce the association between systemic disease and oral infection." (Fowler, Edward B (2001) "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))

"The dark age (1876 to 1926): In spite of introduction of X-rays and general anesthesia, extractions was the choice of treatment than endodontics in most of the cases of damaged teeth because theory of the focal infection was main concern" (Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2)

"The resurgence of the focal infection theory of disease has been greeted with great enthusiasm in some quarters;..." abstract (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"The oral focal infection theory, a concept generally neglected for several decades, is controversial yet has gained renewed interest with progress in classification and identification of oral microorganism. Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159)

Furthermore take a look at these old contemporary to Price definitions and compare them to a 2009 definition and explain just what blasted difference there is:

"All focal infection is not of dental origin, but a sufficiently large percentage is to demand a careful study of the mouth and teeth in all cases of the mouth and teeth in all cases of systemic infection, for in these cases all foci should be removed." (1918) Dental summary: Volume 38; Page 437)

"One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" ((1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal)

"Focal infection-it refers to metastasis form the focus of infection, of organisms or their products that are capable of injuring tissue" (Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't even concede that McGraw Hill and BC decker are reliable publishers, there is nothing more that needs to be said to show your tendentious need to insert POV into this page if you're going to ignore the blatantly obvious. Everything else you wrote is your confusion about what Price advocated (and was, and still is, roundly rejected by the medical/dental community) and what current advocates of focal infection theory are saying now, which are quite different. Yobol (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, this noticeboard really isn't the appropriate place to discuss whether or not Ingle's Endodontics is a WP:RS; if you feel the need to continue your assertion that McGraw Hill and BC Decker are not reliable publishers, we should probably take that discussion to WP:RSN.Yobol (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and J Am Diet . Assnc and even an earlier People's Medical Publishing House publication all say the Ingle's Endodontics statement is wrong. You can do all the hand waving you want but the fact of the end of the day is you have ONE source supporting your view while I have FIVE.

I should point out McGraw Hill also puts out little gems like Easy Homeopathy, Homeopathic Remedies for 100 Children's Common Ailments, and Homeopathic Remedies for Children’s Common Ailments. It is hard to take a publisher of medical material as reliable when they also print stuff that claims Homeopathic medicine is a viable treatment option.

"Homeopathy works best with chronic health problems and some acute health problems" Repetitive strain injuries McGraw Hill pg 179.

"Homeopathy works by treating the whole body, including body, mind, and spirit" ("Without ritalin: a natural approach to ADD" McGraw Hill pg 115).

"We have no idea if this is technically true, we still don't understand how Homeopathy works. There has been no good basic research into the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicine..." (Vogel, John H. K.; Mitchell Krucoff (2007) Integrative cardiology McGraw-Hill Medical pg 347)

Homeopathy works?!? SAY WHAT?!? Yobol, if this is your idea of reliable I hate to see what you consider unreliable. Oh wait a minute you have basically said that McGraw Hill must take a back seat to Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and the J Am Diet . Assnc ergo those publishers are unreliable. Does this make a lick of sense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, the fact that they publish fringey medical texts does not mean that they do not also publish mainstream ones. That said, since they do publish fringe medicine one cannot take them as de facto mainstream in medical textbook publications. Drop McGraw Hill. There is no need to keep on tugging at either end of that rope. There is plenty else to discuss about this matter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one pushing McGraw Hill; Yobol is the one pushing it despite the fact that FIVE other sources (Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Wiley, Military Medicine, and Journal of the American Dietetic Association) as well an earlier work by the same original publisher show the Ingle's Endodontics statement to be flat out WRONG.

As I said before on the Weston Price talk page you can't claim focal infection theory has been resurrected in 2002, have a 2009 source by Wiley saying the theory is being cautiously being looked at, another Wiley source stating the theory never really died in dentistry, and a 2007 source saying the theory has been dead as a dodo since the 1930s. There is simply no way to reconcile those claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And as I said in the talk page, Price's contribution to focal infection theory was to research and advocate for the extraction of teeth rather than using root canals. That was his sole contribution to focal infection theory (frankly, that was focal infection theory in the 1930s), and that was completely abandoned. The modern "revival" of focal infection doesn't speak, at all, about tooth extraction or root canals and is therefore different than the theory Price advocated. You are conflating two things that share the same name and very basic principles but by all accounts are two totally different scientific theories. Not a single one of the sources you have provided have tied Price to this newer focal infection theory. Yobol (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As administrator Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." You cannot ignore the many sources that show the Ingle's Endodontics statement is WRONG. While we are on it here are two more:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). This statement was repeated word for word in Review of gastroenterology Volume 18 pg 71 of the National Gastroenterological Association in 1951.

You can't claim a theory "fell out of favor in the 1930s" when papers in 1947 and 1951 say it is "a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." On every point the Ingle's Endodontics is WRONG and no handwaving is going to change that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without addressing the point. What your sources are describing and what Price advocated for are two different theories. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is you where are avoiding the fact that all these other sources say the medical claim being made by Ingle's Endodontics either doesn't say what you think it says or it is flat out wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You only think Ingle's is wrong because you can't see the difference between what Price advocated and what the sources you are presenting here are saying. And round and round we go. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That is largely because you keep claiming this with no evidence that there is a fundamental difference in the basic theory Price's work was used to support.

"A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3)

Articles of the same time period (1919 Minnesota medicine: Volume 2 Minnesota Medical Association Page 20; (1915) The Laryngoscope: Volume 25 American Otological Society, Page 786; (1916) Pacific medical journal: Volume 59, Page 177; (1913) Interstate medical journal: Volume 20, Page 849; (1914) Section on Laryngology, Otology, and Rhinology American Medical Association, Page 23) all define Focal infection in essentially the same way and nearly all of these were written when Price was chair of the Research Section of the American Dental Association (1914-1928)

"Similarly, in patients in whom brain abscess or meningitis originates from a focal infection in the vicinity of the brain (sinusitis, otitis media, dental abscess), contiguous spread rather than bacteremia represents the likely route by route by which the pathogen gains access to the CNS" (Scheld, W. Michael; Richard J. Whitley, Christina M. Marra (2004) "Infections of the central nervous system" Wolters Kluwer Health pg 331)

"Each dental caries, dental abscess, gingival and alveolar inflammation and necrosis, has been interpreted as essentially infective processes, and hence their extent is essentially a measure of the infection." (Price, Weston (1923) Dental infections, oral and systemic)

Here we see Price himself talking about dental abscess in the very book used as reference to FIT and a 2004 book by Wolters Kluwer Health that talks about dental abscess being one of the potential focal infections for brain abscessed or meningitis and yet we are being told by Yobol that they are somehow two different theories? SAY WHAT?!?

Moreover various medical journals of Price's time talk more about dental abscesses in regards to FIT then they talk about endodontic treated or pulpless teeth. These include (but are not means limited to) (1918) "DENTAL ABSCESS OR INFECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES" The American journal of clinical medicine: Volume 25, Page 145; (1922) Transactions of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Page 276; George W. Goler (1922) "Discussion" Transactions of the Dental Society of the State of New York, Volumes 50-54 Dental Society of the State of New York pg 126; (1916) Contributions from the Department of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health: Volumes 1-2, University of Minnesota. Dept. of Pathology, Bacteriology, and Public Health, Page 192; (1915) Journal of the Iowa State Medical Society: Volume 5, Iowa State Medical Society, Page 60; Bethel, L. P. (1917) Dental summary: Volume 37, Page 917; (1916) Martin, Franklin Henry Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics: Volume 22, Page 24; Keyes, Frederick Anthony (1918) Army dentistry: Forsyth lectures for the Army Dental Reserve Corps, Page 107)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment My only concern here is that Price's application of focal infection theory (e.g. the one shared by the dental mainstream for a number of years leading to unnecessary extractions, etc.) is not confused with the focal infection theory, which is a much more general theory. I'm saying this because I agree mostly with Yobol at this point, but with a caveat that I think relates to Bruce's concerns. The sources that do in fact discuss Price and focal infection theory appear not to be doing a very good job differentiating between the two themselves. I think we do need to stick to these sources when discussing Price's connection to the theory, but we should also make sure our readers are not confused in the sense of thinking that the focal infection theory was completely rejected. As far as that is handled with the necessary subtlety I'm happy.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)'=

As I pointed out in the talk page when this originally came up is Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159 stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory." Guest who now publishes Silverman's book; you got it McGraw hill!

Now I'll ask the question that I asked back on the talk page and never really got an answer to--how can People's Medical Publishing House and now McGraw Hill state the focal infection theory is being revived in 2002 and yet in 2007 (or 2008) say that it died in the 1930s period end of sentence. They can't both be true.

Here is quote regarding the book Root Canal Cover-up Exposed that addresses Price as well: "The focal infection theory, supported by many including Dr. Price, has been attacked, debated, accepted, criticized, agreed upon, etc. but it has not been covered up." ((1994) Annals of dentistry: Volumes 53-54 New York Academy of Dentistry pg 42) Why is the word "rejected" not part of that list? The author of this piece states that Root Canal Cover-up Exposed "contains unsubstantiated statements, misunderstandings, and it would definitely have benefited from a better proofreading. Infected tissues/organs, such as teeth, can serve as a source of infection which can be transported, in the form of microorganisms..."

Hold the phone there isn't the idea that tissues/organs such as teeth being a source of infection which can be transported to other parts of the body the very definition of FIT as it was in Price's time? Given the numerous quotes of the period I have been citing in the talk page looks like it to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it has been nearly a month an no real reasons for putting one source over what is now seven has been presented nor how doing so meets WP:NPOV with regards to WP:MEDRS. Administrator USER:Will Beback pointed out back in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Modern_focal_infection_theory_passage "WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere." So far nothing to show why Ingle's Endodontics should be used to overrule what is stated by two other textbooks, an earlier book published by the same publisher, article by the Journal of the California Dental Association, JADA, Military Medicine, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the New York Academy of Dentistry, and several books put out by Wiley and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers simply under the grounds that they don't directly mention Weston Price. Per WP:MEDRS it doesn't matter if Weston Price is mentioned but if the medical claim being made in relation to him is correct and as the WP:RS show Ingle's Endodontics is wrong in this regard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple reasons have been given, you just haven't chosen to accept them. You are free to disagree with everyone else; you are not, however, free to continue to disrupt the article by ignoring consensus and implementing changes that have been rejected multiple times. Yobol (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of smoke and mirror reasons have been presented that do not address the core issue--Ingle's Endodontics is making a medical claim not supported by any of the above sources and since it is a minority view that is apparent violation of the WP:NPOV part of WP:MEDRS. Unless Yobol can produce his arguments here his claims have no merit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional note Yobol did this revert. Please explain how identifying the publisher falls under WP:PEACOCK especially given the just the fact example?!? Better yet explain to us how removing the very reference as where the statement was removed qualifies under WP:PEACOCK. Also explain to us why this nonsense is allowed to go on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ingels vs Ingels The really sad thing about this is "PDQ Endodontics" by Ingels clearly states "And even today, cancer and neuroropsychiatric disorders are blamed on focal infection". (...) "In summary, nonsurgical endodontics may be the least likely of dental treatment procedure to produce significant bacteremias in either incidence or magnitude" so even Ingels (2009) says Ignels (2002/2007) is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)