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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being considered as valid science.^[1] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,^[1][2]

I then added the following:

although Discovery Institute claims to have a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications.^[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some examples of reverted diffs subject to dispute:[1][2][3] - My self-revert pending comment from third party: [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a long disputed question, but it only makes sense that when an opinion has significant controversy in the context of the article or subject material, we use attribution. Else, why would we ever use attribution? If a source is strong, attribution will strengthen its claim. If a source is weak, it is proper that its claim be weakened. You can never really go wrong with attribution. The only reason not to use it is if it harms the flow of the text, and that is fine when there is no significant controversy in the context. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to make a claim, whether negative or positive. If you are adding a negative or counter-claim, you have to source it, and you should attribute if it is controversial. If your source is any good, you can't lose [5].

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[6] There are no exceptions. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 02:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

We're having trouble with this article with an editor ((83.67.217.135 (talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". [7] Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.

It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles ([8] [9]) blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis (WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

Undue Weight states, "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." (Emphasis added.) Attempts to insert a neutral explanation of the subject have met with reverts by editors who doggedly insist that "this article will, of necessity, give an entirely negative weight on the topic " to the exclusion of all else. (emphasis added.)[10] While Undue Weight rightly dictates that majority scientific opinion be given more weight than the the minority opinion, it does not - as the authors claim - PRECLUDE a neutral airing of the minority opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like an opinion on this part of the article on the Swedish Armed Forces: [11]

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

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

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

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

Hi.

I read a newspaper article on Tomb Raider: Underworld and so I attempted to add material from that article to the Wikipedia article on the game. The Wikipedia article does not appear to be written overly neutral, and given that some of the concerns in the article were that Eidos had attempted to manage the reception the game received, and given that Eidos have openly admitted this, and given that there are a large number of anonymous editors editing the article, I would appreciate it if experienced, neutral Wikipedians could review the article and the situation and offer a way forwards. I had thought there would be a more collegiate atmosphere, but I can't find any reason for my changes being removed from the article. Page differences follow: [12], [13], [14] and [15]. If my amendments were also not neutral, I am happy to discuss ways to make the article more compliant with WP:NPOV, and how better to collaborate to achieve such a goal. Someplace else (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please can you consider also this edit: [16], because while editors here write that the game recieved positive reviews, The Guardian, a reliable source which can be verified and which we should use to ground opinion according to policies and guidance such as using weasel words and peacock terms, describes the game as recieving "mixed reviews". Someplace else (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The definition of what "Jesus myth hypothesis"/"Christ Myth"/"Jesus Myth" even is should not be a game of pick that reference but that is a big part of this article's NPOV problems.

What do you do when reliable sources are in conflict over something so simple as a definition and some editors favor certain definitions (I favor the Remsburg/Dodd definition as it is the most encompassing) over others which appear to put a POV slant on what the article even covers?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al (padwriter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padwriter (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged this article as possible POVish, explained at talk page why. Because it's a featured article, I think it should get it's mention here. I'm not too aware with the process stages on Wikipedia, I probably won't come back to see the outcome, but I'll accept what the community has to say, I'm just stating a concern. --Kybalion from Wind (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this recent unsourced [edit] by User 66.166.53.194 whose other recent unsourced edits seemed racist as in this [edit], which has been reverted. I've tagged the Jack Comer article with "POV" and "unreferenced" but I don't know if I should undo all his edits or just the racist POV stuff in the Jack Comer article because some of it actually seems informative and considering it's not a living person maybe I should just wait until the editor provides a source? Can someone give advice on how to proceed please. OlEnglish (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been working with another other editor, Bert Schlossberg to try to get Korean Airlines Flight 007 to GA. He added most of the initial content, while I have been doing most of the cleanup in the past 2 weeks following its submission to GA (which it failed). Despite some major work on the article, I still have a few nagging concerns about its neutrality as the primary contributor is associated with a website called rescue.org that has a theory that the aircraft ditched instead of crashing, and that survivors are being kept in the Russian prison system. In particular, my concerns are around the weighting given to certain arguments that would support the rescue007.org theory, even though most of the really obvious POV has now been edited out. Secondly, the way in which some of the material is presented, e.g. the lack of human remains, appears to be slanting towards OR because of the way in which the quotes from the source article have been selectively highlighted and presented to make a new argument that I don't see in any secondary sources. Maybe I'm being overly analytical, however I'd appreciate a second look before this article goes up for GA review again (which I'm expecting it will pass this time round). PS: Despite some strong differences of opinion over the article, Bert & I are working together towards a common goal of getting this to GA. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get some feedback from previously uninvolved editors on the neutrality of Osho. I believe that the article is overly pedantic, includes unnecessary quotation, and undue weight leaning towards viewpoints in favor of the subject. I would like to request that previously involved editors comment in the appropriate section below (which includes myself). ←Spidern→ 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Previously involved editors

Comment In this section I present a few examples of why I believe the page is suffering from POV issues.

←Spidern→ 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No criticism at all, even though the article claims some of the plans specify eating only 415 calories a day. (?!) That fact sounds unlikely though. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 02:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article seems to me to favour one POV, some contributors are very enthusiastic. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 02:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with this article. One more or less major thing is the absolute size of it. But what I would say is the main thing is that the references they use for this article are basically far-left websites such as; CSN.com, The Huffington Post, Media Matters, and MSNBC.com just to name a few (as I've mentioned on the talk page). This article needs some serious looking into, at least by an administrator or somebody thereby qualified. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 03:27, 22 January (2009) (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for; it's an article on the critics and criticism of Bill O'Reilly, so of course there are going to be citations from left-wing sources. Besides the citations you've mentioned, there is also a wide range of factual material ranging from video footage of the show itself to articles pulled directly from Foxnews.com. Also, since when is NBC 'far left'? ~illisium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.88.7 (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go Foxnews.com and work my way down. So you can get a feel for how f'ed up the article is (excuse my french!) the reference from foxnews is pulled to prove their bias point. And concerning MSNBC.com (not "NBC", MSNBC), have you seen Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow of late? They're fringe homie! Why doesn't anybody understand that! Lighthead ^þ 10:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardly far-left... I watch them through Itunes, and I'm from a... What americans would call "far-left country" (Sweden), and they're hardly far-left... They're not far-right, but that doesn't make them far-left... What I've seen they are very balanced, especially compared to Foxnews, sure some segments on Countdown are there to criticize and expose hypocrisy of Foxnews, I don't see any problem with that as long as they're not lying. — CHANDLER^#10 — 11:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is something new. I'm gonna have to rescind my comments about MSNBC. But that said, it is at the very least center-left; and at the very least in this article center-left is the absolute most neutral, with Fox News stated as "evidence". That basically says something about the neutrality of this article. Lighthead ^þ 23:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

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

A few concerns about this article:

1. WP:UNDUE
A section was added in on her "a supporter of anti-semetic and anti-zionist" views. I believe the section contravenes WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". There is only one reference making such a claim. I have read quite a few reviews of her work, and only come across such descriptions of her from politically biased sources. The sort of sources that labels anyone "anti-semitic", who dares to question Israeli actions. I don't think the anti-semitic supporter claims are proportional to the opinions of her.

2. WP:MORALIZE
While not moralizing, I believe the same guideline applies here - "That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately". A section labelling her as anti-semetic, without providing any proof of the charges or defense on her part? Again, I believe this is misleading to any readers, in it presents (fringe) opinion without providing any details or counterpoints.

3. WP:YESPOV
As the NPOV states, "Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.". There is no background on the supposed charges. There is no indication as to how representative that view is of "popular views". The claims against her are not presented with any of the stated guidelines in mind.

4. extremist source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources The source cited, The Jewish Press - is clearly extremist in its viewpoint. Its articles are harshly critical of anyone questioning Israeli actions, while glossing over or ignoring any contrary information. It's a religious paper, as is clearly shown in its name. I don't think the source is "reliable" or "neutral", and can only be categorized as "fringe or extremist". The real complaint they have about her, it seems, is that she presents views on her show which aren't supportive of Israel. Thus, they attack her. Thus, they are extremists - or in so far as reliable sources are concerned.

Normally I'd just go and nuke the whole "anti-semitic supporter" claims section, but I thought it might be better to see if an editor could weigh in first.
LimeyBugger (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a think about it, and just nuked the offending statement. Comments please? LimeyBugger (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Twisted the arm of an editor and got him to swing his big stick around. Resolved. And I got the attention from one of his evil, malevolent peers who "suggested" a name change. Meanies. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on "The Ting Tings" link on Ladyhawke's Wikipedia site. And it said " and they are terrible". so I guess someone has erased the Ting Tings info and replaced it with that line. Wonder if they have messed with other sites,too..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.100.218 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is written in a way that is more about conflicts with the radio station instead of being about the radio station. Terminology, weight of certain conflicts, original research, sources, and leangth of sections all need to be addressed.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor has concerns that this article is biased, and that it would "..fit well on a fanatical site but here a balanced article is prefered". I'd appreciate the input of a third-party who has no opinion of the subject himself. Would someone experienced be able to take a look? Cheers, – Toon^(talk) 19:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the claim here, I would appreciate people commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like some input on the issue of redirecting St. Pancake and Saint Pancake to Rachel Corrie and NPOV as it applies to redirects in general.

Background

"Saint Pancake" is a disparaging nickname for the deceased Rachel Corrie, invented, I believe, by the "Little Green Footballs" guy and used on various right-wing message boards. The term does not appear anywhere in our Rachel Corrie article. It appears that there have been several efforts to add it, but it is always removed (see Rachel Corrie talk page archives for lots of "pancake"-related discussion).

Timeline

• 16 June 2005: A2Kafir creates St. Pancake and Saint Pancake as redirects to Rachel Corrie. Redirects remain untouched for 3 1/2 years.
• 5 January 2009: Arimareiji blanks St. Pancake. Then Cerejota tags St. Pancake as G10 and puts warning template on A2Kafir's talk page. Admin Jac16888 deletes the redirect.
• 30 January 2009: I (Mike R) discover the existence of the second redirect, Saint Pancake. I tag it as G10. Admin Dlohcierekim deletes it. Admin Jclemens undeletes it and posts a note on my talk pages citing WP:REDIRECT#KEEP and stating that Saint Pancake is a valid redirect. He also leaves note on Dlohcierekim's talk page and removes my speedy tag, stating in the edit summary "redirects do not have to follow NPOV policy". I reply on Jclemens' talk page that I disagree and will seek wider input.

Discussion

Is Jclemens wrong here? Am I? What is the relationship of the NPOV policy to redirects such as St. Pancake? I have notified all users named above of this post. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the guideline on redirects is pretty unambiguous. The NPOV policy does not apply to redirects. If it can be rationally expected that people searching on the term of the redirect are looking for the article, then the redirect stays. I think the guideline has it right; quite often we can expect people on different sides of heated issues to have very different, quite possibly skewed, names for the same phenomena. It is to the Encyclopedia's benefit for people searching on those items to find the article they're looking for. Ray (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree NPOV should not be argued, but there is a reason that we have WP:CSD G10. Not a single reliable source, as we generally consider them, uses the term. There a blogs and forum postings. If we used your criteria we would have to allow every attack term that a rival uses to disparage any subject, because they are plausible search term - that is a position that adds no value to the encyclopedia and leads to redirect-cruft. One thing is widely reported attack nickname, addresed in the article Wacko Jacko→Michael Jackson, another is picking up all the lint and dirt produced by the herd of anally incontinent elephants that is the internet. This is obviously an non-notable attack, as well as St. Pancake, and should be deleted in light speed.--Cerejota (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Whether reliable sources use the term is irrelevant, only its utility and notoriety as a means of redirecting searches. WP:REDIRECT#KEEP is extremely explicit on that point: "avoid deleting redirects if ... 3) They aid searches on certain terms ... 5) Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." these constitute explicit exceptions to the usual deletion criteria. To re-iterate: there is no question of Wikipedia endorsing any redirect that comes up; they exist purely as a courtesy to potential searchers. Any unamibiguous redirect is fine, however non-neutral and annoying, as long as people find it useful. Wikipedia is not paper, and spurious redirects are not exactly a maintenance issue. Ray (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I just realized -- isn't the appropriate forum for this RfD? Ray (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably you are right, but it is here, so lets discuss here... And I disagree on "usefulness" in this case: there are exactly 125 non-omitted ghits on "saint pancake", out of 611 ghits general. No gnews hits - and major right wing blogs are searched by google news (LGF etc). This redirect is not useful, and is an attack. It meets none of the criteria for redirection, and meets CSD G10 with flying colors. Again, your intepretation of WP:REDIRECT is patently incorrect: it would mean we could redirect any term to any article as long as someone finds it useful - which is a ridiculous notion on its face and put to rest by the activity over at RfD and of CSD redirects: the community clearly thinks that there are cases where redirects should be deleted, even if useful. But again, the criteria of what Jimbo calls human decency should superced any technical consideration at such a low threshold of usability. I would be for keep if there where thousands of ghits, but there are less than one thousand, and less than 125 undup. Faced with the dilemma of being useful to an incredibly miniscule number of potential users, and doing the decent, normal thing, I err on the side of decency and compassion. --Cerejota (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The term for your attitude, Cerejota, is political correctness or censorship, not human decency, as only people already searching on the term are likely to come across it. Ray (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Ray, it would be censorship if this were not an extremely fringe thing. I have no problem with Sandnigger, Kike, Spic etc. But if sandnigger redirects to Arab, there we have a problem, it has nothing to do with Wp:CENSOR, it has to do with WP:BATTLE and WP:FRINGE, we are not hiding any encyclopedic information, but we shouldn't use a term that only an extreme fringe minority uses. You say only people already searching on the term are likely to come across it - what do you mean?--Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
        • The point is that redirects are not at all like article text, or categories. The information contained in a redirect only appears if the user tries to access the redirect initially; it is not presented to users who have not come across it already. None of the authority of Wikipedia is lent to a redirect. Thus our guideline, which explicitly states that, however fringe, however non-neutral, an unambiguous redirect which is useful to people should not be deleted. To perform such a deletion would serve no positive purpose in educating our users, and only a negative purpose in depriving people searching on such a term of the information they were looking for. Ray (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion is here because I wanted input about NPOV and redirects in general, as well as the specific example of Rachel Corrie / St. Pancake. I have modified my note at the top to be more clear. Mike R (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Due to edit warring with the speedy tag, I requested more admin opinions at WP:ANI. Mike R (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I have deleted the redirect again - it's a textbook G10 speedy ("it serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject"). If anyone really wants it to exist - and I can't think why anyone would - then WP:DRV would be the correct forum. Black Kite 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with this interpretation is that it is incorrect. If Wikipedia were the origin of the term, you would be correct. The term may have been originated on right-wing blogs to disparage Corrie, but the redirect does not do so. The presence of the redirect does not disparage Corrie--her detractors began doing that as soon as she died. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reasons St. Pancake and Saint Pancake should stay as redirects to Rachel Corrie
  • Saint Pancakce has existed since June 2005, and St. Pancake had existed since August 2005--over three years each. No one's objected to them, despite the vehemence of editors who have successfully and repeatedly kept them off her page. That is, the redirect wasn't offending anyone who's searching by Corrie by her given name. This alone demonstrates that a speedy G10 is an unnecessary shortcut of a process that should be discussed.
  • WP:REDIRECT's "Abusive redirects" page lists nothing about an abuse from an offensive name, only an abuse to an offensive name. In fact, the Neutrality of Redirects section explicitly states "Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008)"
  • WP:REDIRECT specifically allows "Other names" redirects from offensive names which were never the legal name of the subject: "Butcher of Kurdistan redirects to Ali Hassan al-Majid" Note specifically that Ali Hassan al-Majid is a living person while Corrie is not so this should put to bed any BLP concerns.
    • Per WP:REDIRECT#HARMFUL "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Thus, in light of the above three arugments, it is clear that the redirect should be kept.
  • Per WP:REDIRECT#PLA, there is nothing else known to Google that could be called Saint Pancake nor any other target to which Saint Pancake can be linked.
  • WP:N recommends merging pages which lack notability to a more NPOV title, and WP:MERGE says in turn "After a page is moved to a more correct title, the redirect should generally be kept and categorized accordingly, unless the redirect is demonstrably harmful" That is, WP:N implicitly expect that non-notable titles, such as those without a WP:RS, will wind up as redirects and be kept without needing to satisfy WP:N. Jclemens (talk)

Overall, this is the wrong venue for this discussion. I propose that both redirects be recreated and this entire discussion be closed here and moved to an RfD encompassing both redirects. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Utility Statistics: Per http://stats.grok.se/, Saint Pancake was accessed 62 times in 2008. St. Pancake was accessed 79 times in 2008. Clearly, there are an average of ~12 people a month who use it, indicating that it's a useful redirect. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of the thing being a redirect, not disparaging the subject trumps anything else, even if she is dead. Dlohcierekim 03:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting opinion. Care to provide a policy cite to back it up? (hint: WP:NOTCENSORED won't be it) Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am writing to ask that someone intervene on the Savannah College of Art and Design page. The history section has several times been purged of any reference to SCAD's litigation against another art college, the School of Visual Arts. Also, a period of unrest which was widely documented both in regional and national publications and which resulted in censure of the school by the American Association of University Professors is completely absent from the history section on this page. It appears that somebody with the user name Somno is censoring the page and has engaged in an ugly personality conflict with another editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.42.204 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please look at the section called "NLP and science" on the article Neuro-linguistic programming and comment on whether it meets NPOV. I want to edit this sentence to adhere to WP:NPOV. I have a problem with the word 'pretends'. I also think 'but is really pseudoscience' is POV pushing. Follow is my proposed alternative. could someone help me word this for NPOV?

• Current sentence: "NLP pretends to be a science, but is really pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method."
• Proposed alternative: Critics have considered NLP to exhibit characteristics of pseudoscience because it is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method and has little experimental evidence supporting its basic assumptions and techniques.

Action potential ^{t c} 05:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the intent of this sentence is to present a specific critical point of view which is valid in this context but it is better to err on the side of caution and make that clear. I would suggest: "Critics consider NLP to be a pseudoscience because it claims to be scientific and co-opts scientific terminology but does not adhere to the scientific method." Sreed888 (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Warren is a prominent religious figure in the US. Obama chose Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. This created controversy. Some editors claim that the invocation controversy is not notable. And they claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy. Current wording is simply this: "The decision angered pro-choice and LGBT advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[15]" without any explanation as to why. They are opposing addition of more information eventhough it has many reliable sources. Please comment in: Talk:Rick_Warren#Warren.2C_invocation.2C_views_on_homosexuality Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Two related articles, Real Canadian Superstore and Loblaw Companies are close to having an edit war, and I'm trying to stop it before it happens. Two months ago, a new logo appeared in advertising for the stores, and an anon IP is convinced this indicates all the stores in the chain in Ontario, Canada are changing their name. This appears unlikely. A more reasonable explanation is that there are two versions of the store, and the new logo is for either type, for advertising only This has been explained on his user talk page by several people, but he does not appear to accept it. This situation started at the beginning of December, and there have been 13 changes and reverts to the first article, and 9 to the second. These are all from anon IPs, and 2 of the most recent and persistent, User talk:99.224.112.64 and User talk:99.224.42.232, are clearly the same person based on their posting style and similar message, stating he is getting this information from his father who works at one of the stores. (That's why I've decided to take it to the NPOV board.) I've tried taking this to Page Protection (and also asked if a block on this IP might be in order), but was turned down because there is not enough recent activity to justify action at this time. The changes and reverts have happened several times in the past 2 days. I don't know if maybe they are waiting for it to turn into a full edit war before taking action? Surely we should be trying to stop that. More info: until today, this person refused to respond on the article's talk page. Now he has done so, but still insists on changing the article, and provides no citations, only rumours and speculation. His latest edit summary says one of the stores has actually changed its sign, but I think he might be pulling my leg. I can find no press release about a name change, and the store he is talking about is about 1000 miles away from his location in Toronto. I still think page protection is the best way to deal with this. Please advise? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin has taken action on this. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over the title of the article. Two questions: a) Is the title POV or not? b) Is this title too ambiguous? Please opine at the article talk page. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had my posting classified as vandalism simply because they stated facts and events that are not flattering to a USC player. My mention of the circumstances surrounding the player being charged with sexual assault, and the dismissal of the case, was deleted and I was given a warning on my IP. Also, all other postings I have made since then have been deleted, on any subject. This is harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.235.184 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole article reads like a partisan smear against a noted author and activist.

Among, but not limited to, are:
1. An entire section titled, "Accusations of antisemitism" - which refers almost exclusively to extremist or fringe sources.
2. Repeated use of CAMERA (and the like) articles which are full of weasel words to justify their POV pushing
3. WP:WEIGHT critical (sometimes slanderous) sources are quoted in full in several places, giving far more prominence than they deserve.
4. overly large section to one rather minor incident - cuppa WP:WEIGHT, anyone?

I really don't have the background and knowledge to correct this article, unfortunately. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Article name is really not important. There is small dispute if we can say about state or regime that it is "most murderous". We are having 2 books which are saying that, so statement "most murderous regime" is sourced, but what is situation with NPOV rules ?--Rjecina (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Satellite9876has removed a previous NPV dispute and has made 17 changes to the article.

Some of the changes posted are misleading and contain inaccurate informtaion.

Satellite9876 says Cohen sold his SoJewish business to Totally plc for £40,000 quoting an article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.html. But the article says his share of the sale of SoJewish to Totally was £310,000. It later says he sold half of his stake in Totally plc for cash at a value of £40,000.

The company he founded was sold to Totally plc for just over £4m. The company was sold of 12.5m shares worth 32.5p http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=373707&in_page_id=2&in_a_source=This%20is%20Money

Satellite9876later confuses revenue with profit, quoting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/2755457/Back-to-the-real-world.htmland to claim that his CyberBritain company made just £165 of sales per year. The article says the company made a profit of £165, very different from revenue.

(Jebuss (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

There is not in my reading of the article any NPV issue, except as introduced by one or two people that seem *consistently* to write only in a manner that favors the article's subject.

I do not "say Cohen sold his SoJewish business to Totally plc for £40,000" but rather that he sold his own shares for that amount and reference a report from one of the UK's leading newspaper's Daily Telegraph reporting on the subject of the article. The article is about him and in relation to his business affairs, and share valuations, that seems to me to be the relevant fact.

Nor did I say at all, as alleged above, "that his CyberBritain company made just £165 of sales per year". The actual quote from my last edit to the article quotes directly from the Daily Telegraph report and reads:

"...his company filed a Companies House return showing an annual income of just £165 up to March 31, 2001. (emphasis added)". To make it absolutely clear though, I suggest it be reconfigured into the article to read:

"...his company filed a Companies House return showing an annual profit of just £165 up to March 31, 2001." (emphasis added). --Satellite9876 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As for "many" of his reports being carried by CNN that has simply not been substantiated by others.

Apologies we find ourselves here, and not on my Talk page, where I would have thought this discussion more properly belongs.

--Satellite9876 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To what extent does WP:NPOV require the inclusion of a murder defendant's theory of the case? The article widely quotes prosecutors, activists, and the self-interested trial lawyer bringing a multi-million dollar suit against the city, but there is not a full accounting of the defendant's factual arguments based on witness statements from the police investigation, and a single editor demands they be omitted because they are "emotional"--even as accusations of "execution" are in the lead of the article. Discussion at Talk:BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant#NPOV tag. THF (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably to the extent that reliable sources have published his views. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald M. Whyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar. THF (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

There is a dispute at Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) regarding whether or not the inclusion of the Boy Scout's Oath is POV or not. All input there would be much appreciated. Thanks! --LexCorp (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, this isn't so much a NPOV issue as it is a sourcing issue. The article currently contains a statement that the Scout Oath includes phrases consistent with the "lawful good" alignment of the D&D game, as an attempt to introduce a real-world example into the article. The argument is over whether the phrases are self-evident, and if they are, whether self-evident facts nevertheless require sources.

The argument begins at Talk:Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)#Scout Oath. =Axlq 20:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To further clarify. There is opposition to the inclusion of the scout oath on grounds of WP:OR,WP:NPV and specifically WP:Substantiate within WP:NPV. Please before commenting do read the discusion to the full from the link provided above[17].--LexCorp (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the dispute begins at the above section entitled "orignal research/synthesis". Also there is another, older dispute about the POV further up. bridies (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

me bad. Editor bridies is right so take note and do read in full.--LexCorp (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck no. No assigning alignments to real world things without a reliable source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging resolved as discussion seem to have been, er well, resolved.--LexCorp (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The current article about this important woman in history may not be accurate. For example, in Daniel Radinsky's book "Love Poems from God" (2002), he states on pp. 1-2 that, due to Rabia's being separated from her parents, perhaps because of their deaths, she was sold into a brothel where she worked until the age of 50. To quote from Radinsky: "Many myths surround her life and poems, but one has been recently confirmed by one of the most respected contemporary spiritual teachers..." He goes on to explain the forgoing.

Some may be offended by this. Personally, I don't think it diminishes at all the wonder and holiness of this woman, surrounded by so much pain and suffering of this earthly world--none of which seemed to affect her mystical love of God. Whatever the case, there's reason for me to doubt the current author's objectivity and/or being completely informed.

Timcollardey (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really a question of reliable sources rather than a neutral point of view. The Radinsky reference is available online [18] and the claim is not at odds with the euphemistic "slavery" described in the article. I'd suggest proposing a specific change to the article at Talk:Rabia al-Adawiyya, with a link to the online reference, and see if there's consensus for inclusion. Euryalus (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would caution that Daniel Ladinsky may not be a reliable historical source. As far as I recall, he takes vast liberties in his translations (basically, it has been said, he sells his own poems as those of historical figures) and has been amply criticised for that; and the reference to an unnamed "respected contemporary spiritual teacher" endorsing this version of history sets off loud alarm bells. The spiritual teacher in question may be a very fine fellow or lady, but such people are not usually in the business of doing recognised historical research. Someone like Ladinsky should, if at all, be mentioned in the Reception section. Jayen466 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – consensus to readd tags

• Competition law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Competition_law#Reason_for_tags, I have identified forty separate problems with the article justifying an NPOV tag; a user reverted on the grounds that he doesn't like my employer, and refuses to engage with the issues I have raised on the talk page, instead launching a personal attack against me. Other than attempting to add the tags once, I have confined my edits to the talk page. Can I get a third opinion? THF (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A "pro-conspiracy theory" POV warring SPA is upsetting the carefully crafted neutrality of this article... remarkably conversant in quoting Wiki guidelines for someone who's account is only four days old. We are attempting to stay civil to him... he is not responding in kind. Some assistance would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I am a long time Wikipedia user and only recently created an account. It's possible this user is, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:Blueboar has demonstrated what amounts to either passive resistance or genuine carelessness. I been compared to "Masonic detractors" and Bill Clinton during the 1998 impeachment scandal. In addition, Blueboar, along with User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior, has engaged in edit wars, revert wars, and tag-teaming. Blueboar has cited the article's "carefully crafted neutrality" even though the article has been edited more than a handful of times, mainly by him, since my change was reverted. In addition, he has used minor edits to cover up some of his major edits. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The edits I made were done in an attempt to resolve concerns that Uku himself raised on the talk page. None were "covered up" by minor edits (in fact, I deliberately made some edits seperately from others, so that others could see that I made them)... look at the edit history... compare my actions to Uku's initial mass edit that started this particular content dispute. No, Uku obviously feels that only he should be allowed to edit the article; that it should only reflect his particular POV, and all others viewpoints are invalid. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit history will reflect changes that are still under dispute. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, The biography of living persons (myself) has been labeled "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The biography is also a "stub."

I am the victim of a drive-by tagging, and would like to resolve the neutrality question. Also I'd like to cooperate with you to upgrade the quality of the bio so that it is more than a stub.

Very truly yours, Larry Bodine, Esq. Apollo Business Development 4601 E. Camino Pimeria Alta Tucson, AZ 85718 630.942.0977 Lbodine@LawMarketing.com http://www.LarryBodine.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.35.59 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• In cases where tags are unexplained, you can probably just freely remove them. I've done so in this case. The rest of the edit that added the tag also concerns me greatly. WilyD 17:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did a little more clean up on the article. It could be expanded but is not now in bad shape. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the article on William Dembski was not written by a person with a neutral point of view. The biographical information about him largely questions his abilities and presents information in a manner that would arouse disdain by a materialist. An extended list of controversies also appears to come from this angle. This is especially evident in the "talk" tab under "Oklahoma" where the author hopes to track down articles criticizing Dembski so that it could be used as source material. This seems to violate the requirements for biographies of living persons to mock or disparage and also criticism and praise being balanced and not too one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommie113 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Dembski presents himself as an expert in fields where he has no expertise, and is a prime proponent of ID, which is a complete fabrication and not science as he claims, I imagine there is a good bit necessary to ensure the readers don't have only Dembski's self-promotional nonsense to gauge him by. Did you have something in specific, other than your dissatisfaction with how one section of the talk page was handled? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on a fringe theory that also contains debunking of this fringe theory. So far, so good. But the article seems to go out of its ways to debunk the theory such that it seems to violate WP:NPOV. In particular, it does two things that give me the impression that it is attempting to promote a POV. First, it gives a point by point rebuttals. When I look at similar articles on other fringe theories such as Holocaust Denial or Creationism they don't seem to do this. Second, the majority of the article is about debunking the fringe theory rather than the fringe theory itself. In some sections, we have 11-to-1 converage where the fringe theory gets one sentence and the rebuttal gets 11 sentences. Is that appropriate? While I'm all for educating the public, at what point does the debunking violate WP:NPOV? Do we have any policy or guideline that can shed some light on this? I've read WP:NPOV and fringe theory and I'm not sure it really answers my questions. The article to which I refer is the Apollo_hoax. It starts off OK and then seems to promote a point of view. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes more than one sentence to explain things. It only takes one sentence to say "we can't see the Lunar Module on the Moon with a telescope". It takes several sentences to explain why we can't. Otherwise the article would look like:

• There are no stars in the photos.
  • There should not be stars in the photos.
• The flag is waving on the Moon.
  • No it isn't waving.
• We can't see the Lunar Module with a telescope
  • Earth-based telescopes are not capable of seeing it.

etc. Not satisfactory, in my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that analysis and add a comment. In general, the weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderence of scholarly backing of that perspective. For a case like this even that won't work because there wouldn't be room in the article to even describe the topic itself! This then becomes an editorial issue, in which the topic should be described as is done so by sources, while never allowing the writing to give the appearance that the relative acceptances of various viewpoints regarding the topic is anything other than what sources describe it as. The heuristic I use is to describe, not prescribe. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to keep the claim-rebuttal format, I would suggest something like this:

• There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a press conference after the event to have not remembered seeing any of the stars despite the zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Conspiracy theorists argue that "Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam".

• • The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light. Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon. The astronauts eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars.

I think there needs to be more balance. As far as I know, we're supposed to follow NPOV even in fringe articles.

As I mentioned earlier, if you look at the holocaust denial page, they don't have a point-by-point rebuttal of holocaust denial and they do have a separate page for Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial. I think that format works quite well.

Can we split this article into two and put the detailed point-by-point rebuttals in a separate criticism article? Then it doesn't come across as so POV because it's a criticism article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After "There are no stars in any of the photos." none of the rest of that paragraph is claimed by the hoax proponents, so I think it would be wrong to include that as a hoax claim. As far as the issue of splitting the article, that has been brought up several times and the consensus has always been clearly against the fork. Bubba73 (talk), 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to amend that. The sentence about the Apollo 11 astronauts saying that they did not see that many stars is currently listed in the "hoax claim", but it more properly belongs in the answer. Secondly, I don't know of a reference for the sentence about hoax proponents saying that astronomers would be able to calculate the position of stars, etc.

I'm not well-versed in the moon hoax literature, but I got that from one of the hoax proponent's website. I'm at a different computer but I can look up my browser history tomorrow. I think the URL had "UFO" and "UK" in it. Sorry I didn't include a reference in my example, it didn't seem too important to the point I was trying to illustrate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be counting sentences and saying that an equal number of sentences makes it balanced. Baccyak4H mentioned "scholarly work", and there is none of that in support of the hoax claims. By that measure, the article would not exist. But despite that, I think the article should exist. Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moon hoax claim proponents have long argued the article was "not neutral" because they want the claims presented without any explanations - thus furthering their agenda that "there is no explanation". That approach, in fact, would be wholly POV-pushing. This article, as it stands now, is as neutral as anything you're likely to see on this topic. It presents the claims, it presents reasonable explanations, and leaves it up to the readers to determine if either the claims or the explanations (or both) have validity or not. You can't get any more neutral than that. Counting words is a misleading argument, because seemingly simple questions often require detailed explanations. Perhaps the questions themselves could be made more detailed, if that would quell the complaints. But taking away the debunking would render the article a total POV-push. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have an exact 50-50% coverage of each viewpoint, but when you devote 92% (11 out of 12 sentences for one of the claims) to one view point, it certainly seems as if POV. This goes to the heart of my question: How much debunking in a fringe theory article is allowed until it violates NPOV? If 92% is acceptable, how about 95%? How about 99%? 100%?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating removal of the debunking. That's useful information that should be in Wikipedia. What I am suggesting is either one of two things. One, the claims of the proponents need more detailed so that it appears more balanced. Or two, move the point-by-point criticism to a separate article, put summary of the criticism in the main article and put a link to the criticism article for people who want more detailed explanations. Again, it seems to work well for Holocaust_denial and Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, they also put a link to the Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial at the top of Holocaust_denial so people who just want to see the debunking can go directly there, so please don't think I'm suggesting burying the debunking. There's a pominent link at the top of the page as well as the summary and link. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am against moving the replies to a different article. For one thing, it would be difficult for the reader to switch back and forth. Secondly, I think it would be a POV fork. I think it might be a good idea to list the claims on a point by point basis, organized as they are now, and put all of the replies in a lower section, in the same structure. Then the replies could be to claim 6B, etc. I think that might improve the layout and structure of the article. I'll try to comment on the example you gave a little later. Bubba73 (talk), 04:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If we move the point-by-point rebuttal to a separate article, there is no longer a need to list all the conspiracy claims point-by-point in the main article. I would think we would put a summary of the claims along with a summary of the debunking. So there would be no need to go back and forth between the two articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a separate main section (not a separate article, though) for the "counterclaims", rather than "immediate" rebuttals, could be a reasonable compromise, and might actually improve the appearance of the page - as well as reinforcing the "let the reader decide" argument. I must point out that I don't like the hypothetical comparison with Holocaust denial, which is a far more politically charged issue. Claiming we didn't go to the moon is a relatively trivial matter and is a world away (maybe a universe away) from claiming Hitler did not systematically kill 6 million Jews. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several of the claims listed in that article and then there are several paragraphs counter to it. Back to what I was saying:Like I said before, the explanations take several sentences. Look at how long the explanation for the telescope is. That is better than just a flat statement that telescopes can't currently do it, but perhaps some of the details could be put in a footnote.

The issue with the Lunar rover goes back about 1 to 2 years, and I don't remember who the editor was. But that editor made a big issue out of the rover. I don't think that he realized that the rover was not essential to going to the Moon, it was only used to drive around once Apollo 15, 16, and 17 got there. It was the Lunar Module that landed, not the rover. But he made a big deal out of the fact that there are no actual rovers on Earth. Well, duh, they aren't on Earth because they are on the Moon. He also made a big deal about there not being blueprints for them. I don't know if the blueprints for the Spirit of St. Louis still exist, but that doesn't mean that Lindbergh didn't cross the ocean. In the interest of full disclosure, we tried to tell what does exist of the rovers - the training versions, models, mock-ups, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An article on hoax claims surrounding the moon landing which is 10% hoax claim and 90% debunking probably accords nicely (or is ~9.9% away from according nicely) with the distribution of reliable sources on the moon landing itself and certainly doesn't "push the POV" that we landed on the moon. We landed on the moon. That's not a point of view unless you are the moon, then it is "some guys landed on me." This article also doesn't need to be separated from its criticism to protect the reader. I don't see a problem. Protonk (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If this article was a 'normal' (for lack of a better term) article, I would agree with you. In fact, I wouldn't even mention this conspiracy theory in any of the 'normal' Apollo articles. But this is an article devoted to a fringe theory where unreliable sources are allowed. To the best of my knowledge, we're supposed to be neutral in all articles, even in articles about nonsense.

If someone can point us to a specific policy that says that NPOV doesn't apply to articles on fringe theories, then my complaint is irrelevent and I will immediately drop the subject. So far, no one's been able to cite such a policy, so I assume that NPOV applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the article violates NPOV rules is false. This is as neutral an article on the subject as you're likely to find on the internet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a "normal" article. I'm not sure where you got the misapprehension that we extend some added credulity to hoaxes in their own articles, but we don't. NPOV applies to fringe theories, but it doesn't mean that all views are displayed equally as though they are equally well regarded. They aren't. We attempt (As best we can) to cover views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. The functional alternative is that these "Conspiracy theories about..." articles become walled gardens where the theory is regarded as though it is fact and presented as though it has some credence whatsoever in the scientific world. The moon landing hoax theories get an article because they are quite famous and quite famously rebutted. Protonk (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an article on a fringe theory where unreliable sources are allowed.

You stated that "We attempt (As best we can) to cover views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources."

Can you please cite the specific Wikipedia policy that states such a thing in an article on a fringe theory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you may be incorrect. "Unreliable sources" are only allowed in this articles insofar as they speak about themselves--if we want to describe the hoax claims themselves we may use the books/pamphlets/etc to do so. Otherwise the same expectations about reliable sources apply. As for my statement about proportion, I see no reason to think why it should not be true for fringe science/hoaxes when it is true for everything else. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Protonk (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bubba73 - To answer your question from yesterday, I got that quote from the following website: [19]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs - You said that "the claim that the article violates NPOV rules is false". So you're saying that 92% coverage devoted to a specific viewpoint is acceptable? How well do you think this would go over if this was an article on abortion, the death penality, the Iraq War or Barack Obama? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've read WP:Undue I suppose? Protonk, above, is pretty close to your figures. That's the way NPOV works. dougweller (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight, yes, but also the point that counting words is a misleading measure of the alleged "lack of neutrality". As we've said, simple questions can require lengthy answers. A question like "why is the sky blue?" could lead to a paragraph for an answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've demonstrated above, it's possible to add more detail to the claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it and it doesn't at all agree with Protonk's figures. Unfortunately, it doesn't really answer my questions but it does state that in articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the minority views can be explained "at length". Nowhere have I seen anything that states that NPOV doesn't apply to articles on fringe theories.

If someone can point us to a specific Wikipedia policy that states that NPOV doesn't apply to articles on fringe theories, then the same standard that applies to all articles applies here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV applies to all articles. But there is also the undue weight issue. Neutral point of view DOES NOT mean "equal time" to fringe theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you state that NPOV applies to all articles. Most of the undue weight policy is about undue weight in a (again, for lack of a better word) 'normal' article. But this is an article devoted to a fringe theory. Unfortunately, the guideline isn't very specific. But since it isn't, then the same standard of NPOV that applies to all articles applies to this one. As I alluded to earlier, I doubt if 92% devotion to a particular view point would be allowed in an article about abortion, the death penalty or Barack Obama. If it's not allowed there, then it shouldn't be allowed here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

This is a normal article. There will be no article written on wikipedia that gives undue credence to the ravings of lunatics and morons. Please do not continue to equate moon landing conspiracy theories with policy disputes where there are obviously two sides to a debate. Note also that there is a Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. The nature of the coverage of that conspiracy (and arguably the nature of the claims themselves) result in a literally distinct distribution of claims and counterclaims. Most of the article is a history of the claims and claimants. But in no way does the article present those claims as though they are on equal footing with the mainstream view. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Protonk has raised (I think) an interesting point (assuming I understand it correctly) so I'll repeat it here: "Unreliable sources" are only allowed in this articles insofar as they speak about themselves--if we want to describe the hoax claims themselves we may use the books/pamphlets/etc to do so. Otherwise the same expectations about reliable sources apply. As for my statement about proportion, I see no reason to think why it should not be true for fringe science/hoaxes when it is true for everything else.

Obviously, this is an article about a fringe theory so unreliable sources are allowed - I think that we agree on that point. However, Protonk seems to make a distinction between neutrality (in general) and neutrality based on what reliable sources are saying. That is to say, if all reliable sources are biased to a particular view point, then it's perfectly acceptable for such an article to present repeat that bias.

So, for example, if the reliable sources say that Apollo hoax believers are wrong, it's OK for us to do the same. That is to say, we don't have to give the fringe theory equal footing with reality even in an article about fringe theories.

EDIT: Or to put it another way, there's a difference between being biased (in a general, non-Wikipedia sense) and being biased according to reliable sources?

Protonk, is my understanding of what you said correct? If so, can everyone please confirm (or reject) that Protonk's point is correct?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"if all reliable sources are biased to a particular view point, then it's perfectly acceptable for such an article to present repeat that bias" - while that hypothetical is somewhat implausible ("all reliable sources"), and the choice of the word "bias" here carries connotations that may be better avoided by saying represent or reflect rather than biased to, not only is the statement true, but actually understated: not only is it perfectly acceptable to do so, it is imperative to do so. NPOV is a fundamental policy of the project. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to make clear, the use of unreliable sources as only a source for its own opinion is not limited to only articles on fringe topics. That is their limitation for all articles. (It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one; articles about living people should really never use such sources.) There is nothing special about fringe topics in this regard. The necessity to use such sources to even write such content about such a topic is an artifact of the topic being fringe in the first place; it has nothing to do with Wikipedia per se. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And I say again, "92% devotion to a particular view point" is a false representation of this article. Counting words is misleading. You have a question, you have an explanation. The explanation takes more words than the way the questions are posed. You want longer questions, word them differently. But don't make the false claim about "92% devotion to a particular view point". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Protonk's point is correct (and so far we've only had one editor weigh in on this issue), then that 92% number is irrelevent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters a bit, here's another possible approach, for those who fear that there are too many words supporting the debunking. Part of the problem is the confrontational approach of the questions. The hoaxsters say such-and-such, and the debunkers say, not such-and-such. It could be done a different way, with this abbreviated example derived from Bubba73's comments. Each simple answer shown here would have some elaboration:

• Are there stars in the photos?
  • Hoax supporters say there are no stars in the photos.
  • Apollo supporters say there should not be stars in the photos.
• Is the flag waving on the Moon?
  • Hoax supporters say the flag is waving.
  • Apollo supporters say it is not waving.
• Can a Lunar Module be seen with a telescope?
  • Hoax supporters say they cannot.
  • Apollo suppoerters say earth-based telescopes are not capable of seeing it.

The next question is why the Apollo line always seems to get the last word. That's because the question was actually raised by the hoax supporters. They could be switched around, but the result is the same, as the Apollo explanation has already said why the hoax explanation is factually inaccurate. Hard to tell which approach is more "biased".

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That's basically correct. "Neutrality" means a fair and non-biased representation of what is out there. It doesn't mean that we introduce a bias to counter an imbalance in the facts or the views on a matter. There is no equal time provision on wikipedia. We do not define neutrality on the basis of "sides" to an issue. Arguably in the Apollo hoax article we devote too much time to "debunking", but that is something that could be slightly adjusted through normal editing rather than adjusted wholesale. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you're right about it being confrontational. That's a good word to use. I think that's part of where I got my impression. Maybe it can be reworded.

But in any case, it appears as if my understanding of NPOV on fringe articles was incorrect. I thought was had to present both sides in a neutral manner, but what I'm hearing is that we only present both sides insofar as what reliable sources say. If this is correct, my complaint is baseless.

I will say this, however. We have hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia. It would make me feel better if some more editors weighed in on this matter, if only to say "Protonk is correct". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just simply reread the relevant policy pages? I am not saying that to be flippant, but rather to point out that the answer to your question will be crytal clear if you do. You also won't need to wait for others to answer it for you, or feel any doubt about the credibility of any particular poster here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your help. I am reading and rereading those articles. It just kind of blows my mind because I think we have a lot of articles on fringe topics that try to be neutral (in general) rather than neutral per reliable sources, particularly with the 9/11 conspiracy articles. I've watched the debates on these article's discussion pages and I don't recall anyone making this distinction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it depends on the article. I have seen it pointed out in some places, and seen others in badly in need of being pointed out to some editors. Glad to be able to help. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was so dense and it took me so long to 'get it'. Thanks to everyone for their help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

As a result of the previous discussion on the Apollo Lunar Landing Hoax, above, I would like to clean-up our 9/11 conspiracy theories article. As it stands, it attempts to portray a fringe theory on equal footing with the mainstream view. As I make these changes, I anticipate (perhaps significant) resistance from proponents of the fringe theory. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this.

So far, this is what I am planning to do.

1. Clarify Wikipedia's policies on the article's discussion page. I want to give everyone time to understand the policies before making any changes. I've already begun doing this [20].

2. In order to make sure undue weight isn't given to the fringe theory, I want to assemble a list of reliable sources that support this theory. If there are none, it makes it a lot easier to determine how much weight the fringe theory gets. If there are any, then we have a list of reliable sources that can be used as a reference for what fringe theory proponents claim.

So, in a couple weeks or so, I plan on posting something like this in the article's discussion page.

"Per the previous discussion titled "Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics"[21], I would like to begin changing this article so that it follows Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. As I mentioned, I don't think that there are many reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. If there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So I think a good place to start is to find out, are there any reliable sources that support 9/11 conspiracy theories?" Then wait to see if anyone can come up with any.

3. Research the topic/read the sources.

4. Reread and analyze the article and begin making suggestions on the article's discussion page.

5. For each suggestion, if I can acheive consensus on the article discussion page, I will make the change. If I cannot acheive consensus, I'm not sure what to do.

As I mentioned, I anticipate (perhaps) significant resistance from 9/11 conspiracy proponents. I would appreciate any advice or help on how to go about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the core problem is a misunderstanding of the presence of these articles on wikipedia. Some fringe theories are listed in wikipedia, not necessarily because there is any truth value to them, but simply because they are notable. That is, they have been talked about by reliable sources. As an example, I might cook up a theory that 9/11 was caused by a Martian invasion. That's certainly a fringe theory, but it's not going to find it's way into any articles unless reliable sources report on it. However, reliable sources have (presumably) reported on the claims that 9/11 was not what it appeared to be. Other reliable sources may tell us why the conspiracy theory is bunk. It is unlikely any reliable source will claim that 9/11 was an "inside job", they will merely report that others are saying it. Do you begin to see the distinction? NPOV does not compel wikipedia to somehow give "equal time" to the arguments of the fringe theories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At least for me, my misunderstanding stemmed from the idea that in articles about fringe theories, the fringe theory was supposed to be treated neutrally (using the layman's definition of neutral). Anyway, if you go to the 9/11 conspiracy discussion page, I put up (what I like to think) is a really good explanation of the distinction. I borrowed a few parts quite liberally from the previous discussion. When you get any NPOV complaints on the Apollo hoax article, feel free to use it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're getting the point, and I added a supportive (and probably repetitive) comment. Regarding the Apollo thing, there are factors to keep in mind. One is that Kaysing was a guy who had been fired by NASA, so this whole cockamamie theory could well have been just a way to get some personal satisfaction or revenge. It also didn't come out until after the Apollo program was cancelled, so there were no more corroborating moon flights. How extraordinarily convenient for the hoax theorists, eh? Also, it was the Watergate era, when anything the government did was considered suspect. There was bitterness over the Vietnam War, for example. The JFK assassination was still in recent memory, and there were many who thought the government (and the Kennedys themselves) were hiding something. That was a widespread suspicion almost from the get-go. Yet 45 years later there is no significant evidence for anything beyond the lone-gunman theory. The public fear, on the day of the assassination, was that the Russians did it. That fear tended to keep a shroud of secrecy around it, and that combined with the Kennedys being very protective (for good reason, as we now know), it helped fuel conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories do not stand up to critical examination. But that doesn't stop them from coming - because someone always has a book to publish, some money to be made, by preying on the portion of the public that wants to believe that they are "in on" something that's supposedly a "secret". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the supportive comment, even if repetitive. If we have just one editor saying something then people might think that that's just one person. But if 5 editors say the same thing, I think it carries more weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Chip Pitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This resume-like article is full of wikipuffery, and needs some scrubbing. I'd do it, but the article has a protective editor, and I'm trying to avoid wikidrama where someone might accuse me of pushing an agenda, so if an editor with avowedly neutral eyes could handle it, that would be good. THF (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, there was practically no sourcing at all. I'll try to find something on the man, but meanwhile, I've removed the reams of unsourced c.v. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of primary sourcing, now. Still a huge WP:PUFF bio (and likely autobio). THF (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"But if 5 editors say the same thing, I think it carries more weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)" -- That one's from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

So, let's see. If four people agree with you, you must be right?

Eat sugar! 191,010,000,000,000,000,000 houseflies per year per mating couple can NOT be wrong!

http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/flies/house_fly.HTM

O.K. dude. You are not talking about any kind of "fringe" movement, here.

As US News points out, we're talking about one third of the US population:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm?s_cid=related-links:TOP

You are talking about, roughly, one hundred million Americans, out of 303,824,640 (July 2008 CIA estimate.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

Time magazine says:

"Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

The Washington Post points out that this highly significant movement is even more popular in New York City, where the WTC was located.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html

You might, then, ask why something YOU don't believe in should have been so wildly popular then, and, of course, increasingly popular now. It has been widely documented, in reliable sources as far away as Australia, that top officials of the Bush administration told 935 lies following 9/11, not counting any related to the 9/11 Truth movement, which these reliable sources were ignoring.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23098129-401,00.html

So, as Time continues:

"The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?"

Of course, the movement has also been covered by the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/23/september112001.usnews

And, of course, Rolling Stone provides some evidence that we're talking about a third of the U.S. population (even though they disagree with it):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

.

There you go, kid. Where are your "Reliable Sources?" 00:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wowest (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How many people also believe in Bigfoot...the Loch Ness Monster...UFO's? Bottom line is that some will always think something is true, even when a preponderance of evidence indicates that it isn't.--MONGO 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Rolling Stone, the eminent authority on world affairs. Praise the Lord and pass the Kool-Aid! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not appropriately formatted for inclusion on the NPOV Noticeboard. If you would like assistance in resolving an NPOV dispute, you should provide a link to the talk page of the article in question and ask for other users to follow the link and provide comments on NPOV. Deleteyourself16 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor insists that the main article on Scientology should mention the availability of Scientology documents on Wikileaks: [22] Apart from the Register, there are very few sources that have commented on this at all [23]. Is it due weight in an encyclopedic overview of Scientology, or is it merely designed to promote the Wikileaks page? Related talk page discussion: Talk:Scientology#Removing_verifiable_content Jayen466 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have mentioned a few sources which corroborate the information in the above diff. It does not appear that the contents of the diff are meant to promote Wikileaks, but they rather comment on the significance of the Church of Scientology filing a copyright claim against it. ←Spidern→ 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

SamJ is a biased editor. He seems to be bullying certain other editors regarding the Netbook article. Sam runs the "save the Netbooks" blog/site reference in this article Save the Netbooks and certainly should not have any nfluence over other opinions regarding the term. His bias manifests itself in a general dislike of the Psion trademark and a particular attitude that seems to make him believe that he should be able to force the issue of non-validity of their trademark claim. I believe the Psion claim is valid and the article should revert any changes that Sam has made to remove this wording. The article should mention Psion more prominently, and on winning the case, the article should be moved to whatever the new term coined to replace the Netbook is.

I would also like to call in to question the non biased nature of the Save_the_Netbooks article. It seems to me to be highly critical of a public company that has legally enforced its trademark, and has yet to be proven to no longer hold that trademark. His attempt to railroad the case is quite astounding. I believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove the article; it could be held to be liable for a cease and desist as it stands and also could cause legal issues for Wikipedia at a future juncture, should Psion win their court case{.

I call for this editor to be prevented from meddling with the Netbook related articles and for his own biased article on his blog to be removed.

Matt, seriously - give it up already. I believe the Psion claim is valid and ... the article should be moved to whatever the new term coined to replace the Netbook is.... and you claim that *I'm* biased? If that's not enough there's this: I personally belive that Psion should win., and a bunch of other rants like this thread in which you called me a moron, a cyber bully and called bullshit on [me].

Truth be told I actually quite like Psion, just not their trademark trolling (as I have said a number of times already). Anyway, here's some expert legal opinion I think you ought to read: FACE IT PSION: NETBOOK IS GONE

Fortunately, Wikipedia has due process, where you actually have to support your accusations with evidence (which I note is entirely lacking from your rant). Half of Wikipedia is unbiased coverage of biased subjects and I see you haven't bothered to identify a single point where the Save the Netbooks article (which clearly meets WP:WEB by the way - see here, here and here) fails to reflect reality. As for the Netbook article, it's not even me removing the Psion references. Better yet, I've actually been arguing for its inclusion. Will there be anything else? -- samj _in^out 14:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointing fingers and casting stones (and pasting fact tags all over the other person's comment) isn't really helpful to either of you. Please try to stay calm when editing, be civil, and assume good faith. Part of the neutral point of view policy is that we acknowledge that there may be numerous point of views towards a subject, and address all of the notable ones in turn, without giving any undue weight to a specific one. If the article has a bias in it, then please, feel free to remove it -- Wikipedia is a wiki after all! But you know what? It's probably _much_ more helpful to edit that section to acknowledge that viewpoint, so long as it is notable, and then provide the balance that is the counterpoint. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Crossposting to my posting at Reliable Sources noticeboard, to get more responses.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In our article on the September_11_attacks, there is a lot of debate as to how much weight should be given to conspiracy theories and whether any possible undue weight is in violation of WP:NPOV. I would like some assistance in resolving this WP:NPOV dispute. Can some other editors follow the link and provide comments on WP:NPOV? The relevent discussion is here [24]. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged these two articles (and many more) with the peacock tag as they contain the following lead sentences:

• Dustin Lee Hoffman (born August 8, 1937)[1] is a two-time Academy Award-, six-time Golden Globe-, three-time BAFTA- and Emmy Award-winning American actor.
• Eugene Allen "Gene" Hackman (born 30 January 1930) is a two-time Academy Award-winning American actor.

Both sentences blatantly violate WP:PEACOCK and also infringe upon violating WP:NPOV. Calling someone "Academy Award-winning" provides zero context. I have stated that the lead sentence/paragraph needs to be reworked to expand upon the awards, and eliminate the "award-winning" gibberish. Binksternet has begun edit-warring on these articles, removing the maintenance template without reason, claiming "award-winning" is acceptable. I am requesting third-party assistance.

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're completely in the wrong on this. PEACOCK is for unsourced adjectival phrasing that doesn't add information: i.e., "renowned," "notable," "famous," etc. The fact that someone is Academy-Award-winning is a notable fact, and an entirely appropriate adjective to include in the WP:LEAD. Please self-revert your edits immediately. THF (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. See the examples given in PEACOCK. While "award-winning" is a peacock term (because that truly does not have context), "Academy Award Winning" is very specific and factual, and not the sort of unqualified opinion that PEACOCK looks to eliminate. Arakunem^Talk 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not remotely specific. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. An Academy Award is a specifically identifiable, verifiable, and notable achievement. Saying someone is an Academy Award winning actor is much more specific and significant than just saying "award-winning actor". The latter is likely to get a "cite needed" or "vague" tag thrown on it, as well as the Peacock tag for the article or section. Again, see the examples given in PEACOCK. That tag is for "saying something is important without saying why it is important". Saying that Hoffman is "one of the most important/influential/etc actors of our day" is PEACOCKy, saying he is Academy Award-Winning is a verifiable fact. Arakunem^Talk 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought a lead sentence was to include a brief and not-too-specific introduction to the subject, with details (such as specific awards) to be found below in the article with all kinds of other relevant details. Thus my little contribution to the "warring" today. for which it seems I should now apologize (?). 217.209.96.84 (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. See WP:LEAD for discussion of standardization of the lead paragraph. Because the lead is to indicate what makes the subject of the article worthy of note, it is appropriate to mention specific awards when they are the highlights of a person's life. THF (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree that these qualifiers are appropriate for the lead, as they are sourceable and assert notability, per Arakunem and THF. As to whether all of the awards for either, Hoffman in particular, are best all written out as per the OP, that is a matter of editorial judgement, but some specific reference to some of these particular awards would seem desired. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the placement of the "two-time Academy Award-winning actor" sort of thing in lead sentences; it is the essence of logic that success in one's vocation is the basis of most performers' encyclopedic notability, and such nominations and awards as they may have received are one notable and specific measure of that success. Yet it does seem like enumerating four or more such awards in a lead sentence is peacockery in spirit and in common sense if not by the standards or examples currently discussed on the WP:PEACOCK page. For context, I'm not one of those people who goes about asserting excessiveness or non-notability when it comes to awards, nominations, charts, lists, etc. Arbitrary or defensive limitations can prevent a reader's assessment of relative success between artists or between a given artist's various efforts. But such an assessment need not be made from a reading of lead sentences and at some point these enumerations seem clumsy and gratuitous when so many are crammed into those leads. They are more appropriate for further into the article and/or a chart, list, etc. By placing four of these awards in the lead, the effect to me becomes more one of jockeying to advertise which awards have a capacity to bestow prestige than of acknowledging the work that won them. I'd say three citations of awards a person has been nominated for or won is plenty for an opening sentence. (Having said that, most artists and/or their critics would tell you the work they felt was their greatest achievement was not one for which they won the biggest awards or fanfare, and their most popular may be yet a different one, and either valuation, if citable, seems equally reasonable to mention—more obviously so for those who have not won major awards.) While the unqualified "award-winning" has been declaimed here as peacockery, if it is backed up by the mention of these awards elsewhere in the body of the article, it is both true and citable. Far from being peacockery it would be its opposite, demure restraint, by comparison. (Etymologically the argument is not that a peacock doesn't have all those feathers, the point is or ought to be that one needn't array its full plumage up front.) As far as being vague, there is only so much specific detail a well-written lead sentence can be expected to encompass. If this weren't so, much of the article would be redundant elaboration. It seems to me that excluding any allusion to awards in the lead whatsoever is as extreme and as erroneous an interpretation of what should be allowed under WP:PEACOCK as including too many. Abrazame (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the sentiments of several other editors I know and the reason why I made the change (above) for which I subsequently agologized (in error?), which apology was accepted by THF. Thank you so much Abrazame for taking the time to put all this into words so comprehensively and comprehendably! 217.209.96.84 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cited references from reliable sources describing the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi past and swastika flag are being systematically purged. This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Histopher Critchens (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Histopher Critchens is using reliable sources to support a point that is uncontroversial in the historical community outside of Syria, i.e., that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party was a facist movement modeled, to a significant degree, on German National Socialism. In the 1930's, facism was popular. Many countries, including England (British Union of Fascists, had such parties. The repeated reversions of Histopher Critchens edits are sadly typical of the reaction of too many Wikipedia editors to material that, in their eyes, reflects badly oon a nation they love or support. Aggressive editing by enthusiastic nationalists unable to bear the reality that all nations have a chequered past is one of the great flaws of Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at the article Energy Accounting? I think it describes the concept not in a NPOV, but instead have undue weight to the views of TechInc. That's not how a WP article should be written. Also we have had a quite heavy dispute of whether to put up a POV-tag or not, and some more things - see here for a summary I've written of the whole conflict at WP:EA (no editor assistance was provided there though). Mårten Berglund (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article violates the term Neutral. There are comments made in the article against the Naturopathic doctor community. Not only are these false, providing a reference by someone who is also bias does not mean one can use an Encyclopedia to state ones opinion or degrade ones profession.

To call Natural care dangerous is to persuade the public to view a Naturopathic doctor with caution suggesting they are not capable in their chosen field. I have edited this article twice and explained it to the editor. Unfortunately this seems to keep popping back up in the article. This should not be allowed to be printed. When one reads an article about an MD or the conventional medical profession in an encyclopedia, It is not noted that 100's of 1000's of people die each year due to the mis-diagnosis or wrong prescriptions given to them by conventional doctors. This is however written in available prominent periodicals such as "The American journal of Medicine" Where people are seeking this kind of information.

There should be no arguments or opinions between Natural medicine and conventional medicine. Just the facts when writing in an educational article. This article otherwise appears to be neutral. Please edit these two comments as to allow the public to decide for themselves based on a neutral article whether to use natural care as a means of healing themselves, and so that children reading this encyclopedia do not form negative opinions of Naturopathy early on, by a respected source such as Wikipedia.

Following are the negative and or non neutral aspects of the article:

1. Naturopathy relies on scientifically unproven treatments,[5][6] including homeopathy, which is often considered a form of pseudoscientific quackery.[7][8]

2. Naturopathy is viewed with skepticism by critics who contend that it relies on unproven and controversial alternative medical treatments. Certain naturopathic treatments, such as homeopathy and iridology, are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery.[7][8][33]

Dr. Stephen Barrett (of Quackwatch and the National Council Against Health Fraud) has stated that the philosophy of naturopathy is "simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery."[5]

K. C. Atwood writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, "'Naturopathic physicians' now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both "conventional" and "natural" medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices."[6]

Harmonica5 23:57, February 23, 2009 (UTC)

The user has received a vandalism warning, as well as a welcome message with lots of good information, on his/her talk page. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional eyes needed for this fringe theory. I've rewritten the lead, but the main text needs a thorough scrubbing. Very vociferous editor who is confident of the WP:TRUTH at issue. THF (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Note below. Some of the same participants in all Bush-related articles. Some footwear is likely involved. Collect (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that these too editors have a rich Tendentious edit war history together and/or apart, deleting several well referenced sections in mass.

Today THF moved the Business Plot page to a different name with no discussion, removed several sections of well referenced material, and threatened me several times with various edit warrings on my user page. Collect did the same type of purge a few days ago, deleting 1,184 words of well referenced text.

I have opened up a RfC on Business Plot and am actively considering a User RfC pertaining to one or both of them. Several past RfC's have closed with editors being topic banned because of such egregious behavior as these two editors. Ikip (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What User:Ikip means is that THF and I are two entirely separate and distinct people, which seems to be a problem after he accused us of editing in concert <g>. He has repeatedly threatened RfCs --- note [25] referring to going through edit histories "as with countless other admins before." Immediately after [26] which seems almost written by an entirely different person. Ikip is currently involved in template-spamming well over five hundred editors for his "ARS" and has quite likely not behaved in a manner consistent with WP policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

You and THFs repeated edit warring is problemic and disruptive, which I feel needs the examination of the larger community. The ANI over the template was closed with no action taken against me. It is well within policy. Are we starting your RfC here? Ikip (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no concept what your reference is to. I do note you finally made an edit to Talk:Skull and Bones -- consisting of deleting all of four carriage returns. Was there a reason for your visit there to make such a major edit? Collect (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In 20 July plot, use of the term "execution" has recently been changed to "murder, by execution". To me, this sounds like an NPOV violation. The opposing reasoning seems to be that since the Nazi government was not generally considered legal by historians (true? not true?), any execution that it carried out was actually a murder. Opinions? Mkcmkc (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Were there ever war-crimes trials for the 20 July plot executions? If not, why would Wikipedia be more stringent about this than the Nuremberg Trials? THF (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "murder, by execution" sounds somewhat non-neutral and is inferior to "execution", which carries no implication of legitimacy - "Mafia execution" is common enough. Even worse, the redundancy is faintly ridiculous in English - like Murder by Death.John Z (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Nazi government was elected if there wasn't a big conspiracy... So I don't know what is meant by "not considered legal", that a government does illegal things where it be national or international doesn't make the government illegitimate, right? — CHANDLER#10 — 09:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an NPOV violation. I think "execution" is a better than "murder, by execution". Also, some of those executed were brought to trial and were found guilty. One can argue quite easily that trials weren't fair, but it was the legal system of Germany at the time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Execution" is factual. "Murder by execution" is a POV-push that overlooks the fact these folks tried to murder Hitler. That a source calls it that is irrelevant. That source is also trying to POV-push. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. You have been engaged in what can only pe described as a campaign to have this removed. It was cited material so it isn't POV pushing -look up the definition. And given you are editor that claims Adolf Hitler was legally elected and the Third Reich was a legal state, I don't think you're in a position to argue about anything. Dapi89 (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Hitler DID gain power legally, albeit by rather nefarious means. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A citation that itself is pushing a POV does not make it neutral here. I would agree with Baseball Bugs' assessment. "Execution" is neutral. "Murder by execution" is POV. Resolute 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Two historians can look at historical events from different viewpoints and come with wildly different analyses and conclusions. You only have to read the works of the Holocaust deniers to see that. AJP Taylor is entitled to his view as to the legitimacy of the German government at the time, but it is only one of many view and we should not be choosing between them. It's pretty clear to me that "murder by execution" is not neutral, while "executed" is neutral.  – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that execution is the most neutral term available. In addition, saying they were executed by the German Nazi government does not in any way suggest Wikipedia is condoning the Nazi regime, so adding "executed by murder" or "murdered by execution" is pointless. Not only that, it sounds silly and awkward. Also to Dapi, something certainly can be cited and be POV pushing. The two are not mutually exclusive. It also should be noted that Hitler was elected, as was his party, to power before he essentially made himself dictator, so to say he flat-out was not legally elected is a blatant POV push, no matter how horrible his actions were or how unfortunate was the fact that he was in power. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Go and visit Plötzensee Prison or Bendler Block and it reads "murder". Buy any German book on 20 July 1944 it reads "murder". This may sound absurd but by the token of the pro execution voters the Holocaust killings could be classified as executions as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that we're supposed to use (more or less) the terms used by reliable sources. If reliable sources tend to use the term "execute" in regards to the July 20th plot and "murder" in regards to the Holocaust, that's perfectly fine. Sources on different topics don't have to be externally consistent with each other. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: it was established in court that the Holocaust "executions" were genocide (or mass-murder). The suggestion that "pro-execution voters" would classify genocide as executions is absurd and offensive. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr. Bee should avoid assigning offensive beliefs to those he disagrees with. If your own argument does not hold up to community consensus, demonizing your opponents is not a wise direction to go. The same goes for Dapi. Resolute 16:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Few if any Holocaust victims were given trials or had access to any proceedings of a similar nature. Arguably this means that "execution" is not the correct term for them. "Murder" also seems a bit iffy--the Holocaust seems worse than anything that term denotes. Mkcmkc (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend to insult anyone here. That was clearly not my intention. But that is the point! The German judicial system has reverted the ruling and classified the killings as murder. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for apologising. However, the German judicial system does not decide global consensus - or consensus here on Wikipedia. The German view can be noted, however it is not necessarily the majority view. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being ignorant but I have to ask this question: A 1944 German court can sentence a person to death, execute him and the world and the Wiki community accepts this as factual and global consensus. A post World War 2 German court, a court of a democratic nation, reverts this ruling but the world and the Wiki community is entitled to make up their own mind on whether this is legitimate? Are you sure that is what you tried to tell me? Sorry but I don't get it MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. As an analogy, if Barack Obama made the death penalty in the USA illegal, and a Supreme Court ruling found that state and federal executions were illegal, would the rest of the world automatically regard past executions as illegal? In this instance Britain, say, regards execution as a reasonable punishment for attempting to kill the head of state - even though Britain would have benefited from Hitler's death. Hope that clarifies it. We all - I assume - sympathize with the plotters and wish they had succeeded. But WP:NPOV requires that we don't let that cloud what we write. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee, we're supposed to write articles based on what reliable sources have to say on the subject, not our own opinions. German courts can rule anything they want, but yes, the rest of the world gets to make up their own minds. If reliable sources use the term 'execution', then that's what we should be using. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should simply follow the examples set by reliable sources and a lay historian, execution seems to be the prevelent term. That said, we can a section (or something) that mentions that German courts have labeled the executions as murders. 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs)

I like that idea MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec - and now supporting others who went the same direction) You have to view it in historical context though. The plotters were executed. It's that simple. The later decision to classify the executions as murder most certainly should be included, but that should be added as part of a separate section. I would suggest to find a citation for the German court rulings, and add a statement to the end of the lead stating that German courts have since ruled these executions as being murders, while writing a legacy section pointing out the German court ruling, and the opinions of the historians mentioned. Resolute 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The official description in a police report would be an "execution-style murder" if it was a murder done in such a style - but really that is not entirely true here. There _were_ executions. There isn't a lot of people, or sources, who would try to "doublespeak" it as anything else. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Serg36 (talk · contribs) continues to add the "Obama" section of The Sean Hannity Show. The section states, based on a forum link, that Hannity is "advocating for a violent overthrow of the Obama administration." The section goes on quote a part of the constitution, and says, based on nothing, that Hannity is commiting treason. In fact, Hannity hasn't endorsed any of it, it is just some forum discussion, and total anti-Hannity POV. TheAE talk/sign 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If Hannity had, in fact, actually advocated the violent overthrow of the government, he would already be in jail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there any specific guidelines on biographies of recently-deceased people, that prevent them from reading too much like loving obituaries? I am looking at the example of Ilya Pyatetskii-Shapiro (who was indeed a great man but that's not the point). McKay (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We're supposed to avoid "peacock terms" and "memorials" and simply report the facts of life and death. However, wikipedia's own page Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians pretty much defies its own theoretical rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, can you take a look at the malicious and politically motivated editing that has been added to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party article recently. Over the past few days the page has been attacked and remade framing the party as a fascist Nazi spin off. The sources being used are all polemicists with a hostile agenda against the party. I suggest reversing the past weeks edits to around this edit [27] and fully protecting the page from any further changes for a while. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the anon editor 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:FORUM-shopping, after multiple editors rejected this request to remove material sourced to the Atlantic Monthly and a number of books published by academic presses. Admin intervention is needed to stop POV pushing on multiple articles. THF (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is incorrect in stating multiple users have rejected this request. It seems he prefers to support WP:SOAP violations and WP:BITE rather than WP:AGF.

WP:CONS is required and that's what i'm seeking, not WP:FORUMSHOP. The editing in question was added by someone with a username suggesting WP:COI given recent events [28]. I think my suggestion to reverse the contested and dubious editing and put the page on full protection is sensible. What do you think? 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A Men's Rights advocate is persistently editing the Mary Winkler article to represent _only_ the Men's Rights movement perspective on the allegations of abuse. How do I dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomundergrad (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The edits made by 1shamrocks9 to the Michele Bachmann article is very biased. If you look at the diff [29], the changes put her in an extremely positive light while casting her opponents negatively. It's like a campaign ad. The user only contributed edits to that one article over a period of two hours and nothing else to Wikipedia. I suspect it was created just to add those edits. What is the best way to handle this? The information add is valuable but they're all so heavily tainted. For example, it called mark-to-market accounting rule a way to artificially value assets sold on an artifical timetable. That's a gross misrepresentation of mark-to-market, as anyone who've worked in finance will tell you. I'm hestitant to remove all the edits but there's a lot of work to clean them up and even then I would doubt the neutrality of it.

Comatose51 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Richard Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anon editor edit-warring to add slanted opinions not consistent with cited sources. Strongly suspect it's a sock of User:Jacksbernstein. Could use some help protecting this BLP. THF (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has extensive discussion of criticism of Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart is also one of the most praised companies in the United States. E.g., (and this is hardly a comprehensive list, just stuff I could quickly find because I knew about it off the top of my head) [30][31][32] Yet that praise is to be found nowhere in the article, while union criticism of Wal-Mart is prominently featured in the lead paragraphs. A single editor is edit-warring to remove the NPOV tag, with his only defense "I disagree." Can someone please restore the tag? THF (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[33][34][35] – None of these sources back of your assertion that "Wal-Mart is also one of the most praised companies in the US." Vedder's book does have some positive comments regarding Wal-Mart's economic contributions, though it's a tertiary reference and not a primary source, and is also published by THF's employer. The Seattle Times article does discuss Wal-Mart's effect on inflation in the US, but fails to back up the "most praised" issue. The imdb.com references a documentary of sorts that does offer positive things to say about the company, but I cannot verify that it backs up the definite assertion that Wal-Mart is one of the most praised companies in the US -- offering praise is one thing, but saying "most praised" is something totally different. Documentaries are also poor choices for references -- for the most part, they're tertiary sources, and Wikipedia does favor freely available text sources over videos, as well as primary sources over tertiary ones. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, and this is just off the top of my head. This is just off the top of my head.

• 1) Lead is one-sided, mentioning only criticism, without any praise. E.g., [36] [37] [38]
• 2) No mention of notable economic studies showing that Wal-Mart has single-handedly substantially reduced inflation in the United States, proving hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits to consumers. E.g., [39] [40] [41] [42]
• 3) No mention of notable criticism of Dukes v. Wal-Mart lawsuit: the article is one-sided in presenting only the plaintiffs' version of facts. E.g., [43] [44] [45] [46]
• 4) Disproportionate coverage of Human Rights Campaign's coverage of Wal-Mart.
• 5) "Employee and labor relations" section biased towards labor POV. Falsely characterizes Employee Free Choice Act in POV fashion.
• 6) Fails to mention Wal-Mart's generic pharmaceutical program that has substantially lowered drug prices. E.g., [47]
• 7) No mention of Wal-Mart's effort to compete in the banking business, and unions' efforts to punish consumers by lobbying to block it.[48]
• 8) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that, given their level of skills and experience, and compared to other retail firms, Wal-Mart employees do well. E.g., [49] [50]
• 9) No acknowledgement of the studies that show that health-care coverage, retirement benefits, and other benfits are similar to those of other retail firms, and very few Wal-Mart workers go without health insurance. E.g., [51] [52]
• 10) No acknowledgement of the economic studies that show that communities with new Wal-Mart stores typically enjoy increased employment and incomes after the store opens. E.g., [53] [54]
• 11) No mention of Wal-Mart's notable success in providing goods to Hurricane Katrina victims long before FEMA got its act together. E.g., [55] [56] [57] [58]

For these eleven reasons, I am placing an {unbalanced} tag on the article. THF (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC), updated with cites 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really have a true NPOV case here at all. It should be noted that THF has disclosed that he is employed by AEI on at Talk:Wal-Mart (AEI is a conservative think tank with a clear political agenda, and it's the publisher of Vedder's book, which he is advocating adding a citation to the article). I will acknowledge that some of the things he mentions would improve the article, but I don't see any NPOV issues whatsoever (except maybe in THF's egotistical mind). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides the uncivil personal attack on my "egotistical mind" (which is strange, since I haven't suggested citing to any of my writings on Wal-Mart), Cash provides no reason why these eleven problems should not be resolved by edits to bring the article into NPOV compliance. Vedder's book (which is independently notable[59][60] [61][62][63][64])is only one of over a dozen different possible cites I suggested; it's a tertiary source, and one can use the secondary sources of the economic studies he cites to. (Can an admin remind Cash that WP:CIVIL applies to conservative editors, as well as the ones he agrees with?) THF (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at this page rather expecting to find a one-sided article and instead find something that while not perfect, does not seem grossly unbalanced. The bulk of the article is about the company as a successful business, which is to be expected. The criticisms do have some balance and mostly include Walmart's responses. Nevertheless, much of what TDF is suggesting here could be included. As this is a content dispute, discussion belongs on the talk page. Can I suggest both sides stop taking potshots at each other here and concentrate on trying to find consensus on the talk page. By my reading of the talk page, where discussion is taking place, I expect this should be possible. Dean B (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• THF: have you tried adding this coverage and had it reverted? I certainly think THF should be allowed to add some of his sources and balance the article. I don't think the movie is a credible source. If the praise from conservative think tanks and economists is added to the article, the lead can balance the criticism with a sentence: "In contrast, Wal-Mart has been praised by economists and conservative think-tanks as highly beneficial to consumers" or somesuch. II | (t - c) 21:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This short article is about an event celebrated by the Nation of Islam to honour its founder Wallace Fard Muhammad. I have been reverting additions to the page by user:LoveFest in which LF wants to inform readers that the NOI's spelling is incorrect because they have misplaced the apostrophe. [65] LF's edits had previously been removed by another user [66]. While I strongly believe that LF's comments are inappropriate, might there be a better and less ORish and POV form of words? The matter is complicated because NOI doctrine apparently accepts that more than one 'saviour' has existed. Paul B (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And several of them are in the Hall of Fame: Goose Gossage, for one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

??? Are you sure this comment is in the right section? However I doubt that the NoI is dedicated to hairy white sports stars. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for over a year now. The whole genre of related articles has become problematic with one editor (Sherzo) affirm to his point of view on a lack of notability, backing it up with edits, redirects accusations and insults. Can the community please help resolve this dispute as edits are being reverted for fun now. TorstenGuise (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject isnt notable enough to be forked into its own article, TortenGuise believes all university and student groups are notable and aims to push this. please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_student_television/Archive_1#rewrite_and_possible_re_name Sherzo (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, User:Collect inserted a sentence from a NY Times article used as a source for the Geronimo lawsuit section. [67] It says the lawyer for the family has acknowledged he has no hard proof. I believe the result for anybody reading this after the edit is that the lawsuit is described and then it says the lawyer has no hard proof. So I saw it as a violation of NPOV.

Collect seemed to have a hard time understanding this, claiming that since WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied how can including the "view" of the family laywer be against policy? I then emphasized that we cannot just include anything, even if it satisfies V and RS, since that could violate NPOV, but I seem to have trouble getting through. I also think the phrasing of the sentence as the lawyer "acknowledged" is important. It's more along the lines of, if pressed on it, yes he'll admit they have no hard evidence. But obviously he must think there is merit to the case, otherwise why would a former US Attorney General bother representing the Geronimo family?

Rather than fighting on it, I sought to make the summary of the NY Times article closer to the perspective of the journalist who wrote it. In apparent retaliation, Collect has rather cavalierly inserted a long rambling quote from a Cecil Adams Straight Dope article.

Discussion is here: Talk:Skull_and_Bones#Insertion_of_Clark_quote --C S (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice "neutral" presentation, eh? The NYT is cited for saying a US ATTORNEY GENERAL is filing the lawsuit (Ramsey Clark) the article cited makes it clear that Mr. Clark says he has no hard evidence for the suit. Since the person citing apparently felt it important to mention the lawyer, clearly the article's comments about the lawyer are RS and meet WP:V. As for this being aPOV issue, I am bemused indeed. The NYT article is intrinsically NPOV, and the quoted sentence is NPOV. As for making attacks on good faith edits using RS (Cecil Adams is RS for his opinions on the matter which he researched), that is bad etiquette at best. By the way, I am amused with the assumption that lawyers only take cases they feel have merit <g>. And keep PA stuff out of requests for opinions. Collect (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[Redacted per BLP. Entirely inappropriate comment.] Ty 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tyrenius has inappropriately deleted my comment a second time. He should know better than to edit-war over a talk page. But to assuage him, I will rephrase my comment in the most unobjectionable way possible: As a legal expert who has followed Ramsey Clark's career, it is my considered opinion that Clark regularly takes on meritless cases for the sake of making a quixotic political point. Thus, as we are discussing WP:NPOV, Clark's cases and opinions are by definition WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE would require that we not give him much space for broadcasting his litigation. The fact that he was AG over 40 years ago does not change this fact, as anyone who has looked at the cases Clark has handled in the last thirty could tell you. THF (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP is exempt from 3RR and violations should be removed immediately on sight: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Your considered opinion is completely irrelevant. We do not make edits based on editors' opinions or even editors' knowledge. That violates a basic policy of WP:NOR. We make them based on WP:NPOV by representing per WP:V what the sources say. Please stick to these policies which are non-negotiable. Ty 04:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My material wasn't unsourced: it was sourced to me. Anyway, we do make edits based on editors' opinions. It's called editorial judgment. WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk-page discussion. I can't add my opinion about Ramsey Clark to the mainspace (though others can if I publish it in a reliable source), but we can come to a sensible consensus that giving much weight to Clark and his clients violates WP:UNDUE--otherwise, we wouldn't have such a policy. THF (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Me" in wikipedia terms is the essence of policy violation. We do not source content to editors' opinions, so stop WP:WIKILAWYER. Judgement is entirely different as it is made about secondary sources, and does not generate original content. There wasn't much weight given. A couple of sentences. That seems easily justifiable, and probably a little more. If it's in mainstream sources, then it is valid material. To take up half the article with it would be disproportionate. We just represent the essential position. Ty 04:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No one's trying to "source content to editor's opinions." Quit misrepresenting my argument and address what I'm actually saying, even though it would require admitting you were wrong about your meritless BLP complaint. We're trying to judge the NPOV issue, and WEIGHT is part of that, and the fact that the lawsuit is brought by someone who is far, far, outside the mainstream of legal thought is relevant to that consideration. THF (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is relevant is whether the source is far, far, outside the mainstream, which it is not. It is a valid source. Therefore we represent what it is presenting. WP:UNDUE applies to not giving a particular source excessive weight, but that is not a problem at the moment, because a) it is a major source b) there is no other source to balance it against. You cannot exclude material which has high profile exposure in the media. Ty 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS comes into play. Just because the Times fell for a publicity stunt doesn't mean we have to. Wikipedia aspires to be more than the mere scrivener for every story that hits Yahoo News. THF (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the D.C. Circuit criticizing and fining Clark for bringing plainly frivolous litigation. One can find several other similar cases where Clark brought a meritless lawsuit because he views court proceedings as a means of political protest, though far too few of them resulted in fines. THF (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my "personal attack". It's clear to anyone what happened. You even made the comment to me about your Cecil Adams edit: "I trust you will enjoy it." While I suppose I could assume this was a good faith comment and you really really did wish I would enjoy the edit, I chose not to make that assumption. Especially since it's such a crappy edit to begin with. You lifted a huge quote from Adams, with apparently no thought to editorial concerns like NPOV.

I think if you take the viewpoint that the NYT is "intrinsically NPOV" , you will find yourself in a minority of one here. In any case, as I said repeatedly, your edit is grossly negligent to the NYT article perspective. So please don't pretend like somehow you've subsumed the reliability of the NY Times into your editing simply because you copied over one sentence and inserted it in a rather sloppy, careless manner. --C S (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to support what C S is saying here as Collect has been inserting that very same Cecil Adams Straight Dope blog in several other articles where it doesn't fit in at all and it certainly is POV pushing the way Collect applies it in this article. Abbarocks (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cecil Adams' columns are not a "blog." And they are cited in many places on WP. And as for making charges against me, this is not the venue or form for that at all -- this is for discussion of the issues. Collect (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect is entirely correct in his edit per NPOV. It is a significant statement by the attorney. It would be a violation of NPOV not to include such an important aspect of the case. The argument disputing its inclusion, "It's more along the lines of, if pressed on it, yes he'll admit they have no hard evidence", is original research and invalid. It would be helpful to add some more material on the background also, giving more information on both sides. That is a NPOV approach. NPOV applies to editors, not sources. NPOV is to represent those sources neutrally without distorting what they say, bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. Ty 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My material wasn't unsourced: it was sourced to me. Huh? What does this mean? this seems like an interesting topic. Ikip (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that Ramsey Clark's lawsuit has also named Barack Obama and Robert Gates as co-defendants. It's a publicity stunt without legal merit, and editors can use their common sense to note that it has no business in Wikipedia. THF (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think that Obama and Gates are mentioned as a technicality because the alleged theft happened at Fort Sill on federal military land. So, what I am saying, is that despite Clark's reputation, the inclusion of Obama and Gates should not,imo, be seen as an indication of the lawsuit being frivolous. Abbarocks (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a handful of issues here, and since it seems to be something that is making a lot of people upset, please let me address them in turn.

First of all, the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. We're not here to report current events, if you're interested in that, I would gently suggest you seek WikiNews.

As well, articles are meant to be objective and impartial. A lot of people see a point as neutral when we have both negative and positive references, but that isn't always the case. We have to consider that some people will read one particularly damaging or sensational reference, and not read any further.

Most importantly, this dispute kind of makes me sad. Don't think of such a contentious issue as reasons to lash out at one another. Instead, take it as a chance to show the very best of ourselves, and Wikipedia. When we have an article that is a contentious one, I like to think of it as an opportunity to show just how seriously we take our mission and our encyclopedia. So why don't we work together to do just that?

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is one issue here, which is NPOV, which demands that editors do not impose their own viewpoints on sources, but represent the viewpoints of the sources. In this case there is information which has received international coverage, and clearly needs to be represented. Regardless of the eventual outcome, it is a memorable event. There are 106,000 google returns for "geronimo" and "skull and bones",[68] and 146 google news results.[69] Major international sources in addition to The New York Times include Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, ABC News, Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, The Scotsman, Irish Times, The Canberra Times, Toronto Star, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Ty 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Many of these are the same reprint of the same AP article. And, no, WP:NOT#NEWS, so not every ephemeral publicity stunt gets Wikipedia coverage. The whole thing is an urban legend. Richard Gere's gerbil isn't in his article, either, and neither is the infamous Jamie Lee Curtis urban legend. THF (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is truly a notable event, it should be easy to substantiate with multiple stories from notable sources, and not simply a single story given by a wire service that was since reprinted into multiple sources. Please also note that simply because something is given a lot of coverage in any one source does not mean it is notable. To provide an example, there are approximately 14,300 hits across sourceforge, slashdot, the website, and blogs for a project I am working on, but that does not, by itself, say that the project is notable (even I as the person leading the project would say it isn't). Please remember that NPOV also means that we avoid giving things undue weight. While it is not directly applicable, the spirit of the fringe theories policy applies here too, I think - we have to be very careful not to perpetuate hoaxes and publicity stunts. In fact, that same idea is why we have the policy on spam links - because of how powerful a position Wikipedia has, both as a credible encyclopedia and as a source indexed by search engines such as Google, we have to use discretion about such things. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers get numerous stories from wire services. They choose which ones to print and, having done so, give their own authority to it. As it happens, the wire source is Stephanie Reitz, The Associated Press. The Irish Times credits David Montgomery, Washington,[70] The Wall Street Journal credits Ashby Jones,[71] The Scotsman credits James McKinley in Houston, [72], The Daily Telegraph credits Tom Leonard in New York,[73]. This is not about a fringe theory. It is about a factual event, namely a court case. NPOV does not discrimate against publicity stunts: that claim is an editorial interpretation and hence WP:OR with the only source provided for it to date as "me". If there are valid sources that say it is a publicty stunt, please provide them and they can be included also. Ty 00:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A single story duplicated among numerous papers by numerous papers is still only a single source. Surely if it is notable, it should not be hard to find more? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already pointed out above that the story in some papers is given different authorship and is therefore not all from the same source, so more have already been provided. Ty 01:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the story of the skull in general, rather than this court case in particular, there are multiple sources over the years: The New York Times, 1988,[74]; Messud, Claire. "Bones of a conspiracy", The Guardian (Manchester); July 31, 1994; Hall Alan. "Sick scandal stalking Bush; His grandad stole skull of Geronimo, claim Apaches", Daily Record (Glasgow); p. 12, August 5, 2000; The New York Times, 2004,[75]; BBC Radio 4, 2004,[76]; Associated Press, 2006,[77]; The Daily Telegraph, 2006,[78]; The Guardian, 2006,[79]; The New York Times, 2007.[80] Ty 02:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem is that this claim is controversial, in the case - so perhaps a reasonable compromise may be saying something like "The case has been covered in numerous papers (ref and expand here). Some people feel the case is a merely a publicity stunt (refs and expand), while others feel the case has merit (refs and expand)" Of course that is hardly a perfect template and has some issues of its own, but the underlying idea is "okay, we have some conflicting views on the case here. Here's what one person says, and why, and here's what another says, and why." Cheers, Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 02:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. Per NPOV the different viewpoints should be stated and the reader left to make their own judgement. However, I have not seen any refs that say it is a publicity stunt. The concern is covered by the sources as one that is serious, although not one which is proven, but which has sufficient cause to be taken seriously. In 2000, the Daily Record (Glasgow) quotes Skull and Bones club lawyer Endicott Davison as admitting that the club history records the theft. Davison said that it was "a hoax on the members". In 2006, the Yale Alumni Magazine published a letter which was stated to have been found by a historian in the University archives and dated 1918, from one society member to another, saying, "The skull of the worthy Geronimo the Terrible, exhumed from its tomb at Fort Sill by your club... is now safe inside the T- [Tomb] together with his well-worn femurs, bit & saddle horn."[81] Etc. If anyone wants the sources I've given which are not online, let me know and I'll provide them. Ty 08:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can uninvolved parties assess which of these wordings, if either, conform to the neutral point of view policy? Thanks, Skomorokh 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First that claim needs to be sourced. Both versions has the term "indicated" in it - who did the indication?WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the "undid vandalism" edit summary holds much less credibility, but that's a random observation that has nothing to do with the problem at hand.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm new here, so apologies in advance if I'm breaking some protocol by posting this, but I was reading the Desertification article, and I found it somewhat biased, in particular: It is a common misconception that droughts by themselves cause desertification. While drought is a contributing factor, the root causes are all related to man's overexploitation of the environment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always taught in school that desertification has been happening for millions of years at least partially as a result of the ice ages freezing the available water for precipitation. The cited source is also a partisan environmental book.--Freyyr890 07:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyyr890 (talk • contribs)

I'm not familiar with the topic, though you could, in your judgement, solve it by finding a more neutral source and correct the said problem.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One user, Haberstr is trying to push a personal view that the alleged terror bombings of world war 2 should be put into this article, on the basis that they both have terror in the name, he also appears to push a left wing bias to a degree. Sherzo (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page, it states: "Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc." WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

80%+ of this article was written by SPA Eec17736 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and it now reads like an advertisement; there's not even a mention of the firm's relationship with convicted felon William Lerach. I'd do the required rewrite, but since I've testified before Congress about the scheme that sent Lerach to prison, and criticized the plea deal that spared his firm the fate of Milberg, I might be accused of a COI. THF (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bumping. Still unresolved. THF (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody help me out with the Mehmed Talat article. Somebody made this biography about a Turkish minister and made it part of the wikiproject Armenia and gave very biased information about him with the sole purpose of creating support for the Armenian genocide accusation. Somebody put a neutrality tag on it but they removed it despite objections. After more objections from various users some changes were made but they didn't put the neutrality tag back and it is still controlled by a very pro Armenian group who keep reverting any changes they don't like. For example I wrote "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide since it is only recognized by 21 countries out of the 194 countries in the world, most of whom were at war with the Ottoman Empire at the time. The few who had no part in WWI but recognize it are catholic countries who followed the decision of Vatican city to recognize the Armenian genocide or have strong Armenian lobbies in their country. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Sweden and the United Kingdom all rejected bills for the recognition of the Armenian genocide and Israel, Denmark and most other countries find that there isn't enough proof for genocide although they condemn the massacres. It is obvious that the Armenian genocide is disputed and not an established fact. Therefore it is acceptable that I write "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide especially since this is a biography about a Turkish minister and not the Armenian genocide article. They also wrote that Mehmed Talat is quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" ^[4] recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey. In that article there is a section in which several European and Turkish historians dispute the authenticity of these papers so I changed it into Mehmet Talat is allegedly quoted as ordering to "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" ^[5] recorded in the "Andonian Telegrams" which is disputed for it's authenticity.^[6]. They reverted these changes without discussion on the talk page so I changed it back and this went on a couple of time until one of them "Kansas Bear" reported me to an administrator and I got blocked. I am new and didn't know about the 3RR rule. And Kansas Bear broke the 3RR rule himself as you will see if you look at the history. I pointed that out to the administrators but they didn't do anything and didn't even read my objections but strictly followed 3RR rules without looking who was right. You can see that on my talk page. They were not so strict towards Kansas Bear despite him breaking the 3RR rules too. But other than that they reverted my changes again, and NOW they want to discuss it AFTER I got blocked. I have given my reasons again why I made these changes but am afraid to change them back. Can somebody who is experienced come and look at this article and read the talk page and help me out? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to the admins: The user who calls himself Ibrahim4048 has made comments toward other users that could be interpet as personal threats.[82]--Amethystus (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've recently had a discussion with an editor who seemed to think he knew enough to comment on a technical subject but clearly didn't. He was reasonably civil but preferred dodging the question & trying to mislead me in preference to admitting ignorance. Had I not know considerably more than he, I and other users of that page would have been confused or quite simply mislead. This would have undermined the point of wiki (of providing accurate information). I may be being over sensitive but - should I complain, and to where? Water pepper (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

...you first should provide the username of the editor in question, but anyhow, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement seems like the place to go.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page: "Be sure to provide evidence--links to sources, passages, etc." WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It would have been unreasonable at that point to have given a name, but that aside, I've decided it's too technical a discussion to be easily weighed by a non-expert and perhaps I'm being a bit uptight anyway, so I'll drop it. Probably for the best. But thanks for pointing me in the right direction.Water pepper (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He is referring to my responses to his questions here. In my opinion, he doesn't want an answer. He wants an argument. Any reasonable person would have read the answer and, if it wasn't clear, asked for clarification. He took the route of accusing me (and another user) of trolling and being uneducated by providing him with the answer to his question. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, here's the question you can't even acknowledge exists:

"Hi all, I recall reading somewhere that one of the properties (atomic, consistent, isolated, durable) was implied by the others, something like "if a transaction is atomic and consistent then it must have had the appearance of being isolated". Or perhaps if it's A and I then it must appear C. [snip] Can anyone clarify? - 22:54, 22 April 2008

"Anyway, regardless of that I still feel that my core point above, that Isolated implies Atomic, still stands (until someone shows otherwise)." - 14:54, 4 March 2009

"But back to my original question; now you've established a mechanism for Isolation, does not this isolation imply Atomicity? " - 00:30, 7 March 2009

You keep telling me what isolation is, and what atomicity is (and wrongly at that, I'm sure). That's not what I asked. So the question is, and read this carefully, what is the relationship between isolation and atomicity? Does I imply A, and possibly the converse? If you don't know, just say it.

I didn't mention your name here - nor link to the discussion - because I though it would be spiteful and unfair on you, and I may have just got it wrong and all out of proportion. I didn't want to drag you back in . You did that. Answer my question; does Isolation imply Atomicity and if not why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.82.237 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(added forgotten sig)Water pepper (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the very first sentence of my very first response: "They do not imply one another." Everything after that is an explanation why. I can make the explanation much longer if you like. I often have to lecture for over an hour on just this one topic. -- kainaw™ 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I did not follow your explanation. Let me pick it up from a point I did follow. You said later on "In other words, if you use 2PL, you are guaranteed that the result of multiple transactions running at the same time will be the same as at least one serialized ordering of those transactions - which is the definition of isolation". We're agreed here (not on 2PL but isolation), that isolation means the results are exactly the effect of taking a bunch of transactions and running them one after the other - in any order you like - but precisely one after the other. Do what you like in reality, but the effect must be *as if* they'd been run one after the other. They can't (have the effect of) interfering with each other because then they'd be (having the effect of) running in parallel and thus interfering, which offends the principle of Isolation. Now, Consistency. From wiki: "If, for some reason, a transaction is executed that violates the database’s consistency rules, the entire transaction will be rolled back [presumably fully - its meaningless to partly roll back] and the database will be restored to a state consistent with those rules. On the other hand, if a transaction successfully executes [completes fully], it will take the database from one state that is consistent with the rules to another state that is also consistent with the rules." (my additions in square brackets). So Isolation says no interference, Consistency says the transaction completes entirely or is rolled back entirely. So the two together say transactions a) have no mutual interference and b) either fully complete or are fully rolled back ie. as if they'd never been. Wiki definition of Atomic "Atomicity refers to the ability of the DBMS to guarantee that either all of the tasks of a transaction are performed or none of them are". Now, that looks pretty damn close to the a) and b) above. In fact if you've got a) and b) then it seems you've got (the effect of) atomicity. I + C implies A (so it seems to me. Not that this is not my previous supposition that I -> A, though similar). Now, do you see why I'm thinking this? I grant, it's difficult to reason here without formal language but let's try the converse; suppose a transaction failed atomically, could it still be Isolated and Consistent? I don't see how. But then, it's late and I'll think tomorrow. But can you see *what I'm trying to get at*? Are you familiar with any formal notation we can use to sort this out on an unambiguous basis? Water pepper (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw responded privately and in detail. It will take some time to go through his exposition with the care it requires but it's clear that he knows the subject in much greater depth than I do, or than I gave him credit for. I must retract all my previous statements and implications that suggested otherwise. I'll post a similar acknowledgement on the original thread.Water pepper (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it is technical, but since you're the one who raised the issue, and now want to drop it. Done. (just play nice folks) WhatisFeelings? (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article about the incident at the USS Impeccable seems completely written from the US navy perspective. Surely this can't be complicant with the Wikipedia NPOV policy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk • contribs)

I can say this so quickly in response because I happen to have already read the article and some of its sources, but it seems to be pretty honest to the sources it cites (several independent, major news sources). Albeit, they probably got much of their own information from the US Navy, so there's no surprise there. You have to keep in mind that the neutral point of view is about reporting all significant opinions that appear in reliable sources. It's not about countering one viewpoint with an opposing viewpoint, as sometimes, only one viewpoint is significant. If there are reliable sources that take a different view of the incident, you can be bold and use them in the article, or you can discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so because it doesn't refer to all facts as a statement of US military and government organisations. Surely you won't mind if I edit this article so it will reflect this better.

I removed some unverifiable claims copied from www.rightpundits.com (a rightwing opinion website). Surely we are allowed here to quote all kinds of claims and opinions, but only if presented as such and not as a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.78.111 (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The section you removed also cited CNN, which is not regarded as a rightwing opinion website. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, the CNN ref had not yet been added when the section was removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that 82.92.78.111 - I've struck out my comment. I looked at Someguy1221's diff instead of your. That'll teach me to pay attention... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute some POV. Not to the extent that you claim, however. Anyway, the page has been significantly edited since these claims were made, with several phrases being replaced to be more neutral/unbiased. Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed when reading the Wiki bio of Ray Charles that it stated: Years active 1947-2015 That would be tricky since its only 2009 and the gentleman died in 2004!

Thanks for allowing me to presume that this is a mistake! I think it verifies itself!

NV Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by NV Barbara (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's been an RFC going on at the talk page for the Abortion article about whether that article is being censored to favor one POV, and in particular whether Wikipedia should allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion. Neither that article nor any other Wikipedia article presently describes what will be aborted in a typical induced abortion, and instead that article only provides positive info about abortion, e.g. it is "safer than childbirth", there is no substantial risk of breast cancer, or fetal pain, or mental health problems, et cetera. Since that RFC has been closely divided, I thought it might help to get some input here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an editor of that article but one way to approach this issue is, what do reliable sources do? Do they typically include this type of image? Or is this the sort of thing that is usually only found in anti-abortion literature? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply, AQFK. The type of image proposed is not the sort of thing that is usually found in anti-abortion literature, for several reasons: anti-abortion literature more often shows (1) color photographs instead of black-and-white drawings, (2) dismembered or obviously injured fetuses instead of intact fetuses, (3) fetuses that are farther along in development so they look more like little people, and (4) anti-abortion literature seldom shows how tiny and unformed an embryo is in comparison to a much larger fetus. So, the suggested image is very different from what would be in anti-abortion literature. Regarding reliable sources, I found many reliable newspaper and magazine articles that showed images of a fetus in conjunction with articles about abortion. However, it was then objected that I should only focus on general reference books for general readership, instead of considering reliable sources more broadly. Then, when I actually was able to find some online general reference works that show images of a fetus in conjunction with articles about abortion,[83][84] which is difficult because Google Books does not provide an image search feature, it was objected that the images in the online general reference works are slightly different or faulty in some other way (e.g. they show slightly more of the intrauterine environment, or some unrelated images in the reference work are imperfect, or the image relates to a spontaneous rather than induced abortion, et cetera).

So, basically, whenever I linked a reliable source that shows what is aborted in conjunction with an article about abortion, opponents pointed to some slight distinction or difference from the image that is now proposed. Never mind that almost all the images currently in this Wikipedia article are unlike anything in reliable general reference works!Ferrylodge (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So, uh, is no one going to express an opinion about whether this article is currently a censored, slanted, POV propaganda piece?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a response like the one above discourages people from commenting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's appreciated, but that's, uh... not the response I was talking about... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific then? What about the previous responses discourages comments?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll comment at your talk page - I think it's independent of the question being asked here. I'm just now working on a post there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll look forward to your comment at my talk page. This is obviously an unpleasant and contentious subject, and I suspect that is a more likely cause for the lack of comments than anything I said.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been directed here from WP:RSN. We have a situation where there is consensus that a General Accounting Office report is WP:RS, but citing information from it is considered NPOV. I have tried to get the editors that hold that view to explain their position and their response seems to be that they find me to be 'Data mining' and 'Quote Mining' without going into further detail. This was my response when this most recent explanation for the brusque deletions was given:

As for quote mining? How could it escape the eye of anyone that read the website summary, let alone the report, that 3 out of 5 panelists did not agree that Searle had shown that aspertame would not cause brain tumors. Same goes for the information regarding the responses from surveyed researchers, its right there in the web page summary. It is true that the direct quote regarding the FDA Task scientific opinion on the quality of the Searle studies is *buried* on the 2nd line of the first paragraph of the first page of the section dealing with the findings of the FDA Task force. If there was some problem with the surrounding text or placement in the article, that should be discussed on the aptly named discussion page, not unceremoniously deleted, but thats just my opinion of course.

I don't understand how you can call the full reproduction of the questionnaire data 'data mining', we already cover the data but currently in a form that is borderline WP:PN. I first tried my hand at rewriting the entry in question but was quickly reverted, without proper explanation.

Then in an attempt to avoid contentious wording I reproduced the tables verbatim and added them in good faith, this was promptly reverted. In an attempt to find consensus I proposed a section on GAO87 and tried to move forward. To which I received this response.

I am opening a section on NPOVN as per the recommendation of the editor who responded over on WP:RS please do not try to frame this as forum shopping I am simply trying to counter the attempts at Policy shopping that I seem to be facing. user:orangemarlin clearly tried to shed doubt over the use of GAO87 as a NPOV source and user:keepcalmandcarryon holds the opinion that I am 'slanting' the information. This could all have been averted if any of the involved editors chose to be less brusque and more constructive. I apologize in advance for having to take up other editors time with resolving this.

At the risk of WP:SOAP: If we are in a situation where verbatim reproductions of tables is 'Data mining', quoting GAO report summary findings, section summaries is 'quote mining' and GAO reports are understood to be low weight primary sources then wikipedia is in serious serious trouble. Unomi (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the table was a bad move because this kind of detailed information really doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. But it's painfully obvious how a new editor in your situation would make this kind of mistake. An intelligent person who finds themselves in front of a huge brick wall will change direction. If this brick wall was illegally erected in the middle of a motorway, this may lead to them being stopped by the police in the middle of a field. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to ask those who built the brick wall to show a permit for it.

I didn't follow this very closely, but after a cursory reading I got the impression that secondary sources are being used to make claims about what a government document ("GAO87") allegedly says which are explicitly contradicted by what the document says. When Unomi tried to fix this problem they found themselves under a torrent of accusations, most of which consisted of an abbreviated link to a policy or guideline which he supposedly had broken. Most or all of these accusations were never substantiated or withdrawn. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have had a much closer look now, focused on Unomi's first sequence of edits, and have come to the conclusion that he was mainly motivated by an attempt to fix a misrepresentation of GAO87 that was introduced with a rewrite by Keepcalmandcarryon in January. My full analysis in tabular form is at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Unomi deserves an apology. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)