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

This was added to the Fringe Theories guideline. The language is so inflammatory and non neutral especially for a guideline that I am bringing it here for neutral input and reading. I refuse to edit war this content and leave the working out of this to the larger community.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Per this edit summary: "This is not an article. It is about fringe theories and the problems we encounter, therefore this is all exactly on-topic. Don't whitewash this to promote a fringe POV."

Language of the guideline is being skewed so that the assumptive and inflammatory is presented as neutral while what might be neutral language on any other guideline or policy is presented as biased and POV. We should at the very least have policies and guidelines that are written in a neutral manner. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

The guideline applies to all editors, not only ones that can be labeled as fringe or lunatic. Rhoark (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Most of your changes don't strike me as an improvement. The first part ('Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt...') is the core summary of the section, and replacing it with 'editors may' completely undermines what it says; I don't think that that part is particularly non-neutral. Likewise, "...not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories..." is essential because the gist of the section is that people who are devoted to such theories frequently attempt to use Wikipedia to promote them, something we have to take specific steps to oppose; changing it to "editors or personal opinion" loses this. We could possibly lose the "lunatic fringe" quote, which doesn't seem essential, but I agree with BullRangifer's implicit statement that policy text is not subject to WP:TONE, which specifically refers only to articles, so even that removal isn't strictly necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Rhoarke: Policies and guidelines apply to all editors not those we choose to label. I would go one step further than Rhoarke and suggest we shouldn't label anyone. As for Jimbo's quoted cmt.; there is no place for name calling on Wikipedia. That Jimbo made this comment in public is no reason to use it here. The point is not whether my changes improve; its whether we should be slanting our policies using labelling and name calling. If there is agreement that we should colour policies that way then that is the community agreement, but heaven help us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Well, aside from maybe the Jimbo quote, I don't see how the other parts are name-calling; and I do think that labeling has a place (in the sense that policies sometimes have to use labels to say "don't do this; don't be like that.") We identify vandals, tenacious editors, and so on as problems to be dealt with in other policies; identifying proponents of fringe theories here as a general category to be watchful of strikes me as reasonable. Obviously, as with any other accusation about user conduct, we'd want people to be cautious about accusing individuals of it without evidence, but it's something we legitimately have to be watchful for and which is therefore worth spelling out. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines apply to all editors. In this instance we identify editors under a criteria that is wider and more nebulous than an identification like vandal, and the criteria for identification is also nebulous and subject to change on the whim of personal opinion and bias. Before we label editors in a policy or guideline we need to make sure the label itself can be applied with consistent accuracy by all editors not just by those who have demonstrated they use the view to create outcasts to their view. Yes. POV labeling. We cannot create labels to tack onto people and then further cement that label by including it in a guideline. Further, labeling people as lunatics and charlatans is name calling and I hope beneath the dignity of people here. Are we professionals or not. We aren't when we call people names because we don't like what they do. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

• Olive, I'm surprised you haven't alerted User:BullRangifer to this discussion. Or have you, and I've missed it? Surely it would be helpful to get his take on it, beyond what can be crammed into edit summaries. It's not like you took it here and left it in the hands of neutral editors, is it; you have continued to post and argue with them, and more than half the words in the discussion are in fact yours. There, I've pinged him. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC).

I left a note on the talk page where he made the reverts here. Since he reverted my changes I assumed he would look at the talk page. And no I did not intentionally leave him out of the discussion. I have continued to expand and comment on my concerns while not reverting to my preferred version of the guideline. In the end it doesn't matter to me what is added to that guideline (in part because it won't make any difference to how people are treated) or I would have reverted to what I consider to be a neutral version. My intent was to explain and expand on clearly what my concerns are. I understand your innuendos and they are unfounded, and I am truly sorry you felt you had to deal with my input this way. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

The diff given at the beginning is really quite deceptive, seeming to show substantial rewording on BullRangifer's part. He actually added only the quote at the end and the change of tense at the beginning. Almost all of what you see in that diff is actually the reversion of Littleolive oil's changes diff. It is this change against a consensus version that hadn't changed since at least August 2012 which needs justification, not BR's relatively minor edits. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not lay blame for the edits on anyone nor was that my intent, but its true I hadn't seen them until today and felt they as a group they were not appropriate words for a guideline. I left a notice on the talk page as notification for any editor including BR interested in a further analysis of those edits. The diff represents my edits not BR's so I'm not sure how the diff is deceptive. Please AGF.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

• WP:NPOV is applicable to all editors, whereas, the section in WP:FRINGE noted above (i.e. "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories") refers to a particular subset of editors... those who invent, promote, or adhere to fringe theories. Now, not everyone who invents, promotes, or adheres to a fringe theory is a "lunatic charlatan", so I would be OK with removing Jimbo's quote. - Location (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Location, I agree that NPOV applies to all editors, but it only applies to the encyclopedia itself, IOW only to articles, not to article talk pages, policies, guidelines, or userspace. Even content in articles need not be neutral. At least that's my understanding.

This is not directly related to this discussion, so if you think this is worth further examination, it might be best to start a new discussion. I would love to hear what other people think there, but not here. We must not derail this discussion. Does that make sense to you? -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

While I still disagree with the wording because of its possible implications, you make a good point which is logical and makes sense when you say, "the section in WP:FRINGE noted above (i.e. "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories") refers to a particular subset of editors.". (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Nice discussion here! I see I missed the party, but I'll leave a couple diffs which show the differences between the contributions/revisions:

• BullRangifer
• Littleolive oil

I'll let all the fine editors here discuss the merits and demerits of each version, and maybe there is some usable good in each version which could be used in a third version, one which is even better. Whatever will improve this guideline is fine with me.

I notice some focus above on this applying to "editors", but we must keep in mind that these fringe people who attempt to misuse Wikipedia are often not regular editors, but driveby promoters and advocates who use the "edit this page" tab. They should not be treated or advised in the same way as trusted editors who know our PAG. That's why my version made this change: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used regularly attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting ..." I think we can recognize this as a common and problematic occurrence which must be discouraged, and that cannot be done with neutral language.

Keep in mind that NPOV does not mean neutral content, but neutral editors editors who edit neutrally. We document all kinds of non-neutral things and biases, using very biased sources, and our articles are often filled with such biased content, and that's how it should be. The important thing is that Wikipedia does not take sides, so the bias is not coming from Wikipedia's editors, but from the sources, and editors must not neutralize what sources say. Censorship is "taking sides"! They must faithfully reproduce the ideas, biases, and spirit of the sources. (I'm working on a new essay on this subject.) -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Then why not let neutral editors like (Littleolive oil (talk) improve the NPOV....?--Aspro (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aspro, I see my wording has led to confusion, so I have tweaked it. Obviously no editor is neutral, neither myself, nor Olive, nor yourself. My edit is at least factual, so I'm going to seek a consensus, and I'll abide by it. Fair enough? -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement in question (i.e. "Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas.") is accurate and neutral. - Location (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the text in this section of the guideline had remained untouched since at least October 2012 (i.e. three years); the first paragraph hadn't been touched since at least October 2009 (ie. six years). Consensus needs to be reached, preferable with discussion on the talk page, before changes are made. - Location (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edited 05:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Location, I agree with you that, because the edit has been contested, we should seek consensus before proceeding. I also agree that this discussion should have been held at the article talk page, but Littleolive obviously chose to use this venue for the discussion, and immediately after starting it here they left a notice there, presumably to direct editors there to come here.

So, where is the best place to discuss, now that the discussion already exists here, and was intended to exist here? Shouldn't we just continue here, rather than have two discussions on the same subject? -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 04:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to form consensus for the inclusion of the wording you propose, the article talk place is the right place. This page is in fact entirely irrelevant for the discussion as NPOV doesnt even apply to policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it was probably inappropriate to bring this discussion here. However, I wanted input from the community as a whole. Both Bull Rangifer and I changed the guideline and are following those changes with discussion, all appropriate actions. The content I can't agree to is the Jimbo quote for the reasons I've given. I don't agree with BR's other changes or the stable version of the guideline, but given BR's reasonable input, and some of the insights above I could support both.(Littleolive oil (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, I understand and agree that community input is valuable. I totally AGF in you and think we can just work toward more input and get some kind of consensus. My edit had two parts, and the quote from Jimbo should be left for later discussion. Right now let's all concentrate on the wording of the first sentence. There has been some good input here, and we can ping or otherwise seek input when we continue this on the guideline's talk page. Does this seem reasonable? -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the Village pump pages, possibly the Policy one WP:VPP, is the best for notifying about a discussion like this but the discussion should take place on the talk page of the fringe theories guideline. The language does seem wrong to me and I would not let the business about it being from three years ago deter there. The Fringe theories noticeboard was a real cesspool then which actively deterred members of its clique from telling anyone on a talk page that the subject being discussed on FTN, and they plotted ways of acting in concert to remove articles. At least they now have a note at the top that they should inform editors that they are being talked about even if they don't put a notice on the talk page of an article being talked about. When I just looked now the discussions seemed fairly okay so I would give the benefit of the doubt and see if you can get a reasonable discussion on the fringe theory guideline talk page. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking it back to the guideline talk page, and with dealing with the first sentence, first.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC))

Agreed. Go for it and I'll get back to you a bit later. Thanks for great collaboration! -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC started. -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 05:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

fringe zoning the editor

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the NPOV banner is a persistent contributor to edit warring across the 'pedia. I've opened a discussion on that at Template_talk:POV#Please_do_not_remove_this_message_until_the_dispute_is_resolved. Rhoark (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is to report the lack of compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy in the BLP article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has not been resolved in the BLP notice board and has been brought up previously here. An entire paragraph with six references in the section “career” (which consists of only two paragraphs!) has been devoted to the questioning of papers by Ariel Fernandez as if they were noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something supported by reliable sources. The paragraph has negative implications, as pointed repeatedly by various editors, including Minor4th, Rubiscous and several others. No breach of ethics has ever been mentioned, let along proven, in regards to the subject. Thus, the paragraph is not providing useful information on the subject’s career or to Wikipedia. It should be mentioned that the subject has published over 350 professional papers, two books as the sole author and holds two patents, according to his online CV, and multiple secondary sources therein. Yet 50% of the discussion of his career in Wikipedia focuses on two papers questioned and his single retraction where no breach of ethics was involved. We may conclude that the Wikipedia BLP is not neutral and that the contents further reveal a nefarious intent to harm the subject. The libel has been repeatedly inserted as indicated in the following diffs, possibly pointing to a hatred driven attack on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=681893308&oldid=681661402 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=682581574&oldid=682001397 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686246039&oldid=686186985 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686248672&oldid=686247309

Thanks much for your prompt attention. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

That's pretty over the top. Two points of context: 1) there's no reason to believe that this IP editor is in fact posting from the "Argentine Natl. Research Council"; it's likely instead that this is a sock of Arifer. And 2) there's no "hatred driven attack", rather a straightforward consulting of reliable sources that cover this subject. I'd suggest that there's a problem of forum shopping here -- but in fact I don't mind terribly that it's been brought to NPOVN, where there's an appreciation that whitewashing at the request of article subjects is not the way NPOV works. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think the article could use some work, and the questioned articles do occupy a place of undue prominence in this biography. I would encourage editors who have time to look for additional biographical information about this person - certainly the guy is not only notable for three articles that have been questioned. If that's the only real biographical infornation about him in reliable sources, then maybe the article should be prodded for deletion.

Wikipedia does have a history and a policy of hearing concerns from article subjects, and the IP is at least bringing the issues to the proper notice boards - rather than edit warring. Minor4th 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor gets no credit for not edit-warring -- because the article is indefinitely semi-protected (as a consequence of previous misbehaviour). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I didnt realize that. I did not look too far into the history of the article. I suggest the IP take some time to gather sources and make proposed edits on the article talk page. I will keep an eye out for proposed edits and work with the IP in improving the article - I just dont have the time or interest to do the research myself. Minor4th 17:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Minor4th, as per your advice and in an effort to get a balanced neutral description of the career of BLP subject Ariel Fernandez, we have included in the Talk page a proposed revised version with appropriate secondary sources for the Career section in the BLP. We most appreciate your help with the editing to ensure that the article complies with the neutral point of view. Our proposed version includes reputable secondary sources.

200.49.228.32 (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Nomoskedasticity, please stop abusing us and deprecating Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Dr. Ariel Fernandez has done more than writing 3 questioned papers. According to the public records, he has published at least 350 papers, wrote two books and holds two patents. As numerous editors have indicated, the BLP on the subject is not in compliance with the neutrality tone that must prevail at Wikipedia. Please stop your hate-driven attack on the subject! The National Research Council of Argentina has regional centers throughout the country and Dr. Fernandez, who resides in Basel (Schweiz), is probably unaware that you are defaming him by abusing the Wikipedia platform. He certainly has the right to defend himself but has not done so as far as we can tell. We don´t owe you any explanation, yet we feel we need to tell you to please stop attacking everybody who stands up for Dr. Fernandez.190.97.61.112 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Dr. Fernandez has published 350 papers, two books and is an inventor on two patents with several secondary sources and this article has chosen instead to focus on 3 questioned papers where no wrongdoing has been proven. Thus, it is putting undue weight on negative content, portraying the doctor in an intended negative light. The article is, in my view, neither neutral nor balanced. 198.30.200.16 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)OSU

I was asked to help copyedit Faisalabad but it reads more like a page from a tourism brochure instead of an encyclopedic article. For example, the section Cuisine is off the charts. Much of the article lacks RS because there simply aren't any so we're also dealing with OR. I don't want to provoke any edit wars but at the same time, I believe the article has potential to be a GA if we can get it compliant with NPOV. I am open to suggestions. Atsme^📞📧 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If parts break our policy, can't we remove these parts? The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 14:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may be of interest to the readers of this board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion#effect_on_conservation_RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Read the third paragraph (the last one) of the lead section. The paragraph is giving undue weight to science in an article that is not about science. I tried to at least add qualifiers like "in a scientific way" [1] and "according to science"[2] but both times I've been reverted. I came here to request someone to remove excessive bias, and overall, tone down that section, if appropriate. Cheers, Outedexits (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"in an article that is not about science" The article is about a subject relevant to science. In fact, one of the sections of the article is related to the scientific views on the topic precisely because many sources talk about that connection. What you seem to be doing is to try make scientific evidence etc sound like "just another opinion". Second Quantization (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

yes, that's quite plain. The third paragraph is entirely appropriate, I'd say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, due weight dictates that the best sources and best evidence be given the most weight. The balance should not be level between unequal content. Scientific fact and opinion weigh more than unscientific speculation and fringe theories, so they get the most weight. Articles about pseudoscience and fringe theories must always make it clear that the scientific POV is the best one. We do that by letting the sources speak for themselves. That's what they say. -- ((u|BullRangifer)) {Talk} 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph seems to be a concise, accurate summary of the relevant section of the article body, and necessary in order to not give undue weight to fringe theories. Adrian^[232] (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Too much science??? You can't give science undue weight. That's not how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Does the section "Proposed arrangements" violate weight and is it relevant to Commonwealth realm?

A Commonwealth Realm is a member of the Commonwealth that shares the British monarch as head of state. This section discusses a proposal to provide greater integration between the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. While these four countries are Commonwealth realms, the reasons for greater integration appear to be the countries' similarities, rather than sharing the crown. There is no proposal to include the other non-white Commonwealth Realms or any recommendation that the four countries could only belong if they agreed to retain the monarchy. (Both Australia and NZ are considering severing ties with the monarchy.)

Furthermore, the "United Commonwealth Society" has received no coverage at all in reliable sources. The source used in the article is its web page.

TFD (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

TBH, this is the first I've every heard of United Commonwealth Society or their goals. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Er, yes. Echoing GoodDay's observation: I've never heard of them (until now). In the context, WP:UNDUE at best. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I have no idea what this United Commonwealth Society is, and am in agreement it seems fringe. However, looking back I do remember reading about a movement in the CBC, although re-reading it, it speaks about the "Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organization" instead, which would explain why I've never heard of the "UCS". The petition seems to have gathered somewhere around 100,000 signatures. That being said, being covered by state media and receiving 100,000 signed supporters does not mean it is mainstream. It does seem that the core idea however, of a much better integrated "CANZUK", is not new nor is it fringe. For example, former media baron Conrad Black has often spoken of the benefits of closer integration between the 'principal Commonwealth players'. Whether it deserves to be covered at this juncture or not however, is more of a policy decision. If someone wanted to spend the time or effort they may find a great deal more sources dating back further than 2012 perhaps. If such a decision is pursued however, I suggest it be focused on the core idea of closer CANZUK integration, and not on any one random (and largely unknown) single organization. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Trackratte. While a projected theoretical state may warrant its own name space article (based on solid research), one minor offshoot group-come-single-variant on an historical theme is definitely undue in context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing this dispute was here. User:Miesianiacal has continued to maintain that UCS is notable in Commonwealth_realm#Proposed_arrangements. He provides no reason other than it exists. Or so I take his remarks to mean. See Talk:Commonwealth_realm#On_the_United_Commonwealth_Society. Juan Riley (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"Is notable"? Do stop being disingenuous; you omitted the important fact that I have said repeatedly the organisation is not very notable and doesn't deserve any more coverage in the article than it already has. (In fact, it could well do with less, primarily by eliminating the tiny separate section for the UCS and CANZUK free trade idea and merging it into another existing section.) Since you were playing with straw men and being abrasive, I suggested you pursue dispute resolution. I hope you do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have been unable to access the UCS website. But a 2005 press release says it includes "The United Commonwealth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Realm of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of British West Florida, Independent Long Island and all territories pertaining to them." The Hon. Most Rev. Dr. Cesidio Tallini was head of Independent Long Island,[3] while the Dominion of British West Florida was headed by Robert VII, Duke of Florida, Lord of St. George, GSB, Her Majesty's Governor­ General in and for the Dominion of British West Florida.[4]

The CFMO seems to be separate and currently claims 250,000 people have signed their petition. I do not think that the scant coverage they have received warrants mention and note that if it did it would not belong in the article because they say nothing about Commonwealth Realms or about the monarchy.

TFD (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty far out there. I'd like to see if the UCS website comes back up or not. trackratte (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

GSB stands for Grand Commander of the Order of Barnabas, the Dominion of West Florida order of chivalry. Current knights include HRM King Christopher I of Vikesland and Grand Duke Eric I of the Grand Duchy of Elsanor. Bringing this into the article makes the Commonwealth Realms seem like something out of the Game of Thrones. TFD (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Trackratte: Notability is I think the first criterion. This is a negative evidence criterion, i.e., nothing ever made UCS notable. Fringe on the other hand is a secondary issue. Though it is a positive evidence one: positive and amusing evidence. If you wish to waffle then please do. Don't blame me if I am amused. Juan Riley (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why you've tagged me, and to what you're responding to. I'm not an advocate in this debate. And you comment "if you wish to waffle then please do" is, I imagine, an attempt to bait me into an argument I'm not even part of? I think your energies would be better focused on improving the project through cooperative teamwork as opposed to actively trying to negatively engage with other editors. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough I am not argumentative. Cheerio. Juan Riley (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And let us all wait for UCS's site to come back up. Perhaps there will be something on their site which convences us. (PS I am sarcastic though.)Juan Riley (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a fringe group which has had almost zero third-party coverage for itself or its views. Giving prominence, however briefly, to its views, cited to its own site, is a rather obvious breach of both WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE, as well as of the consensus on the page. I can't see that the two (?) editors still pushing it are being anything other than simply obtuse or wilfully disruptive, given the edit-warring and the amount of talk page time wasted on something to which the answer is simple and obvious. N-HH talk/edits 17:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The above comments are enough to show there is no need to "wait for UCS's site to come back up". So far nothing has been produced to warrant any mention of this in the article, even AGF. Meantime, quarrelsome BRD-ing is not sufficient to let this stay.[5] Qexigator (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

All these remarks are about non-reliable sources that are related to something other than the UCS or have used the UCS name. But, none of it reflects what's actually on the UCS's website. This is all one giant red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, they appear to be self-published and and there are no third party RS to indicate any form of notability. Whether the site comes back up or not, it's irrelevant whether there are notable individuals involved per WP:INHERITORG (despite the fact that the policy relates to a name space article, it's applicable to having a subheader in an article). The organisation, and its views, are definitely a red herring shoehorned into the article (now that's one disgusting mixed metaphor). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me summarize my take: we have one defender of UCS (well he does keep insisting he doesn't..but), one waffler, and everyone else wonders WTF?! Juan Riley (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of the sacred, fond and everlasting memory of sweet poor little late Fanny Adams, the "United Commonwealth Society", so-called, are actually just a one-man nonsense [6]; which are in fact different, separate and distinct from the "Commonwealth Freedom-of-Movement Organisation", so-called, but which are however just another one-man nonsense [7]. User:Miesianiacal is really "not quite up to it", isn't he?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@JuanRiley and Urquhartnite: Please note that this is the NPOVN, not the bitching noticeboard. You've had other editors weighing in on the query AGF. No one actually wants to know about personal, non-collegial baggage you're carrying with you. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have come across what appears to be a series of articles and article sections related to various Islamic charities that, at first blush, are trying to weave a narrative of "ZOMG HAMAS TERRORIST PUPPETS"! It appears, at least to my initial skim, an organized attempt to add undue weight/build coatracks (I came across this while following up on what looked like bog-standard commercial real estate listings-disguised-as-articles (Westgate House, Crown House Business Centre) but seem instead to be WP:COATRACKS for "ZOMG NESTS OF HAMAS TERRORISTS!"). The ones I've come across include:

• Human Appeal International
• Union of Good ‎
• Al Hiwar ‎
• International HIV Fund ‎
• Emirates Centre for Human Rights ‎
• Islamic Help ‎
• Centre for Strategic and Diplomatic Studies ‎
• ICFR, Ltd.
• Muslim Charities Forum
• Qatar Charity

The editors include

• Fact Checkmater (talk · contribs)
• 91.233.116.87 (talk · contribs)
• 166.184.167.208 (talk · contribs)

This is over my head -- and beyond my interests, generally -- but perhaps some editors experienced in these areas should take a look at this. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The article on Jehovah's Witnesses uses Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines (shortened for Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc). It uses "Watch Tower Society teach", "Watch Tower Society publications teach", "Watch Tower Society policy is that" and so on. FYI Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc is the corporation in US to which many of Jehovah's Witness' publications copyright belong to. Some copyrights belong to Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. and presumably other corporations around the world. Secular sources sometimes use Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines but its not accurate anymore, since 2000, all corporations are completely independent of religions Governing Body (spiritual leaders). Non-profit corporations are used by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world for administration, publishing and for legal defense. I opposed using corporation names when describing doctrines and policies of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe it was stemmed out of the fact that some ex-JWs editors prefer that wording to support alleged authoritative structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. (scholars dispute that claim). I felt its an NPOV issue. My reasons are below

• A corporation is not the source of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It's the Bible and its interpretation by governing body. (doesn't matter if its published or copyrighted by one or more corporation)
• There are multiple independent corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses with the words "Watchtower Society" around the world (Its ambiguous)
• Some teachings are disseminated orally in conventions (later with an explanation in one of the publications from Governing Body copyrighted by Watch Tower Society or another corporation)
• Jehovah's Witnesses use other independent corporations without the words "Watch Tower" to copyright its publications. (example Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc)
• Using "Jehovah's Witness publications say" or "Jehovah's Witnesses policy" or "Governing Body teach" etc is accurate and neutral when describing official teachings
• Existing policy say so, but its interpretation is disputed

I recommend to only refer to corporations when describing its history, legal aspects, publishing and administration. And not to use it when describing doctrines or church policy. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#RfC: Jehovah's Witnesses vs Watchtower Society. I also notified this thread in the current discussion page. (An Rfc is raised, only one involved editor commented so far) Roller958 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Roller958, who is a Jehovah's Witness, has been pressing the point for some time that the term "Watch Tower Society" in the article is being used to imply JWs are "a bunch of uneducated ignorant people ... controlled by a corporation called WTS". I have provided many examples on the talk page of widespread and longstanding usage of that term by authors of academic and mainstream works in referring to the umbrella organisation that issues doctrine and policy for the religion and administers and directs its activities globally. Sources continue to use that term without any negative connotation. Apart from Roller958, I am not aware of any suggestion that that term has a pejorative meaning. At the talk page he is resorting to cherry-picking to support his weak and novel argument. BlackCab (TALK) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Like you said I can also say, BlackCab, an ex-Member, has been writing in the past about alleged mind-control techniques used by his former religion and its authoritative and corporate style. That's not relevant. The secular sources you added is not accurate anymore, since Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc is a corporation without any Governing Body members as its officers. Before the year 2000 it used to be. Why are you insisting on this when its clear that the source of doctrine is Bible and Governing Body? Does it have anything to do with alleged and disputed claims of Authoritative structure? It's not important which publishing company prints doctrine, or owns copyright its important who writes the doctrine. We attribute as such. You just realized that after days of discussion all your arguments has been weakened. Roller958 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You have raised this here as a POV issue. There is in fact no point of view (implicit or explicit) in the usage of the name of the Watch Tower Society. BlackCab (TALK) 23:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a POV. You push the use of "Watch Tower Soceity" despite my clear explanation and existing guidelines that its not accurate and its historical. Use "Governing Body teach", "Jehovah's Witness publications teach" etc. --Roller958 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your belief is that the term "is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS." [8] I am interested in seeing if other editors sense that same implication. BlackCab (TALK) 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on this then? What's your attachment to use Watch Tower Society when its inaccurate and ambiguous when describing doctrines? It is simple and clear to say "Jehovah's Witness publications", since Watchtower Society is not the sole copyright owner of all Jehovah's Witness publication nor it is the leadership. I also like to see what independent editors say.--Roller958 (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Roller958 has already been told that it would be okay to change some instances for variety of presentation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society of Pennyslvania (not "Watchtower") is both the parent corporation^[1] of other corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is the source for where JW doctrines are to be found.^[2][3] The article is very clear in indicating that it is the Governing Body that establishes JW doctrines, but the sources that can be cited in the article are from the Watch Tower Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The guideline (not a policy) at the JW WikiProject page refers to statements about those who lead or who set doctrine (and I already recommended a change for the one instance in the article where this is currently an issue). It does not refer to properly indicating where the doctrines are presented. The guideline does not trump actual policies about citing sources. Watch Tower Society publications are authored anonymously, and it would be inappropriate to present those sources as statements of the Governing Body.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I highly question if parent religious corporation does mean they are legally binding. Its simply suggesting that other corporations were created in a similar line, with the similar name with the original corporation in Pennsylvania. They are managed independently and run independently. For example corporation charter of IBSA, of Watch Tower Society UK, of Watch Tower Society of Australia all clearly shows they are managed by Jehovah's Witnesses in respective countries. Regardless my other reasons above stand clear. Corporation is separate from Governing Body (spiritual leadership). Therefore "Jehovah's Witness publications" is accurate. --Roller958 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

But back to why we are here: what is the point of view being presented to which you object? BlackCab (TALK) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You simply keep asking. Insisting on using Watch Tower Soceity when its not necessary suggest a corporation that control doctrines is the POV. Replace that with "Jehovah's Witness publications or policy or teachings". --Roller958 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That's just a content dispute. You should probably take a moment to read WP:NPOV BlackCab (TALK) 04:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Watchtower publications are for all means and purposes the way that Witnesses are confronted with the official teachings of their faith and with the interpretations of the Governing Body. It is an entirely permissible source for statements about official doctrine. However whenever there are questions of interpretation we should use academic secondary sources. Witnesses themselves have a series of jargon terms to refer to the entity that is the Governing Body/Watchtower Society - among them "the faithful and discreet slave" (or just "the slave" for short), "the organization", "Jehovah;s organization", "the society", etc. These terms and "the governing body" are used fairly indiscriminately to refer to the authority that provides authorized doctrine to the congregations. In my experience, the phrase "the Watchtower Society" is pretty much only used when referring specifically to the publishing house or the legal entity that owns property - not when referring to the source of authorized doctrine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The POV-disputation tag should be removed from this article being removed because:

1) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 2) The editor who inserted the tag has never explained his reasons on the talk page. 3) The tag has been on the page for almost two years. 4) There discussion about the tag has been dormant for these same two years.

This appears to be a 'drive-by' tag that was put by an editor who *apparently* believes that Qawukji's German MIlitary Service should not be mentioned in the article. It is difficult to determine if this is actually his objection, however, since he does not explain his reasoning or specific objections. Other editors have pointed out that peer-reviewed reliable sources that are cited in the article show that Qawukji was given a rank equivalent to a Colonel in the German Wehrmacht (army) during WWII, lived in Berlin during the War and was very active in contributing to Nazi propaganda efforts, was involved in the Nazi military training (in Greece) of Arab troops. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#German_Military_Service

The talk page indicates that the editor objects to including that information because he is pushing a POV that portrays Qawuqji as a heroic figure. Even this motivation is not clear, however, since the editor (as noted above) does not explain his reasoning.

Do we have a consensus to remove this POV-disputation tag?

Ronreisman (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Per Template:POV#When_to_remove, and as there has been no discussion for almost a year, we don't need consensus. I have removed the template. KSFT^C 23:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Which version of the List of lieutenant governors of Ontario is preferable?

Version 1 provides a list with dates and names of each lieutenant governor (or equivalent) of Upper Canada (1791-1841), Canada West (1841-1867) and Ontario (1867-present) and their portraits where available.

Version 2 provides the same information and:

i. Groups lieutenant governors under the reigns of British monarchs: George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II.

ii. Numbers lieutenant governors from 1791, and for Upper Canada, Canada West and Ontario. (For example, Henry William Stisted (1867-1868) is shown as the 11th lieutenant governor and the 1st lieutenant governor of the new province of Ontario.)

iii. Provides a Union Jack or coat of arms of Ontario where portraits are unavailable.

I think that Two is cluttered. Henry Alexander Bruce for example is listed three times, since George VI, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all reigned during his term. While technically lieutenant governors represent the monarch, they are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Canadian prime minister and act on the advice of the provincial premier. Their terms (usually 5 years) continue regardless of changes in monarch, governor general, prime minister or premier. Few have any contact with the monarch. The numbering is confusing. In Upper Canada, the governor of Canada (who resided in Lower Canada) often was also lieutenant governor and appointed an acting governor for Upper Canada, while in cases of the absence of a lieutenant governor, his functions were carried out by an administrator. Canada West was not a province, but part of the united Province of Canada, hence the governors listed were governors of the united province.

The use of the Union Jack and the Ontario coat of arms (which was awarded in 1868) is confusing. Why not use the British coat of arms and the Ontario flag instead? Why use a British symbol, when the governor's authority did not extend beyond the province?

TFD (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this qualifies as an NPOV issue. But, anyway, I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way, though I do lean more toward keeping the monarchs, since those markers give the reader a better sense of era. My main concern is that whatever is decided for List of lieutenant governors of Ontario is applied to the nine other lists of Canadian lieutenant governors, since they're presently all consistent in look and format and should remain so. I said as much in my last edit summary at List of Lieutenant Governors of Ontario. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I chose this noticeboard as the most relevant since it is about a content issue. Lists of governors of U.S. states are not broken down by era except for a division between those before and after 1776. TFD (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a dispute centered around this diff. After a claim that the source was not reliable (fairly clear consensus here that it is in fact a reliable source), those opposing the content have now said that it is undue weight to include this line. Is it undue weight to have a single sentence sourced to a historian holding an endowed chair at the University of Chicago writing in a peer-reviewed journal that is published by a well respected academic oriented press that is in response to remarks made by the subject of the article? The user arguing against it has claimed that because only one person has written this response it is undue weight and it does not belong on Wikipedia, certainly not on a BLP. I'm requesting outside views on whether or not including this sentence violates WP:NPOV specifically WP:WEIGHT. nableezy - 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, the journal in question is one dealing with "religious ethics" and the historian is a historian of Islamic literature. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The credentials of the author and journal seem entirely suited to the claims. The fact that the author is one person is irrelevant, unless he can be shown to be one person outside a much stronger scholarly consensus dismissing him. Rhoark (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem (and I keep saying this because not a lot of people understand it) is that just because a source is reliable doesn't automatically make it notable. (Use the phrases "worth mentioning" and "undue weight" if you are confused by word usage here). Something needs to be addressed in the proportion that the reliable sources in the whole world mention it. Finding a source that agrees with you but is otherwise forgotten is not how to edit Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

But WP:N specifically says Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I'm here specifically asking about undue weight, which actually is relevant to article content, unlike "notability". nableezy - 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are edit wars, 3rr issues, and NPOV disputes over both Leon Uris and one of his novels, Exodus. The subject of the disputes is identical for both, with most of the edits made over a single day.

Re Leon Uris

Three new editors to the article have converged as a tag team to push off-topic and inflammatory commentary about one of his historical novels, Exodus. The bio mentions the book as but one many, yet material being pushed consists of non-neutral critiques about some cherry-picked details from the book, a historical novel. Some of the factoids were clipped from an opinion piece about a recent conflict. See: source and another from Journal of Palestine Studies.

The material has been added to Uris's "Life and career" section and is tacked on as a complete digression into trivia from the novel, effectively producing a "hatchet job" on the bio. from what appear to be three single-topic trolls. There are no reviews about any of his books in the bio. By selectively searching and clipping inflammatory facts from his fiction novels, they intend to defame and smear his bio by using innuendo to mislead readers.

1. diff, by User:Trinacrialucente, admitting that the same material is also used in the book article;
2. diff, gives rationale admits it's from specific critiques;
3. diff, again calls it a critique;
4. diff by another editor warning User:Trinacrialucente off the article;
5. diff by another new editor, User:Huldra 1-minute later reverting;
6. diff, explains that the critique-pushing editors are adding non-neutral and irrelevant critiques about the book using personal opinion pieces as sources;
7. diff, reverted again
8. diff, restores material, explaining that it came from a book review [and] does not need to be "neutral". "It is also found on Exodus article."
9. diff by another new editor to the article, User:Zero0000, inserting back all disputed material.

Re Exodus novel

A section called "Criticism" is tagged as violating NPOV guidelines. There are no book reviews, and the section alone violates a number of guidelines which were explained in its talk page. As with the author's bio, both User:Huldra and User:Trinacrialucente have edit warred to keep the non-neutral POV sourced material, which is the exact same material they have pushed onto the bio.

See recent diff, claiming consensus.
--Light show (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article Exodus (Uris novel), which I have never edited, is in a terrible state, but I'll confine my comments to Leon Uris. There has been no attempt to discuss the issue on the article talk page, but instead Light show comes here calling other editors a tag-team intent on misleading readers, and even "trolls". It is a serious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Note that the disputed material amounts to three sentences with citations, noting correctly that two of Uris' books upset a lot of people. It is a plain fact. Adding alternative opinions would of course be fine, but no rule-based reason for deleting the material has been provided. Light show seems to think that critiques are not allowed, but that is a misunderstanding of policy. Critiques are allowed if they are reliably sourced and notable, and are assumed to be non-neutral; that's why we present them as attributed opinions rather than as facts. Zero^talk 04:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I almost don't want to comment as I wouldn't want it to be misconstrued as actually validating these bizarre accusations. Apparently multiple parties building consensus and disagreeing with rash undo edits = "tag teaming". This is beyond ridiculous.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I never said or implied that "critiques are not allowed," or that they had to be neutral (See the book's talk page). Book reviews should be added to the book's article, assuming they don't blatantly violate undue. --Light show (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Light show: you have edit-warred against several users on Leon Uris...and you have ever tried to remove long-term "criticism"-section on Exodus (Uris novel) (!) These are criticism from notable people, reported in WP:RS-sources. (Yes: Journal of Palestine Studies is WP:RS) Sorry, but you have no case here. (Btw, Exodus (Uris novel) is clearly under ARBPIA, one could argue that Leon Uris is, too.) Huldra (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You got it spɹɐʍʞɔɐq, Huldra. You should explain why you felt compelled to join an ongoing edit war between two other editors. That was before I made any edits. Your first and only edit to Leon Uris was to revert someone else's edit immediately after they made it (see your edit). You did that without even a rationale! Essentially you had nothing to say but simply felt like joining the quarrel. That's an example of edit warring. --Light show (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have the record number of reverts in Leon Uris it is a bit rich for you to accuse other people of edit-warring. Anyway this is not a behavior noticeboard. If you think someone is behaving badly, report them at WP:ANI or similar. I advise you read WP:BOOMERANG first, as that is the likely result. As to the content, I am still waiting for you to explain why the material you don't like is inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with "non-neutral POV sourced material" if it consists of notable attributed opinions. Zero^talk 13:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see; when I see a disagreement between two editors on an article, I should stay out of it, as that article now "belongs" to them? That is a new Wikipedia-rule, I believe...and one rule I promise I will utterly ignore. The crux of the matter was an editor removed well-sources info, under a rather misleading edit-line; I undid it. Please don´t try to make Leon Uris less controversial than he was; don´t white-wash him. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Which section should go first, the section summarizing the four canonical Gospels, or the section summarizing historical views? RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure and don't have sections like the Gospels section on the WP page. So maybe the historical section should go first. On the other hand, maybe we should start with the Bible section, as we do for WP pages for Moses, Abraham, and King David. The editor who I'm in a conflict with is StAnselm. I don't know how to use ((subst:NPOVN-notice)). Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Start with the history, but get rid of the institutional bias. Even Calling him a historical figure, for example, is a bias. We need to get rid of anything that says he's an infallible, real-life person, and ditto for other Bible articles. Or have some balance, real sources. Will never happen because of Western society being so Christianity-based, but what we *should* do is easy. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Can you also explain your reasoning that we should start with history, or offer good evidence in that direction? Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The right way to go with this is a short section explaining the context, then a summary of the gospel narrative, and finally the modern historical analysis of the whole thing. An article about Jesus needs to get to what he is claimed to have done right off, because that, after all, is the main reason he is of interest. It makes no sense to go to historians/theologians/cranks talking about how much to believe of the story before the story itself is outlined.

This is shouldn't be a POV issue in the first place; it's a simple matter of rhetoric, of how to write about something— anything. Present the claims first; then talk about them. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mangoe. Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither section should be separate or before the other. The division is an internal POV fork. The historical and scriptural evidence should be integrated into a single account. First, the range of sources (canonical scripture, non-canonical scripture, and historical documents) should be discussed together. Then, each point of the chronology should be described according to all perspectives. Some details from the gospel account may be best moved down to the "Christian views" section. The "Christ myth" section, as a minority view in the scholarship, should move down under "other views". Rhoark (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, I can agree with this, but it's impractical. There are plenty of editors on the Jesus page who will not abide losing the Gospels section as it is. Even though it's a violation of WP:STRUCTURE, I am not advocating changing it. Just moving it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Two editors have each removed the POV tag, in violation of good editing practices. Is there an editor here who might like to explain that you can't remove a POV tag just because you think you should? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

POVs states that a POV tag can be removed if: "(1) There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. (2) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. (3) In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." Your tag violates the first two. Your the only one that thinks that there is a POV issue. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And why did you remove the Undue Weight tag? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

In the article of Chai Vang, WilliamThweatt made misleading edits and claims that there is only one confrontation which the entire confrontation and shooting occurred at the tree-stand which is false. Not only that, it has a biased tone. [9]

For example of the biased tone, in the changes made by William, he wrote, " At that point five of the hunters from the cabin who had heard the radio message arrived at the tree stand where Vang was found. According to testimony of one witness, Lauren Hesebeck who is also a surviving victim, Robert Crotteau, the other co-owner, was angry at the trespasser and angrily threatened to report him to wardens of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for trespassing. After being given directions to public land, Vang started moving towards a trail through a forested area of the property."

It's partially true that Crotteau angrily threatened to report Vang to the DNR however it wasn't just the only thing Crotteau did. It didn't include that Crotteau used profanities and threats made by Crotteau, first to Vang. Then near the end, that's when he threatened to report Vang to the DNR. Now about there being only one confrontation according to WilliamThweatt, there was two. One with Willers (one of the victims) and Vang alone by the tree-stand where Willers spotted Vang and confronted him, telling Vang to leave and giving him directions to public land. The second with Crotteau and 4 others riding on ATV's, pursing Vang as he walked down a trail to confront him. [10][11][12][13] You can also see the victim's testimony which proves my point that there was 2 confrontations, with the second confrontation resulting because the victims got on ATV's and pursued the shooter.[14] Watch from 21:00 minute on-wards. The court transcript of the case also proves my statement, contradicting WilliamThweatt's statement that there was only one confrontation and that the victims didn't pursue.Lance616168 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I smell a WP:BOOMERANG coming. If you want the quintessential example of a biased editor, the OP is it. This WP:SPA (Lance616168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has an obvious agenda of making excuses for a convicted mass murderer and victim blaming as seen by just a few of his comments here, here, here and especially here. In an effort to incorporate the sources he mentioned on the talk page, the recent edits I've made are all supported with multiple citations to those very sources. His narrative and conception of events is not supported AT ALL by the preponderance of reliable sources. I have tried to patiently explain on the talk page but he is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. This board isn't the venue for a content dispute (so I won't get into explaining why he's wrong above; it's all on the article talk page anyway) nor is this an article NPOV issue, the only problem is convincing Lance that Wikipedia isn't a forum for WP:Righting Great Wrongs.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't have an agenda. I just said it how i saw it. Whether or not i have an agenda has no relevance to the issue of having misleading information in this article made by WilliamThweatt which is the reason why this is on the NPOV noticeboard. It is misleading and spreads ignorance. The correct version of events may not have the preponderance of sources but it is SUPPORTED by the court transcripts of the case itself and the video recordings of the victim's testimonies which is the most POWERFUL reliable source of all which heavily outweighs the majority of misleading articles. Which is why William has not even tried to refute the supporting sources of the court transcript and the video recordings contained in the documentary. I do find it unusual and suspicious that the many articles containing the information of the actual version of events has been taken off the web. Such as the articles that has all the victim's testimonies summaries written by Chicago Tribune ect. However ultimately the video recording of the victim's testimonies just contradicts William's conception of events which you can all take a look for yourself [15]. Watch from 21:20 onward. I wonder which is more RELIABLE. The preponderance of misleading sources or the court transcript and the video recording containing the victim's testimonies which both proves my case? This article is also bias which many others feel as well on the talk page. Why isn't there details included that one of the victims made threats and used profanities against Vang and another blocked Vang from leaving when he attempted to leave. Where is the retrospective views on this case? Where is the details containing how the defense tried to handle the case instead of the information about the prosecution? Where is the information containing the many reactions by the Hmong & Caucasian communities instead of just writing one reaction which was just "educating" Hmong hunters to not trespass. A good information to put in the reaction would be Vang's home being burned down or White supremacists group rallying and passing out flyers in Minnesota. These are significant events that is relevant and happened because of the shooting.Lance616168 (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to the question of "which is more reliable? Court transcripts and witness testimonies, or 'the preponderance of sources'?" The clear answer to that question is detailed in the policies, WP:Verifiability and WP:BLPPRIMARY, while WP:EXCEPTIONAL has some influence in this ongoing dispute. I quote from WP:BLPPRIMARY:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.{Note 4:Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources}^{(emphasis added)}

So ... no, you cannot use the trial transcript; no, you cannot cite the trial transcript unless a reliable secondary source is discussing the transcript. Please read the policy on Biographies of Living People. Once you have done that, then the discussion can actually be had about which sources say what, and if it is applicable to cite the court transcript. I have made similar comments to Lance616168,^[1] as has WilliamThweatt,^[2] about the WP:BLP policy but Lance has apparently not looked at the policy page based on their continued assertions that Wiki should use the court transcripts instead of the "preponderance of sources".

Also, in regards to the above statement from Lance: "Whether or not i have an agenda has no relevance to the issue ..." Having an agenda, or general bias, actually does have relevance to the issue at hand. See WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI, and if you do have some sort of a bias then it might be best to not edit on those articles that will cause your edits to be biased. While I do not think you have a COI, you do seem to be remarkably attached to having this article become "neutral" by balancing the viewpoints, rather than the source's due weight.

A note for the other editors; I have been involved in the dispute between the parties for some time but I did not see this post come to the NPOV noticeboard until today, and only then because I wanted to see if there was anything I could help with that had come up on the board ... apparently there is. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This looks like just a content dispute. I reverted the most recent revert because of a spelling error and not seeing a huge difference between versions. What Lance616168 says makes sense, provided we have reliable sources for it. Work on the talk page, please. DreamGuy (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I have to respectfully disagree. Having tried to work with Lance to get them to improve the article using Wiki's policies, guidelines and practices, and now seeing such a blatant disregard for BLP policy which has been recommended to them at least twice now on this article's talk page, this needs to be escalated into another dispute resolution service. I will leave a message on the associated WikiProjects, to request some input, but this may need to be taken to DRN or MedCom to be settled between the users. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read the two comments, and I see that the people making them have a strange idea of how Wikipedia works. Your comment seems to cherry pick reliable sources to say what you want. The other is massive WP:OWN problems. On top of that, I had an I revert with disparaging comments full of typos and misreading my edit to suggest I had typos when it was the version I removed. I think this is civility war editing (what's the link? forget that one), pure and simple, and I think the people editing are so biased they don't even see their bias. In any case, if you think this should go higher, it might boomerang on you, because you sure have not made the case that *he* needs to be blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DreamGuy, I never said that Lance616168 should be blocked, however an article or topic-ban may be needed until they learn how to work within the WP:BLP policy. What I said was "this needs to be escalated into another dispute resolution service"; please note that this may or may not include WP:ANI and blocks - indeed the dispute could to an WP:RfC, to WP:DRN, to WP:MedCom, etc, for resolution.

May I ask for clarification of how "[my] comment seems to cherry pick reliable sources to say what you want" when I made no such comment? I commented on the reliability of proposed sources, not the information contained within the proposed sources' articles. So this is very confusing for me. The sources were from the Beloit Daily News and the Cumberland Advocate, no discussion about the specific articles - only the sources.

I also fail to see how this would boomerang on me since I had been trying to help Lance and WilliamThweatt work cooperatively, but left the growing dispute because of real-world constraints on my time affecting my ability to participate as an informal mediator between the two users, as well as a general lack of interest on my part towards the dispute and article.

I would certainly agree with the dispute entering into an uncivil^{(here's the link DreamGuy)} and battle-like dispute, rather than a simple content dispute. So the dispute may need to go to ANI or MedCom instead of to RfC or DRN, so that it may be resolved in whatever way the cookie crumbles. The revert was certainly a problem, and is a symptom of the dispute which needs resolving.

For now, I will not message the WikiProjects associated since the dispute has ostensibly calmed down now that it has been posted here and we may be able to have productive discussions to resolve the content dispute (and hopefully the behavioural problems). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Questioning the Beloit Daily News that says something you don't like while letting other sources you like through is definitely cherry picking. It's too bad you don't see that. You have a stranglehold on the article and make it say what you want.It's quite obvious why you'll back off: why upset the cart when you have your way? The behavioral problems you mention are still ongoing. Civil POV-pushing wins again.DreamGuy (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell if you are being serious here or not DreamGuy, or if you are simply making assumptions about actions, though it might help if you actually stated to whom your comments are aimed (at the moment I am making the presumption you refer to me). Do you see me making any edits to the Chai Vang article? Have I ever made any edits to the article? No, I haven't, so I fail to see why you accuse me of POV-pushing, of having "a stranglehold on the article and mak[ing] it say what [I] want", nor of why you state that I "[let] other sources [I] like through". Hell, I first got involved because the two editors above were already engaged in a content dispute about POV-pushing and sources. And as I said above, I stopped responding because I had real-world problems that greatly limited my time spent on Wiki and I felt that the dispute was going nowhere, so I stopped looking at most of the posts until I was specifically mentioned and until I noticed this post. To-date, my comments have been:

• First edit: Requesting both users calm down and stop the policy/guideline lawyering, and for Lance616168 to use an ((Edit request))-based model since they were having some difficulty with spelling, grammar and the like.
• Second edit: Offering advice on what is a reliable source, and that forums are not generally considered RS's; and offering help with citing sources to Lance616168.
• Third edit: Indenting comments in the discussion, and asking Lance616168 to provide a specific edit-change rather than a general "commenting about change".
• Fourth edit: Providing feedback on Lance616168's then-recent edits per their own request on November 15, 2015.
• Fifth edit:Fixing code formatting of my previous (fourth) edit.
• Sixth edit: Suggesting both Lance616168 and WilliamThweatt have another look at the WP:No Personal Attacks guideline, to return the dispute to a content-based, rather than editor-based, dispute.
• Seventh, and my latest, edit: Indent and code fixing; I gave feedback on the sources that Lance616168 proposed to use with their proposed changes. No comment on the content of the articles, only commented on the newspapers that released the articles as sources.

So, is there actually any "Civil POV-pushing" going on from me? From my view of things - no, there isn't since I have been trying to help Lance with their edits, but I would love to hear why you think there is. I would appreciate the clarification instead of a snide "It's too bad you don't see that". POV-pushing is likely coming from both editors, but I can no longer be bothered trying to help either of them resolve their dispute; I have moved on to other articles. I would, however, like to see this dispute be resolved amicably by the parties but I fail to see how that can happen at this stage without some "brow-beating"/"strong-arming" from either an RfC to gain consensus for the edits of either users (or a compromise thereof), or from ANI or MedCom. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this qualifies as NPOV, but I was just reading the page on Originalism, and although it gives both sides representation, overall it sounds like two politicians giving speeches and trying to win voters to their side. The tone (after the first part, anyway) seems way too passionate and personally involved, and although the arguments are intelligently written, they don't sound like something you would read in an encyclopedia. They sound more like something you'd read on the editorials page of a newspaper. Clearly, at least two editors who feel strongly on the debate wrote it, with the intent of each proving their part "right". Now, since both sides give their arguments, does it still qualify as NPOV? It isn't totally biased towards either side, but it's definitely not "neutral" in tone. I don't mind the information presented, I just think it is presented is in the wrong way..45Colt 04:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you and also note that most of the article is unsourced original research. For example, "Arguments favoring originalism" says "Originalism helps ensure predictability...." Possibly it does, but it requires a source, and a reliable source would evaluate the accuracy of the claim and the its value. In another section, it references Oliver Wendell Holmes in defense of originalism, yet he wrote before the modern concept was developed and we would therefore need a secondary source that connects his comments with the modern theory. As a first step you could remove all the unsourced text and original research (text sourced to material that does not mention originalism). TFD (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a very well-written article that provides all points of view except the neutral one. But why would we want that. The intelligent debate is far more interesting. W oWiTmOvEs 00:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Agathonisi is a small Greek island which Turkey disputes sovereignty, along with a few other islands. I noticed a user removed all information about the situation a few months ago, and I reverted this typical WP:BADPOV having no idea about the amount of advocacy that would ensue in the talk page. A bloc of Wikipedians are so passionately opposing any mention of this information that it is almost touching. It is a low profile article frequented mostly by a certain demographic, so I wasn't surprised to see in the page's history that the systemic bias and this removing information without being called out has been going on for quite a while.

In any case, it is such an unimportant article that I am not writing this to advise any Wikipedian to make the same mistake I did and spend time trying to reason with them. But the case is such a typical example of WP:ACTIVIST that I would encourage all to take a look at the talk page; the language gets colorful at times and it has both educational and comedic value. It can very well be the subject of an essay about systemic bias on Wikipedia on such low profile articles. And if you are so dedicated to WP:NPOV and fighting systemic bias that you cannot in good conscience allow the article about an island of 185 to remain violating the policy, well, good luck.--Orwellianist (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to note that the above editor has the unfortunate tendency to call anyone opposed to his/her strong POV "activist" or worse completely disregarding core policies such as AGF, CIV and NPA. To get a proper perspective of the issues involved please see this edit by veteran editor Alessandro57 reverting the POV edit that the user above wants to reintroduce to the article without the slightest hint of consensus. Also please see a similar reversion by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please see also this section of the talkpage of the article where Alessandro and FPaS make very clear arguments against the inclusion of the material proposed by the OP. Also please check the newer section which deals with the same topic and shows that the OP has no consensus for his proposed addition. Dr. K. 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

*Comment Good morning, I wanted just to premise that, being neither Turk nor Greek, I have no nationalistic interests whatsoever in this dispute. Some months ago, when this info was introduced for the first time by an ip, together with Future Perfect at Sunrise we proposed an alternative solution to organize the information. We didn't want to hide the Turkish POV on this dispute at all, but only to centralize the information on the article where it belongs, that is Aegean dispute. The underlying reason is that the claims on these islands are clearly part of this larger dispute. On the articles dealing with the single islands, like Agathonisi, Pharmakonisi, etc. there should be a sentence like "The island is currently claimed by Turkey", which links to the main article. The ip ignored our comments and reinserted the info on the single article, then this was removed by another user, then again reinserted. This means that around these articles now has been created a point of conflict among Turkish and Greek editors, which should be avoided reaching a consensus about the placement of this info: my opinion is that our solution represents a fair and balanced compromise. A last remark about the insertion of the naming of the island in Turkish after the native name: here there is a clear and long standing consensus (emerged after repeated edit wars) to put this name together with other historical names (like the Italian, since these islands were part of the Italian Dodecanese from 1912 to 1947) in a "Name" section. You can see Kastellorizo#Name_and_etymology for an example. Alex2006 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

*Comment of resolution I propose we write a seperate article on the Turkish claim over Agathonisi and link it to Agathonisi. That way each group of partisans can have their own article and will be better placed to fight it out and see which view wins. W oWiTmOvEs 11:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Orwellianist's proposed additions are not sufficiently notable to include in the Agathonisi article, let alone merit their own article. Besides WP:POVFORKing is never a good idea. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The user you replied to has been blocked for trolling. Dr. K. 06:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please check Sun Myung Moon? Over the past several months the POV tag has been added and removed 3 or 4 times. Recently User:Novoneiro added a criticism section, which I think addresses the concerns. I don't want to remove the tag myself since I had already done that before. Borock (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Novoneiro made a good point on the discussion page. Rev. Moon is mainly known to the public from the news media coverage of the various controversies and criticisms involving him. The actual facts of his life are not that well-known, or covered very much in reliable sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking out the poorly sourced and primary sourced material from the article would help.BayShrimp (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK information has been added in an attempt to discredit what peer reviewed reliable sources say about the Southern Strategy and Nixon's Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and race baiting language. The talk page discussion is here

A peer reviewed reliable source discusses Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and/or race baiting to appeal to southern voters.

"Reagan's race-baiting continued when he moved to national politics." Lopez then goes on to explain how he launched his 1980 campaign from Neshoba county fair in an attempt to win over "George Wallace inclined voters". Lopez explains other examples of Reagan's racial appeals stating "Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats." and also explains how Reagan used the term "strapping young buck" because it played on fears of white voters of a "threatening image of a physically powerful black man." Ian Lopez Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class

In response to this peer reviewed source, information has been added to "casts doubts" on the material presented from reliable sources. The user adding this material characterized the information he added as "casts doubts on a claim of coded racism" here [16]. There are 2 separate instances where he is doing this:

1. Information from a 1980 newspaper article about how Reagan was considering speaking first at the Urban League was added to the article.[17] This information is tangentially related to the Southern Strategy and is being used to "casts doubts" on what reliable sources say about Reagan's Neshoba County speech and his racially coded language. On top of the coatracking concern, Blog posts and Op-eds are being used to contradict what peer reviewed sources say.[18] I believe this is clearly against NPOV and gives undue weight to less reliable sources. I'm here looking for input from uninvolved editors on whether adding marginally related information from blogs and op-eds to refute peer reviewed source is a violation of WP:NPOV.
2. A quote from a football player that Reagan housed once, has also been added in an attempt to show that Reagan isn't racist.[19] The article is about the Southern Strategy, not about whether or not Reagan was racist. So this is another example of WP:COATRACK, attempting to give undue weight to tangentially related material to push a distinct point of view. Again, this information comes from a privately published book which is given undue weight when compared to the peer reviewed source. I'd also like to point out that the source doesn't reference the quote in an attempt to refute the scholarly viewpoint on Reagan's use of coded language or his Southern Strategy. This information is trying to be used in conjunction with Reagan's comments about a "strapping young buck", thought the source cited doesn't even make that connection. I feel this starts to crossover into WP:SYNTH concerns, but I feel the pov-pushing is still prevalent.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what claims are supposed to cast doubt on the more reliable source? Rhoark (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Rhoark's question The filing editor claims recent changes to the article are violations of NPOV and COATRACK. For easy reference I will quote the material in question (material taken from a larger and subsequently reverted edit [24])

Earlier version which Scoobydunk has restored

One example of Reagan field-testing coded language in the South, was a reference to an unscrupulous man using food stamps as a "strapping young buck."^[1] Reagan, when informed of the offensive connotations of the term, defended his actions as a nonracial term that was common in his Illinois hometown. Ultimately, Reagan never used that particular phrasing again.^[2] The "young buck" term changed into "young fellow" which was less overtly racist, but worked just as well to provoke the racial tensions of Southerners and white victimization.^[3]

Disputed version which was reverted

A statement about a "strapping young buck" made during his 1976 campaign was described as a "field-test" of dog-whistle politics by Haney Lopez.^[4] "Young buck" was a regional term of racial derision.^[5] Reagan, "alerted that the phrase was an offensive reference to black males, never used it again, though he defended it as a nonracial term common in his Illinois hometown."^[2] Lopez argues that the "young buck" term changed into "young fellow" which was less overtly racist, but worked just as well to provoke the racial tensions of Southerners and white victimization.^[6] Cannon cites comments by William Franklin Burghardt, an African American who played football with Reagan in college in response to charges of racism associated with the "young buck" and "welfare queen" stories. Burgehardt said, "I just don't think he [Reagan] was conscious of race at all. If you listened to the Carter debate during the campaign, Reagan said that when he was growing up they didn't know they had a race problem. It was the dumbest thing a grown person could say, but he'd never seen it. I believe that [the hotel incident] was his first experience of that sort." ^[7]

The core of the dispute can be summed up as, do we have reliable evidence to change the WP voice from stating something did happen to language that says something that indicates the claims are disputed by reliable sources. In this case do we treat the claim that a given statement was testing the waters as a proven fact or do we present alternative views to the readers.

Scoobydunk's opening statement regarding Nixon suggests a level of confusion. The president being discussed in this case is Reagan. While Nixon is widely associated with the use of the "Southern Strategy", the passage in question is discussing Reagan and a specific instance when he is claimed to have tried to use coded racism and hence applied what is argued to be an extension of the Southern Strategy.

Scoobydunk makes several claims regarding the reliability of sources as justifications for the material reversion. He notes that the book, Dog Whistle Politics by Lopez, is a peer reviewed book and thus in his view unless a peer reviewed source is found which directly contradicts the claim we must treat it as proven fact. It should be noted that the related passages in question do not reference a peer reviewed book but instead reference an article published in Salon magazine. So based on the edits he is supporting the question of scholarly work doesn't enter into the picture and thus we have an improperly form NPOV request.

However, assuming the Lopez book in question offers the same claims Lopez makes in Salon we still have an issue that Scoobydunk is asking us to dismiss the views expressed in more than one alternative reliable source. One is a book by Jeremey D Mayer, a Prof at Georgetown University, Running on Race. This book was positively reviewed by several scholarly journals. Dismissing a book by a scholar of the subject and with strong positive reviews in the scholarly field is a questionable application of RS guidelines. Cannon's book has similar, strong scholarly reviews. The outright dismissal of these sources as not credible is a highly questionable reading of how we should balance reliable sources. Given their strength and oposition to the view offered by Lopez we should not use WP voice to state as a fact that the "young buck" comment was a "field test".

The statements by the football player were from Cannon's book and used by Cannon as part of the section where he addresses the "young buck" story. Given a RS made the connection WP:SYNTH cannot apply here. The "privately published book" comment is an attempt to discount the quality of the source, the scholarly reception of which was described above.

The 1980 newspaper article is not related to the "young buck" story and shouldn't be included in this NPOV discussion. Springee (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Springee's response doesn't address the added Neshoba County information and, I feel, muddles the "young buck" information. So I'll lay it out more simply using the same number outline as before. This is the information added in an attempt to "cast doubt" on what reliable sources say:

1. In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair.[55] The "I believe in states' rights" speech he gave there was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Lou Cannon[57] and David Paul Kuhn[58] each dispute the claim of intentional racism. In a 2007 New York Times Op-Ed article Cannon noted that Reagan's campaign pollster urged canceling the speech anticipating negative feedback. "Mr. Reagan wouldn't do it. He had a showman's superstition that it was bad luck to cancel an engagement once it was booked. Brooks notes that the primary focus of the period was meant to be on courting the African American vote and noted this was a shift from previous Republican strategies.
2. Cannon cites comments by William Franklin Burghardt, an African American who played football with Reagan in college in response to charges of racism associated with the "young buck" and "welfare queen" stories. Burgehardt said, "I just don't think he [Reagan] was conscious of race at all. If you listened to the Carter debate during the campaign, Reagan said that when he was growing up they didn't know they had a race problem. It was the dumbest thing a grown person could say, but he'd never seen it. I believe that [the hotel incident] was his first experience of that sort."

So regarding #1, the bolded text is what Springee has added. He squeezed this in before the Lopez source in the article, which he moved to a different paragraph though it directly discusses the Neshoba County speech.[25] He cites Kuhn immediately following the Neshoba County claim, though Kuhn doesn't mention Neshoba County once in his entire article. This is clearly done to "cast doubts" on the racial indicators of the Neshoba County speech, though Kuhn doesn't directly comment on the Neshoba county speech or its significance. Let's not forget that this is a blog. Springee then uses Cannon to give undue weight to details surrounding whether or not to cancel the Neshoba Speech, and some overly detailed information about Reagan and his superstitions regarding commitments. None of this has anything to do with the Southern Strategy, nor does the author use this information to discuss the southern strategy. It's purely fluff that's tangentially related and that's what WP:COATRACK addresses. Then he lists Brooks, another Op-ed, that actually just discusses Reagan's schedule and how it didn't pan out how some of his strategists originally wanted. Again, that's not a critique of the Southern Strategy and puts undue weight on Reagan's "what could have been" campaign schedule. So, we have 3 different sources carefully arranged to "cast doubts" on explicit statements from peer reviewed reliable sources. Like I said, I know this crosses over into OR synthesis, but I feel the bigger problem is the POV pushing from less reliable sources. This is especially apparent, since Springee removed the peer reviewed source of Aistrup and Lopez to a different paragraph, so that way the opinion bloggers could have their own paragraph to refute the scholarly supported position of Reagan resurrecting the Southern Strategy in his Neshoba County speech.

Regarding #2, this entire quote is misrepresented and is a violation of WP:Coatrack. Cannon, in his " President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime", does not associate Burghardt's comments to Reagan's use of "young buck". As a matter of fact, Burghardt's quote appears in the next paragraph, which is about Cannon's personal beliefs regarding Nixon's racism. Again, the paragraph in Cannon's book isn't about the Southern Strategy, it's strictly about whether the author feels Reagan was intentionally racist. The author uses Burghardt's quote to support his viewpoint, but doesn't connect this to the "young buck" comments whatsoever. So, this information is placed in the article to "casts doubts" on the racist implications of the term "strapping young buck", though the source doesn't present the material in that fashion. Regardless, this article is about the Southern Strategy and it's NOT about whether Reagan was/wasn't racist. What are we going to do, start listing every person who doesn't think Reagan is racist and then include anecdotes for all those people? That's obviously coatracking.

Regarding some of Springee's concerns. The Salon source is actually just quoting an excerpt of Lopez's peer reviewed source. I don't know why someone listed the salon source instead of the original, but it doesn't change the fact that the information came from a peer reviewed reliable source. It is completely relevant and so are arguments regarding the reliability of sources. When available, peer reviewed scholarly sources should be used and are regarded as the most reliable of sources because they go through a stringent peer review process. This makes them more reliable than blogs and Op-Ed pieces. I don't know why I should even have to explain this, it's not like we allow editors to refute peer reviewed global climate change consensus by quoting things off of Ken Ham's facebook page. None of the sources Springee has listed are peer reviewed.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Scoobydunk's comments

Sorry, the intro to this NPOV discussion was confusing and it was not clear that Scoobydunk was actually referring to two different article subtopics at once. I will come back to the Neshoba discussion as some of Scoobydunk's exclusionary arguments are the same for that material. I will also note that highlighting just "what I added" without showing the full change or the material Scoobydunk wishes to restore can be misleading as it can leave out context.

• At a high level Scoobydunk is trying to reject this content based on two flawed assumptions. First, is that the only source material that can be included when discussing evidence used to support or reject the "Southern Strategy" is material which specifically claims to be discussing the "Southern Strategy". Thus a source, regardless of reliability, that says Reagan's use of the phrase "young buck" was not coded racism should, in his view, be excluded because it does not say, "was not coded racism and thus was not part of a Southern Strategy". A higher level claim (Southern Strategy) is based on supporting claims. If a source refutes the supporting claim then it is relevant to a discussion of that supporting claim even if it doesn't mention the bigger picture claim. Here we have a claim that Reagan's coded racism is proof of continued use of the Southern Strategy but we also have sources that say this wasn't coded racism.

Side Notes: The Lopez book does not talk about the "young buck" story as an extension of the Southern Strategy but as an example of coded racism yet Scoobydunk wants that source to stand. This is not the first time Scoobydunk has attempted to exclude information because it doesn't specifically say "Southern Strategy" Another editor, one who is a historian by profession [26], made the same arguments to Scoobydunk in August [27]

• Second assumption, Scoobydunk argues that peer reviewed articles trump all other sources in all cases (ie they get the most WP:WEIGHT). This isn't in line with WP guidelines which say these are guidelines, not rules and that we should use our heads when assigning relative weight to source material. Regardless, when we are presented with one peer reviewed book that says A and two high quality sources, one from a scholar (Mayer), one from a long time reporter in the area (Cannon), and both with strong scholarly reviews of the works (book reviews published by scholars in peer reviewed journals), we should not blindly exclude clearly reliable information because it disagrees with the claims made in a peer reviewed book.

Side Notes: It is questionable to claim I'm violating NPOV and RS guidelines when in fact the sources I added were, by WP guidelines, at least as good as an article in Salon magazine. The Lopez book wasn't referenced anywhere in article section in dispute. If the use of a peer reviewed source was so critical to Scoobydunk's view then why did he not replace the Salon article with the peer reviewed book? Scoobydunk specifically edited the section to add more to the "young buck" story yet seemed to have been comfortable with the Salon article as the source. [28]

• Scoobydunk says the added material "muddies the waters". History is often complex and we do a disservice to readers when we ignore relevant, reliable sources because we think it adds complexity to the subject.
• Scoobydunk is wrong to claim that the Burghardt quote was not related by Cannon (the source) to the "young buck" story. Simply linking to an Amazon listing for the book doesn't support that view. Both the young buck story and information relating to the Neshoba speech are included in a section of the book where Cannon talks about Reagan's frequent ad-libs which drove his political handlers crazy. The section continues by talking about a few of the well known gaffs. It finishes with Cannon stating that he didn't think Reagan was racist and reiterating that Reagan often slipped up when he was speaking off the cuff. To further this high level explanation which Cannon applies to several examples including the "young buck" story Cannon supplies the Burghardt quote. Thus Cannon uses the Burdghardt quote to support the claim that the "young buck" story was not coded racism. Since it strongly supports the view that the "young buck" (and Neshoba "states rights") comments were gaffs AND because a RS made the connection I included the material. Springee (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Close due to inactivity - This request has been open for over 10 days. There has been no support for the original claims and no activity of any kind for over a week. I ask that it be closed. Springee (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to reiterate this request for closer due to inactivity and/or non-support for the merit of the complaint. Springee (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Not these two again! In particular, not User:Springee again! Springee won't stop forum shopping, and has been to the original research noticeboard, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the edit-warring noticeboard, and now here. This is exactly the sort of dispute that discretionary sanctions under American politics 2 is needed for. Springee has had WP:1RR imposed, and Scoobydunk has been warned. Maybe these editors should be article-banned from this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the above comment is unjust, particularly the part where you suggest that my involvement here is forum shopping. I would start by noting that this discussion was opened by Scoobydunk, not me thus I couldn't have forum shopped to open this discussion. Since you mentioned previous discussions please allow me to indicate the time line of events. After a failed discussion on the article talk page I open an Editor Assistance Request regarding assigning relative weight to two competing points of view related to a section of the Southern Strategy article (Oct 30th [29]). After replying to my EAR (03:10 Oct 31st [30]) Scoobydunk opens a NORN discussion covering the same material (03:42 Oct 31st [31]). The NORN discussion would seem to be forum shopping but didn't raise that objection at the time. Note that neither of these discussions actually related to edits to the article, just a discussion of weight related to material in the scholarship subsection. Seeing there was no movement on the NORN discussion other than Scoobydunk and myself after ~3 days and given that since then there was a dispute related to the article lead content, I opened a DRN to discuss the disputed edits to the article lead.[32] When informed that this could be seen as forum shopping I requested closure to the NORN and EAR because, at that time, both were still only edits by Scoobydunk and myself and the DRN actually related to content vs a talk page discussion. The NORN discussion only pick up after my DRN request and after I requested the NORN be closed due to a lack of input. The ANI-3RR [33] was due to a series of edit reversions by Scoobydunk. That was not a content dispute but a behavior dispute. You noted that I was sanction (1RR) and Scoobydunk was warned. The sanctioning admin (Slakr) noted the only reason Scoobydunk wasn't subject to the 1RR sanction was because he hadn't previous received the ARBAP2 notice.

Based on the above I don't believe this NPOV discussion can be seen as forum shopping on my part since I didn't initiate it. Additionally, Slakr did suggest that Scoobydunk and I seek 3rd party input to resolve our content dispute.[34] While this particular noticeboard and the particular scope of the discussion here would not be my first choice Scoobydunk was following the suggestion of an admin. So long as this topic is focused on content (or disputed content) I would ask that you allow it to continue. Thanks, Springee (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I neither have nor want a place in this argument, but I am curious: Springee, do you believe that in order to appeal to racists, one must necessarily be a racist?
Personally, I do not believe this is the case. Examples abound of politicians appealing to a base of voters then acting to the contrary, from George HW Bush (abortion) to Barack Obama (civil liberties and Net neutrality).
If one doesn't have to be a racist to appeal to racists, then what is the basis for adding assertions that Reagan wasn't a racist next to the assertion that he intentionally appealed to racists using coded language (other than encouraging the reader to synthesize)?
Please note that I think there is a very legitimate case for referencing the fact that there is not universal agreement on this matter. But 1) it needs to be limited to material that directly contradicts the widely-accepted position rather than begs for synthesis, and 2) the weight of the sources (mostly neutral scholars versus mostly sympathetic biographers) needs to be accurately reflected.
Last and least, a minor correction you might want to make (from early in the thread): If his CV is to be trusted, Jeremy D Mayer was indeed a Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown from 2001-2003, but has been at George Mason ever since (currently as an Associate Professor). But he hasn't held the rank of Professor at any institution, nor is he at Georgetown now.([35]) 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Kurds has a section "Karduchian dynasties" which includes the Medes, Moxoene, Zabdicene and House of Kayus. There's no source for this, and the only source for such dynasties I can find on either GScholar or GBOoks is [36] which seems to be a copy of another source mentioned in Moxoene. Nor is one source, reliable or not, sufficient for such a claim (in my opinion). If there were such dynasties I'd expect multiple sources. Certainly the Medes weren't a Karduchian dynasty (Kurds often claim they are Medes or their descendants, and I note that User:Selocan49 is the editor who added the Medes to this section and the template to Medes. History_of_the_Kurds doesn't mention Karduchian Dynasties,

There is one source that does mentioned 3 such dynasties, "Introduction to Christian Caucasian History II: Status and Dynasties of the Formative Period", Traditio, Vol. XVII[37] - Corduene, Moxoene and Zabdicene. I've got the source and it doesn't mention Medes at all. As I said, I'm not happy with just one source for something like this. But my main problem is adding Medes and House of Kayus, with a subsidiary one being adding the template to our article on the Medes. Doug Weller (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as sock, but I should have taken this to NOR - I was thinking about the editor's pov editing and that seems to have led me here in error! Doug Weller (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia should have pages that define any group by allowing that group's enemies to do the defining in Wikipedia's voice, as if the definition was an established fact. We shouldn't define the group that calls itself "pro-choice" with the term "anti-life". (Note that I am not saying that "pro-life" is necessarily correct -- defining a group according to how they define themselves can be a problem as well.) Likewise we shouldn't define those who call themselves "pro-life" with the term "anti-choice".

I have a real problem with the fact that our Southern strategy article claims, in Wikipedia's voice, that republicans appeal to racism. The article should either say say that sources X. Y and Z say that republicans appeal to racism and that the republicans deny it or say nothing at all.

I am not, however, willing to invest any of my time fighting a battle over this -- a fight which others have tried fighting and which would likely end up at arbcom. Instead I am raising the flag here in case anyone wishes to get involved. In my opinion this is a clear violation of NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Guy Macon#Help with Southern Strategy editing --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is that some editors regard peer reviewed sources published by scholars as "enemies" to a particular group. This automatically attempts to approach the article in a battleground mentality of "them" vs. "us". Nearly a dozen peer reviewed scholarly sources explain how Nixon and Reagan used racially coded language to appeal to former democrats in the South during and following the civil rights movement. They all present the information as a matter of fact, not as a mere opinion and there isn't a debate in scholarship about the implementation of the southern strategy and its use by different politicians. Of course, more voices are always welcome and for those interested, you can find plenty of sources listed at the bottom of the Southern Strategy talk page that Guy Macon has linked to above.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Scholarship" implies an opinion based upon evidence such as mathematical, experimental, statistical, or historical evidence. An opinion such as "Nixon and Reagan used racially coded language" can never be anything but an opinion, because there exists no rigorous definition of "racially coded language" and no method that unambiguously and repeatedly distinguishes racially coded language from non racially coded language. All you have is a "I know it when I see it" opinion from someone with a degree. So report that opinion and who expressed it. Don't pretend that opinions are facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The scholars define exactly what they mean when they say "racially coded language" and discuss at length what this language was and how it was racially coded. They do define and it would be against NPOV to take what sources say as a matter of fact, and reduce it to mere opinion. Again, no source has been provided claiming that there is debate over this issue, nor do the numerous peer reviewed sources describe it as a debate, voicing their own opinion. The southern strategy is a term that is used to directly refer to the racial appeals of Republican politicians during and following the civil rights era. That's how the term is objectively defined.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

All scholarship is to be treated as opinion on Wikipedia? Hugh (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Guy Macon's position I'm not going to add anything more to this since I have stated I'm going to withdraw from that article for the rest of the year. Springee (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You should present the passage with which you disagree. Also, it is not helpful to drag in the abortion debate without explaining how it relates to this topic. It just identifies you as a U.S. conservative and therefore probably biased to start with. The article does not say that Republicans appeal to racism but that they have in the past. So have Democrats. Reliable sources say that and you need reliable sources to contradict that view. TFD (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Accusing one of the most apolitical editors on Wikipedia of being a republican because he wants articles about republicans (and democrats, and nazis, and everyone else...) to conform to NPOV. How very original. See ad hominem.

The objectionable passage is In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a strategy by Republican Party candidates of gaining political support in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans. That claim, presented in Wikipedia's voice, clearly violates WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How does it violate NPOV? Please quote the policy, rather than just link to it. TFD (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm, that should probably say some Republican candidates (in fact, I'm going to go add that qualification right now). But other than that, that's pretty much the textbook definition of what the Southern Strategy is. This is like history 101-level stuff, there are literally thousands of very reliable sources that support that definition. In general, the article needs some cleanup, but it's far from one giant NPOV violation or anything. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How does it violate NPOV?? 'Avoid stating opinions as facts. ... Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. ... Prefer nonjudgmental language. Source: WP:WikiVoice. Also see WP:ASSERT. Again, there exists no rigorous definition of "appealing to racism" and there exists no method that unambiguously and repeatedly distinguishes statements that appeal to racism from statements that don't. You are conflating the concepts of widely held opinion with the concept of fact. If pretty much everyone agrees that a particular opinion is true, we report (with sources) that pretty much everyone agrees that that particular opinion is true. We don't promote statements that are inherently matters of opinion as facts. "Appealing to racism" is not and never can be an established fact, and thus WP:NPOV demands that it not be in Wikipedia's voice.

The above attempt to twist the clear meaning of WP:WikiVoice in order to demonize one political party is exactly why I have not and will not edit the page in question. Life is too short to fight over every attempt to push a POV, especially a popular POV like "republicans are racists" or "democrats want to control every aspect of your life". I have raised the flag here at the appropriate noticeboard, and I have better things to do than try to convince POV pushers that "...by appealing to racism against African Americans" is not and never can be an objective, verifiable fact. To anyone who chooses to address this clear NPOV violation, you can see what you will be up against by the comments above. I am done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"never can be an established fact" You are not familiar with anything you would consider an unambiguous appeal to racism? Hugh (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Racism is the view that different races have different qualities. African Americans were seen as prone to crime and welfare dependency. By attacking crime and welfare dependency, as for example using Willie Horton and the welfare queen, Republicans appealed to people who held racial stereotypes. TFD (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Southern Strategy should be described using the the terms of the literature about the Southern Strategy, if the literature describes it as an appeal to racism then we should describe it that way. The claim that it cannot be an objective fact that something is an appeal to racism but always a matter of opinion is nonsensical. Of course it can. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a separate thread was started up but editors should take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Coatrack pov-pushing on Southern Strategy further up on this page which provides more information on sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

New WP:SPA/IPs. ignoring BRD, fairly big NPOV problems. More eyes could be used in this controversial area. (Note that some of the edits contain sources or arguments that may be appropriate, but not in the editorial style used, and not completing preventing the presentation of alternate POVs)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Kleck&diff=694060291&oldid=694052320
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defensive_gun_use&diff=694058848&oldid=694058642

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ill keep an eye on them both. I edit kind of sporadically so it might be a few days before i respond to an issue. Bonewah (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a (civil) dispute as to whether we should say "Donald Trump is a politician", "Ben Carson is a politician", and "Carly Fiorina is a politician". One side argues that anyone seeking office is a politician, while the other side cites common usage -- all three of the names listed above have multiple reliable sources that say they are "not a politician". What is the NPOV here? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources noting they are "not a politician" then we shouldn't include it. Unless they held public office before, it should not be added. Their candidacies are already discussed in the body of the article. IMO - They are not a politician until elected. I'm curious to hear other users' inputs on this. Meatsgains (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm predisposed towards Meatgains' interpretation. There are no requisite skills/diplomas/degrees attached to seeking political office, therefore putting oneself forward as a candidate only qualifies one to be 'aspiring' to be an elected incumbent of a political office. Unless someone has held an office, they don't meet the primary criterion. If RS say that they're not politicians, then they're not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. Candidates "aspire" to be a politician and aren't one until elected. It would be premature to call these individuals politicians. Meatsgains (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Would it suit the context to describe them as 'candidates' rather than 'politicians'? They may not be politicians, but (until they withdraw) they're undisputably candidates. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to weigh in until I heard a couple of other opinions, but that was my understanding as well. "Ben Carson is a politician and retired Neurosurgeon" is factually incorrect, but "Ben Carson is a political candidate and retired Neurosurgeon" is factually correct. After going back and forth a couple of times, the editors on the page appear to have reached a consensus for "Benjamin Solomon "Ben" Carson, Sr. (born September 18, 1951) is a retired American neurosurgeon who is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election.", which seems like the right decision to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If someone is called a politician, the assumption is that is their main occupation. Clearly that is not the case for Trump, Carson or Fiorina, although it is for the other Republican and Democratic candidates. TFD (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I consulted the OED, and by several of the OED definitions, all three -- Trump, Carson, & Fiorina -- are politicians. OED definition 2b defines it so: "A person who is keenly interested in practical politics, or who engages in party politics or political strife; now spec. one who is professionally involved in politics as the holder of or a candidate for an elected office." But there are several other usages, such as OED definition 1a that might apply: "A schemer or plotter; a shrewd, sagacious, or crafty person. In later use also (esp. U.S. derogatory, influenced by sense A. 2b): a self-interested manipulator, whose behaviour is likened to that of a professional politician." The OED citation is "politician, n. and adj.". OED Online. September 2015. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/146891?redirectedFrom=politician (accessed November 26, 2015). Pleasantville (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course. You can be sure that running for president is a full-time occupation, and they are indeed politicians. That may not be the best primary descriptor, and "political candidate" etc may be an alternative, but "politician" certainly does not = "office-holder". Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They aren't politicians yet, and no matter how much worky the spend on being candidates, they are still outside the political machinery until they win. And I'm wondering what sourcing we have to gainsay the many references that they are outsiders. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, the OED says otherwise. Pleasantville (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary is a generic dictionary description, not a glossary of terms for the political sciences. Applying it as such is WP:OR. Please provide a description from academic sources (i.e., a lexicological dictionary of terminology used the political sciences) that back up this assertion. Here's a simplified glossary which reflects other political dictionaries/lexicons I've been looking through: "Politician A person who is active in politics and holds a political office to which they have been elected"; this is the definition of candidate, "Candidate Someone who stands for election to a representative office" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Cough. The OED is pretty much the gold standard of lexicons. That's not the reason why I think candidate is the better term. On the one hand, I think we're drinking the kool-aid to buy the I am not a politician stuff, but on the other I think that is outweighed by the importance of not making a judgement in the voice of wikipedia. So while I do think those definitions do apply perhaps this is not the place to use the appellation.Elinruby (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we get more neutral eyes to take a look at the current RfC at Talk:Ivo Andrić? So far it's just me and some IPs. I was pinged by the RfC bot. Given previous arguments on the talk page and this contentious area, I think we need a large neutral turnout. Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked but have no idea about naming, sorry Elinruby (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article on Americans for Legal Immigration could use some more eyes. Basically, it's an article on an organization of borderline notability, which has been created/heavily edited by editor(s) involved with the organization to make it into a promo piece. So there's obvious WP:COI issues there and the relevant account admits as much "our group". That account also is heavily POVing the article and is not engaging in exactly constructive dialogue [38]. They've ignored the descriptions of actual Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest, NPOV and reliable sources and have rather focused on making personal attacks (referring to me as an "activist" etc).

For any page, a COI means that the editors involved should not make controversial changes without getting consensus on talk first. This user is instead threatening to edit war "every day for the rest of my life"

Thanks.User:Volunteer Marek 21:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The use of "our" in the IP's edit summary is a clear COI. The page needs some serious work to remove the promotional language. I have watchlisted the page and will work to neutralize. Meatsgains (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You might also note that the IP has sworn to edit war "every day of the rest of my life until (VM) stops or is stopped." GAB^Hello! 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The same IP also requested on the talk page where he can report two other users. Hardly doubt he'll gain any traction and I advised against taking such action. Seems like his unconstructive activity has slowed down a bit. Meatsgains (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Been there, took a swipe at some of the more obvious problems. It really is pretty bad. Almost all the references I looked at are from that one website. Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The IP is now accusing involved editors of meat puppetry... Should we take this dispute to WP:ANI or wait to see if it starts to die down? Meatsgains (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like conflict of interest to me but I am not sure what advice to give you -- @Meatsgains I do not have a lot of experience with COI issues. Well, I do and I don't. You may wind up at ANI if this person is determined. I have noticed that there is a COI noticeboard but I have zero experience there. You may want to give that a try first. what happened to my templates, did he address them at all? I guess we could start there. Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

OK well, I just explained to a bunch of IP addresses that WorldNet and Breitbart are not considered reliable sources. Yes, I know it all depends on what statement is being made but I can't imagine one where it would be. I also provided a link to the noticeboard. I can't tell which IP is arguiing with which, so I advised anyone who cares to register and.. ya. Hope that helps. I really don't want to mess with that one, looks ugly. It could use more help. Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on this. I'm glad the IP finally created a username though! I wasn't sure if we should take the issue to ANI or COI. I'm probably going to hold off on posting anywhere and see if we can all work together. Meatsgains (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the page does still need some help but I think we are making some progress. FYI, the article was also put up for AfD. Meatsgains (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I firmly believe that Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) is notable enough to warrant its own article.[39][40][41] The problem with the article is that it should read entirely different way. It's an ultra-conservative hate group and the article should reflect this. ViperFace (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Center have some sources? Elinruby (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could anyone please provide some additional input for the page about Mads Gilbert (talk; a medical doctor, and activist/politician for a far-left party)? Two users do everything to deny that, in addition to Gilbert's medical work, Gilbert has also been the subject of numerous controversies for his political activism. The two users want the lead section to consist exclusively of praise of Gilbert, and refuse to allow even a brief sentence mentioning his well-known subject to political activism and controversy (which is referenced directly with several sources). User2534 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not an accurate summary of what has been going on. One user (User2534) wants to add a highly WP:WEASELy and rather meaningless sentence that the subject of a biography is "controversial," despite the opposition from two other users, who have explained to him why such WP:WEASEL terms are not suitable for introductions of articles on living individuals, and why his proposed sentence is in fact meaningless. (In fact, the article subject is not particularly controversial, having been knighted and lauded by eg. NATO's secretary-general and several PMs, except perhaps on the extreme right). User2534 seems to strongly dislike the fact that the article subject is a member of a socialist party, but the article does not at all fail to mention this and various political views he has voiced, which I assume are the "controversies" User2534 has in mind. User2534 has also added other material bordering on libel against the article subject, as pointed out on the talk page. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Another prime example of the level of the "discussion". User2534 (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this. I tried to insert more concrete relevant information (since the sentence about "controversy" was just reverted every single time), but User:Tadeusz Nowak continues to delete virtually any content that brings up more problematic sides to Gilbert, and makes claims about everyone he doesn't like being "far-right"; he now also claims the Israeli government itself is "far-right" which is evidence of blatant POV. User2534 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that user MezzoMezzo is an advocate for the Zahiri school of thought.

He wants the inclusion of a fringe school of thought called Zahiri. Zahiri was excluded from sunni islam upon consensus. [42]. Zahiri seems to have a very tiny amount of followers, it is nearly non existent and is declared extinct by many reliable sources but Mezzo insists this school of thought be included with the 4 sunni schools. which would result in undue weight [43] .Reliable sources indicate there’s only 4 schools . [44] Even their respective article pages say so. Shafii, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali.

Misrepresentation of refs* On the Amman message’s website Zahiri is not classified as sunni [45] but Mezzo ignored that and included the word sunni on the article [46] which i believe is intentionally misleading readers. Same misinterpretation of Amman message view is being done on the Madhhab article [47] .Numerous users have previously called out Mezzo on his obsession of inserting original research and fringe regarding Zahirism [48] [49] .I have warned user mezzo on his talk page[50] and tried to explain on the article talk page all to no avail. [51] . I would like neutral editors opinion on this matter. Misdemenor (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that MezzoMezzo is an advocate for the Zahiri school of thought, as Misdemenor claims. I see MezzoMezzo as a diligent, hardworking, fairminded, neutral and well-read editor. I have looked at the allegation against him of pushing fringe views or giving undue weight to minority positions and I consider them baseless. His sources are mainstream and usually major and/or credible works. No, I'm not connected to MezzoMezzo. I don't know him outside of Wikipedia or know what his real identity is. I am pretty sure he's not from the same madhab as I am. We merely happen to have similar editing interests on Facebook from time to time. So I AM a neutral editor in that regard. I disagree with Misdemenor, which is already enough for him to accuse me of bias on Mezzo's talk page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Again I asked for neutral editors not someone that edit wars on his behalf [52] . What do you mean you dont know him outside facebook? Are you acknowledging that you communicate off wikipedia? Your basically admitting he is your off wiki buddy. Please stop blindly supporting POV just because you know an editor personally. Its not that im reading minds, his edits prove that he is pushing a certain POV. Misdemenor (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Friend Misdemenor, you don't seem to be good at reading this morning. In your example of my alleged "edit warring" (on the Salafi movement page), I did NOT even violate the three-revert rule. My meaning above on my connection to MezzoMezzo is very clear: I have NO connection whatsoever except occasionally on these public pages (for the world to see). I have NO contact with MezzoMezzo off Wikipedia. How could I if (as I said directly above) "I don't know him outside of facebook, or know what his real identity is." He's not my "buddy" in any sense; just a good editor that you falsely accuse. Please try working WITH other editors, instead of always attacking them. Anyway, as I have said elsewhere, I'm not your enemy. There's nothing to be gained for attacking me merely because I say (as I said once before) that you are wrong to attack MezzoMezzo as a bad or biased editor. Go in peace. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GorgeCustersSabre, that's your first problem. When you say that you do not know MezzoMezzo outside of Facebook, that means you know them inside/on Facebook. I am going to do a bit WP:AGF here (and take a large leap of risk) and assume that English is not your native tongue? You may mean that you do not know MezzoMezzo outside of Wikipedia (not Facebook), and that you do not know them on Facebook nor in real life. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Or a classic freudian slip. Misdemenor (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy to clarify. I do not know MezzoMezzo at all. I don't know him in any context, or in any forum, or on any social media, except that I observe his edits on Wikipedia. My typo was merely an early morning mistake. I naturally meant Wikipedia, not Facebook. All I want to do is defend a good and conscientious editor from baseless attack. Clear now? George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont know him but I do know him is confusing. Seeing that you have a hard time with the English language. Simply arguing that you support him is not going to be of any benefit to this discussion. Misdemenor (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Stick and stones ... My friend, your continued insults are pointless and only reveal your nature. I'm fluent in five languages (and read four more) and have higher degrees. So I'm comfortable with my knowledge and communication skills. But regardless, you haven't made a case that Mezzo is a bad and biased editor. Peace to you. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for questioning you fluency then. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear friend Drcrazy102, no insult meant, and none taken. Have a great Friday. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Classic example of grasping for straws. I don't know Gorge on Facebook or anywhere else. Even if I did, in some alternate dimension, then it still wouldn't relate to whether or not I'm posting fringe opinions.

Objective users can simply check out the reliable sources added to the Zahiri and Madhhab articles - the main articles where one can find information about the Sunni schools of law. Zahiri is referred to as both a Sunni school of law (or mahdhab) and an extant one according to reliable sources published by International Journal of Middle East Studies, Cambridge University Press, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press and Brill Publishers, among others.
The "numerous users" that Misdemeanor alluded to above include just himself and a guy who hasn't edited in over two years. His evidence of my supposed delinquent behavior consists simply of my edits that he disagrees without explaining why they're wrong. I'm honestly surprised that he thinks editors will ignore the massive amounts of evidence contrary to his claims that's already available in the articles in question (though I'm not surprised, all things considered, that he's resorted to falsely claiming that I know GorgeCustersSabre on Facebook).
This has honestly been a good exercise in further solidifying a case and it's an opportunity to demonstrate exactly why the consensus which Misdemeanor opposes so strongly is actually correct according to reliable sources. So in that sense, I suppose a round of thank yous is owed to everybody involved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: Just a quick note that apart from the present discussion at NPOV Noticeboard Misdemenor has filed a malicious SPI [53]. This all seems to stem from a disagreement over a few Islam-related articles where Misdemenor has appeared unable to accept a point of view differing from his/hers. Maybe reminding him/her of the principles of consensus and community spirit would help. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 06:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment- I'd like to know exactly what kind of information is being added to the articles and would like explicit quotes from the sources that support them. Based on some cursory search, the Zahiri school was an original Sunni school but is now extinct. This has been verified by two sources, and other sources I've found only speak to Zahiri in a historical sense. So I think it's appropriate to include Zahiri in a historical context, but I don't see anything substantiating a point of view that it's still a relevant school. After looking at some of the sources on the Madhhab, it also appears that some liberties have been taken in the form of original research, because the sources don't seem to back what's written in the article about the Zahiri school. This also occurs on the Sunni schools article. For example, the Blackwell Companion source only mentions Zahiri once as a school developed by "early jurists", which supports a historical viewpoint, but doesn't say anything about it being relevant today or that it's been "revived".Scoobydunk (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: This is not that much about the Zahiri school being extinct or extant but about whether it can be termed as a Sunni school. Misdemenor argued that Zahiri is not a Sunni school[54] [55] and removed "Sunni" from the article [56]). The other editors objected and argued that Zahiri either is or was indeed a Sunni school of jurisprudence. Misdemenor now went on to file reports against the other editors, here at NPOV against MezzoMezzo and GCS and at SPI against me and GCS. Hope this clarifies. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 22:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

From my research it can be listed as an extinct Sunni school in the historical section of related articles. It should not be listed alongside currently accepted Sunni schools, or be given as much weight. Nothing has been presented that supports a claim otherwise.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it can be mentioned as once part of the Sunni establishment in the history section. It cant be listed as a current Sunni school. The consensus was to exclude them as a Sunni madhhab. I dont see a problem with including something in the article indicating that says "Zahiri is acknowledged as sunni/or a 5th maddhab by some sources". Header should just say "Zahiri was a school of thought". The so called "revival" claim is nothing but WP:SYNTH because some individuals within movements such as the wahhabi/salafi claim to be inspired or follow the school. Misdemenor (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It was extinct for a period, but as of recent history, that's no longer the case - it's little known but technically extant. Check Ẓāhirī#Modern_history in addition to Ahl_al-Hadith#Tenets. It isn't simply a link to Salafism/Wahhabism, but also an active ascription by members of a sizeable movement in South Asia. There was a period when it was counted out, but numerous sources point out that it's no longer the case. No liberties have been taken; it's simply mentioned in different sources from those. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahl al-Hadith strictly follow the wahhabi/salafi ideology that claim to follow the first 3 generations of muslims. They do not go around claiming to be Zahiris. Modern Salafi/Wahhabism can be compared with Zahiris literal approach. Most Ahl al-Hadith would find the self identifying term Zahirism as an insult. They do not advocate the use of the term at all, so your "sizeable" claim is overreaching. Your using terms like "little known" etc. I dont think fringe views should be presented here. Misdemenor (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, I've asked for quotes and reliable sources to substantiate the claims you're trying to make and none have yet to be supplied. Sorry, but you can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source. So what other articles say is irrelevant to whether your claims are verifiable.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: I know MezzoMezzo very well. He is not an advocate of the Zahiri school. (I am Shia and I am not an advocate of the Zahiri school as well.) His former edits such as Abbasid Revolution clearly show that he does not have any tendency towards them in wikipedia. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you know him off wikipedia as well? Regarding your belief; anyone can claim to belong to a certain sect. What was your objective regarding this post? That I should believe you because your a Shia? I dont know why some of you think im just throwing accusations out from thin air, and why are you referring to unrelated articles such as the Abbasid revolution?. Its perfectly fine to be an advocate as long as your not inserting bias onto an encyclopedia. Misdemenor (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: you didn't actually read the sources on the article. That the Ahl al Hadith movement refers to itself as Zahiri is mention in that article - and is backed up by two separate citations. I never cited Wikipedia itself; please actually check out the portion of the article that I mentioned.

@Misdemenor: nobody on here knows me off Wikipedia at all. If you can't even acknowledge that, then I'm sorry, but you're simply too combative and too biased to be taken seriously in this discussion. I'm halfway considering just taking this discussion to the proper avenues for continued harassment and personal attacks, which you've done all over my talk page and multiple articles talk pages. This is the last time I'll ask: please focus on edits and not editors. Your rudeness toward Sa.vakilian here is completely uncalled for in particular, as literally all he did was defend me, and not even speak about you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Misdemenor: I mean MezzoMezzo's manner in wikipedia is completely based on wiki policies and guidelines and his personal tendency or belief is not important until he obeys the rule.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Due to no evidence supplied contrary to the multiple sources that claim the Zahiri School is extinct, The Zahiri School is not a current Sunni School and can not be treated the same or given the same weight as other Sunni Schools.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• What do you mean by Zahiriya given undue weight in the article on Zahiriya? kashmiri ^TALK 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright, Scoobydunk, for whatever reason you're simply refusing to actually read the evidence I suggested, so I'll take that to understand that your comments aren't informed. Just to make things easier, here is the actual citation where the Ahl I Hadith identifying themselves as Zahiris is mentioned. This is in addition to the fact that - despite your previous claim - many of even the recent ones such as Zubair Alizai and Badi udDeen Shah were also known for identifying themselves as Zahiris, and other living scholars of that school are Wikilinked on the Zahiri page. I don't know why you didn't take the time to look but there's no reason to dwell on that; you and others can now see, and there is absolutely no doubt that the school, while minor and, we could say, not mainstream, still exists. Even thought this isn't the place for that.

Yes, that's a major point: this thread isn't for discussing the merits of the article, though that was a positive consequence. This was for deciding whether or not I'm guilty of advocating a cause. We can see that:

1. Misdemenor backed down from his initial claim that Zahirism isn't a Sunni school when Scoobydunk said it does seem to be Sunni, so that accusation is bunk.
2. When that angle didn't work out, Misdemenor switched his story to claiming that they're extinct, yet we can all see that that simply isn't the case.
3. Misdemenor has falsely accused almost anybody disagreeing with him as being a sockpuppet of myself, and has opened a ridiculous and malicious SPI on two other random editors in which he has implicated me as well.

This entire thread was nothing but a smear campaign and an attempt to malign myself because Misdemenor was upset that multiple users disagreed with his edits on the articles in question here. I would like to start a motion to close this thread. If there are problems with my edits or anyone else's, then that can be discussed on article talk pages. This discussion here is pointless. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my edits that Zahiri school is not a sunni school. Regarding yours sources. Page 28- is just comparing the similarities between the extinct Zahiri school and the modern Ahl-Hadiths. Page 32-is making evident that “consciously" they follow the zahiri doctrines literal theology. The author has made it clear both ideologies are still different and not one and the same. It does not mean they self identify as Zahiris. If you want to make readers aware that zahirism lives on in the form of salafism then go ahead but don’t falsely claim that the school is on its way to being revived. Salafism or Ahl-Hadith do not want to be portrayed as followers of Zahirism. Zahiris claimed Mary was a prophet. p.175 [57] & p.29 [58] That is certainly not the view of Ahl al-Hadith Misdemenor (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is to discuss article content, not editor behavior. So I'm not concerned with such red herrings and those can be taken to the ANI noticeboard. Also, for your information, I've already seen that source and it doesn't support your claim that "the Ahl I Hadith identifying themselves as Zahiris". No, it says that the Ahl I Hadith identify with Zahiri doctrine, it doesn't say that Ahl I Hadith are, in fact, Zahiri. It explains how Ahl I Hadith are "like" the Zahiri, but it does not equate the two. Nor does it support any claim about Zahiri being a current Sunni school. So instead of not assuming good faith and thinking that I'm "uninformed", maybe you should supply an actual QUOTE and a SOURCE that support your point of view.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: You're right, this noticeboard is to discuss content, and yet Misdemenor opened this thread simply to accuse me of things personally. If you're interested in content then I'll respond for now (though not to Misdemenor - he just agreed with you above that Zahirism is Sunni but not extant, and now is claiming that Zahirism is not Sunni at all again. That just further proves the contention of myself and others that his intentions are simply to troll other users and cause problems).

But honestly, Scoobydunk, you just conceded to the fact that Zahirism still exists. Perhaps you're upset about my comment toward you - I do still uphold that you didn't actually read the sections I pointed to at first given the fact that you thought I was using Wikipedia itself as a source, but if you think I'm total wrong, then that's fine; I've been wrong about things before. But take a look at what you just said here:

No, it says that the Ahl I Hadith identify with Zahiri doctrine

You realize that you're arguing about semantics, right? Zahiri, Hanafi, Maliki et al. aren't living people; they're schools of law, ideas, concepts...doctrines. You actually agree with my point that Zahirism exists; whether the Ahl I Hadith openly call themselves Zahiri or simply identify with the ideas is irrelevant in the discussion in regard to whether or not Zahiri, a school of jurisprudence, exists; because whether people use this as a nickname (emphasis to show how minute this issue is) or not doesn't really matter since, by your own agreement, the doctrine is still being followed.

If I've pissed you off or said anything rude, then I'm sorry for that, but I once again suggest that this discussion be closed. At best, it's the result of one editor who got upset at multiple editors on multiple pages and wanted to just make some kind of a point in one single location; at worst, it's just a smear campaign like the SPI. The accusation of advocacy is obviously unfounded, and me and you (Scoobydunk) are to the point where the argument is about semantics. So once again, I say that this discussion has run its course and these issues should be taken to the relevant article talk pages. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No, what your doing is called original research. Identifying with another's religious doctrine, doesn't make you the same thing as that religion. Many religions borrow off of other social and political doctrines, like Hammurabi's code or Greece's democracy, that doesn't mean they are the same as Hammurabi's code or Greece's democracy. Also, you continue to make strawman arguments, which doesn't help you case. The text doesn't even say that Zahiri doctrine "is still being followed", it only says it's being identified with. This isn't a matter of semantics, it's basic understanding of the english language and Wikipedia policy. If you don't have a source that explicitly states what you're trying to claim, then it's original research.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Scooby, but this really is just semantics. Whether a doctrine (not an entire religion, as madhhabs in Islam aren't people or separate religions) exists or not is irrelevant to the differences in terms of "being followed," "being identified with" or "this guy's nickname is Zahiri" (which some people have as is evidenced by the relevant articles, but I digress). The idea/concept/doctrine/school/whatever we want to call it of Zahirism exists today just as other schools of law do, and this is even by your own indirect admission. And so I say, once again, that this specific thread is no longer needed. If you still believe the language should be tweaked to reflect it's minority/non mainstream status, then the relevant talk pages are there for the community to work things out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Zahiri is extinct. It's explicitly stated in reliable sources and you've given nothing proving otherwise. I've said all I needed to say on the matter. Misdemenor can refer to my uninvolved comment if he needs to in this discussion. Scoobydunk (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I just gave evidence - which you indirectly acknowledged - that Zahiri still exists, and we didn't even touch on the topic of the notable individuals in the world who still ascribe to the school (partly because I don't think it's entirely relevant, but I had the hint that you did). But if you consider us to have reached an impasse, then you're probably right. I'm sorry we weren't quite able to get along on this issue. In the future, I do look forward to perhaps trying again on another topic; I wish you all the best no matter what. Sorry again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No you did not. Stop trying to equate another movement with Zahiri. Seeing that you will not stick to reliable sources but instead misrepresent them, I therefore am inclined to believe your an advocate. This is the appropriate noticeboard for discussion regarding user conduct that goes against NPOV. Misdemenor (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Misdemenor, I never equated the two; I simply made the point that Zahirism, the doctrine, the school, still exists. That has been demonstrated in reliable sources that already exists as citations across multiple articles. I'm also unsure now as to the purpose of this thread. Scooby pointed out that it's to describe content (I think he's right) but you keep going back to me as a user. Your rather malicious SPI and blatantly false claims about, of all things, my Facebook account, don't add to my ability to assume good faith about this when you also keep switching your position here on this board and elsewhere; it really does look like you're simply attacking me, Kashmiri, Gorge and anybody else who disagrees with your views.

That is a bit of an issue, by the way; you keep pushing your personal views as some sort of arbiter of what is or isn't Muslim orthodoxy and rejecting any sources that go contrary to that. You've posted sources which mention, for example, that Zahiri went extinct which I never denied, and you use that to reject the other reliable sources - which you deleted twice and got reverted by other editors for - that mention that the school is an extant and/or Sunni one. That fanaticism makes discussion with you exceedingly difficult, because you've already chosen this dogmatic belief that Sunnism is only how you define it and you seem prepared to reject all contrary evidence.

But we still need to solve this. You haven't tried to compromise at all so far, so let me do so. Maybe we can come to the middle and just end this.

Zahirism went extinct a few centuries ago; we all agreed on that from the start. Zahirism is no longer extinct; reliable sources have proven that. Categorizing it as extinct would be to publish false information on the encyclopedia. However, you've expressed concern that undue weight is given to a minority school - and it's certainly clear that Zahirism is little known and not "official" like Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali.

So keeping the above in mind, then on Template:Sunni Islam, why don't we just note that? I'm not sure of how exactly to go about it, but if we can simply denote that it's controversial, non-mainstream (there are actually sources referring to it in this way, I believe), unofficial or something of the sort, then will that end the conflict?

I'm trying to extend the olive branch here. If you're trying to claim that an extant doctrine is extinct against RS, then that won't fly; but this is obviously bothering you and while I'm still angry at you personally for the personal attacks, and I'm sure you aren't happy with me either, I went and mused on this and I don't want residual negativity or a lingering discussion that's never resolved. Can we work with my suggestion above? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Returning to this one, because I did a bit of brainstorming about a solution. Misdemenor, I'm mad, you're mad, that sucks, but let's solve this. I'm going to make some suggestions for a compromise, because upon reflection, I don't think the two of us digging our heels in will help anything. Just bear with me here.

I suggest that on the Sunni Islam template, we keep Zahiri within the extant madhhab section (because of reasons I mentioned above) but move its below the four mainstream madhhabs and decrease the font size. If you want to include some sort of asterisk since you feel it shouldn't hold the same weight as the main four, then fine. Yes, fine; I'm willing to compromise if it can resolve this and we can just work together normally.

On the madhhab and fiqh page, we keep Zahiri on a lower level in the table of contents/hierarchy and separate it from the main four, including the sources that indicate it still exists while also including some text about it not being universally accepted or something of that nature.

I want you to do this with me the whole way and we can involve the rest of the community and even notify some wikiproject pages for assistance. It can be a group effort geared toward improving the overall encyclopedia. I'm doing this because, after some personal issues/reflection, I realize that it's better to work together for a compromise than to argue. Arguing achieves nothing and makes the editing environment unpleasant.

As a part of this compromise, I want you to agree that we just stop talking about each other personally, avoid posting on each other's talk pages if it can be avoided and trying our best to be collegial and helpful to one another if we ever end up editing the same articles. Life is too short.

Can we make this deal and return to editing as usual? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for an admin to censor all discussion about neutrality and then refuse to explain himself while topic banning the editors there without recourse? Look at Talk:Watchdog.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.23 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this go at WP:ANI rather than here? NPOV is not exactly a forum about behaviour of individual editors. kashmiri ^TALK 14:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be an WP:ANI issue both because of the dispute between editors focussing on the conduct of an editor(/s), and the fact that the editor in question is an Admin and is being accused of being a rogue Admin, even if only in regards to this one article. However, I will double check after actually seeing the dispute. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The article White student unions was just created by a newbie, and it's gone exactly as you can expect. I removed a lot of content that was just a list of quotes, but other people hacked the article down to about two sentences. Confused newbie then created another article with an event-related angle, 2015 White Student Union Emergence which I tagged for speedy deletion per A10. I brought back some of the content on the original article. Newbie editor is very interested in discussing article content but needs help and to be shown some kindness. I'm afraid this article is being non-neutrally edited by editors who simply don't like the topic, however, but it's been excessively discussed in first-rate RS (NY Times, Washington Post, etc). and we need to give it neutral treatment. Please see the talk page - I listed a dozen or so articles we can work with. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: - Forgive a stupid question, but do we know that "White student unions" are actually a real thing? Most of the sources I'm seeing are talking about Facebook pages that purportedly belong to "White student unions". Do these things actually have real members, meetings etc? NickCT (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I chanced across this after working with Wikimandia on another issue and my reaction was that she did a very good job bringing the article back to some semblance of order -- but at this point in time what's missing is the reaction of students who don't feel the need for a whites only student union. Because of a lot of the coverage I'd read from Canada, in the refs, did address on that. That's a part of story, too. And this is going to come across as an unbalanced platform for such groups -- which perhaps was the intention of the SPA article creator -- if we don't have that. And that would be a rather appalling thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Shawn in Montreal! Yes, we need to have all sides represented from the RS. As far as being official, I'm guess they are probably battling to be officially recognized. Student organizations have to have a faculty sponsor (at least that was how it was at my school) to be official and get university funds, a page on the university website etc. They'll have to find an ultra-libertarian/ACLU-type professor willing to sign on. The fact that so many have popped up and gotten so much coverage makes me think this is going to end up in court and not go away any time soon. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: - Sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking whether they were "official". I was asking if they were "real". By "real" I mean do they have some significant number of members? At the moment, all the references I'm reading just point to Facebook pages. How do we know there isn't just one crank out there starting all these Facebook pages? NickCT (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW I see that @Snowded: has cut it right back again - which I don't really have a problem with, either. It's going to be a POV magnet and we need to be very careful we're not being used as a soapbox for this stuff, by an advocate or two. Seems like it's heading to Afd, but that's just my sense.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Nick. Yes, they appear to be real, at least in some cases. Most of the coverage is just about outrage and university officials freaking out. VICE did a video interviewing students though for the Towson group.[59] They mention the issue about not having a faculty adviser. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That Vice piece is tasty. Was it one of the references that the article creator provided? I am guessing not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No. It was on the list of RS I introduced on the talk page to explain the quality of sources we need. I don't think article creator is truly a trouble maker - she also added info such as a countergroup formed (Students Against The UVIC White Student Union) etc. Article creator is truly a newbie, didn't understand formatting, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, well I'm glad to hear that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: - It's funny how the VICE article talks about membership numbers -

according to Matthew, it now ALLEGEDLY has 57 members (caps for emphasis)

I tagged along with the White Student Union on a night patrol .... five WSU members .... showed up. Until then, no reporters had met .... members of the group ..... I'd started to wonder if they really existed.

So I guess we know for sure there are 5 of these guys at Towson.

Frankly my feeling is that this is a quasi-hoax/non-subject. Probably not a notable group. The mainstream RS's on this subject all seem to be discussing the publishing of inflammatory Facebook pages, and not the actual "groups" behind the pages. NickCT (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that POV - I think the right course of action is to write the article as neutrally as we can based on RS, and then take a look at the final result and see if it meets notability. I think we should give it a fair shot so if it is deleted, it's based on real guidelines and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My main concern is WP:DONTBITE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI I did some research on this and it's not a new concept. White Student Unions existed as far back as the 1960s it seems, though those were racist. The new ones don't seem to be about any kind of white supremacy or Nazi ideology, just white students wanting their own groups. It would be really nice if someone made an article about Black student union. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any of these "groups" have memberships, it could even be one person behind them all. At this point we have too little information to write a proper article. TFD (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the Vice piece and surely others don't exactly exonerate them on the racism front. But that's got nothing to do with whether they're notable, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - re "could even be one person behind them all ... At this point we have too little information to write a proper article." - Precisely.

@Wikimandia: - re "it's based on real guidelines and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT" - Fair enough. I think the real guideline here is simple WP:NOTABILITY. Again, most of the recent RS covers the creation of the Facebook pages and not the actual groups. Given there isn't much direct coverage of the actual groups, it's a struggle to see how they're notable. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added historic information. Considering White Student Unions have a history that pre-dates Facebook by four decades, I don't really think notability is in question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: - Well.... White Student Unioins might be notable in their historic context, but the fact is that the recent page was started because of news about their present situation, right? I think we've shifted the goal posts a bit. Regardless, I'm not sure this subject or these groups merit a great deal of our attention. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a dispute on Trustpilot reguarding the neutrality of the lead paragraph. I would appreciate more opinions on what to do with this. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil#Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Issues of neutrality have been raised. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Michael Botticelli is NOT a 'Politician'! He is a PUBLIC SERVANT! He never ran for, or held, an elected position. I cannot edit the banner on this article. I hope you will.

Robert E. Dwyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyerlaw (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the page name is Michael Botticelli (politician) to differentiate the page from the figure skater named Michael Botticelli. Meatsgains (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not use "(civil servant)" in this case? Collect (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I was mulling over this the other day. I agree that "civil servant" is the most neutral name, and have moved it. Best, HiDrNick! 15:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that the article reads more like something generated by a foundation dedicated to promoting his works than a resource for information. It's widely accepted that the quality of his work greatly declined as his fame grew and he reached a point where he produced prints and lazy work simply because they could generate enormous sums of money. Remember, this is a man who would pay for a pack of gum by check because the shopkeeper wouldn't cash the check, he'd sell it. (Gum is an example as I have no idea what he bought, but the rest is true) The article makes it sound as if he was practically churning out innovative work on his deathbed.

I really think someone with a far greater knowledge on the subject than I should review, and likely edit, the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E040:3A00:5137:254B:9AF:C483 (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This article needs more uninvolved editors to check it for neutrality. The subject posts copiously on the talk page and does not always help his case, but I think that he has a genuine concern about neutrality. The lead talks about a twenty-year-old lawsuit, for instance. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The skate punk article covers way to many other genres of punk music, and sports including but not limiting to BMX and also surfing which also adopted the punk movement at the same time. This article is to generalistic and biased to have any real encyclopedic value at this point in time. This article needs a massive adjustment beyond what I can achieve as an IP editor and perhaps a merger with the Punk rock article. Talk:Skate_punk#What_is_.22skate_punk.22_anyway.3F

--123.211.208.122 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for article concerns relating to a biased point of view being displayed by editors within the article. Though this may apply to the skate punk article, the real glaring issue is with WP:VER and WP:OR. Normally NPOV issues derive from material that's already sourced, but it's being used to present a POV not supported by the source. However, this is part of the Wikipedia process. It seems you have a passion for this subject, so feel free to find some reliable sources of your own, and start editing the article to better represent those sources. At this point in time, you could argue that it be merged since I think there's only one source used for the entire article, but after doing a Google Scholar search, I found a few sources that discussed skatepunk. That means it probably deserves its own WP article and just needs to be developed more. Feel free to create an account and start getting involved in the project.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This post concerns Paul Singer (businessman). I recently copy edited the article rather succinctly due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede reinstated by Nomoskedasticity, mainly “His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of avulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects.” I claim the use of “vulture” is non-neutral, and as such goes against WP:LEAD. Subsequent attempts at discussion were diluted and fizzled out, e.g. here and here. A related issue, concerning the fact that 67% of the article's Elliott Management section contents relate to distressed debt, was also raised per WP:CRITICISM. Please note this is a BLP. Given nobody commented besides people who are directly involved with the article, I hope anyone unfamiliar with this issue and yet experienced in NPOV matters can provide much needed insight. I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to share my feelings on this b/c this conversation is getting silly. I will say that this is the 3rd thread FoCuS has started on this issue (after discussing it here and here), which seemed aimed at overturning an October RfC. I previously suggested to him that repeatedly bringing up this topic in different forums might be considered forum shopping. I'm curious as to whether FoCuS doesn't understand what forum shopping is, doesn't think this is forum shopping or just doesn't care. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Great way of not engaging in discussion! My reason for the posts is simple: lack of outside opinions. I know nothing about previous consensus; I didn't edit this article before and the history behind it seems to be long and convoluted - I was bold and copy edited it because of its tag; I didn't expect there would be such a long history of revisions behind an average BLP such as this one. I also know nothing about involved editors beyond the constant names cropping up in its edit history and talk page. The subsequent attempts at discussion were prompted by my copy edit, and concern the simple matters of 1) the lede; 2) the Elliott Management section - all were made in appropriate venues: BLPN, NPOVN and its own talk page. We should all strive for consensus. You can engage or again show apparent resignation and contempt. Clearly the article's content provides material for debate, otherwise there wouldn't be repeated NPOV claims made about it. Let's give fixing it a go; I'd much rather we tackle this for the sake of Wikipedia than yet again hide it under the rug. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just getting desperate now. There's no way I'm discussing this anymore. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be the running theme with this article. This is just so absurd now that it's almost descended into parody. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to have a serious discussion about the contents of a BLP. I showed good faith by inviting all dissenting parties to the discussion. I've provided arguments and have always followed dispute resolution processes in hopes of encouraging consensus-building. Instead of engaging, I've seen repeated claims that "consensus has been reached many times before". I haven't found evidence of said consensus, least of all considering, as far as I can tell, the same 2-3 editors have time and again stonewalled any attempts at improving this article's neutrality and overall structure and content. How Wikipedia's changed if we can claim consensus has been reached with 3 opinions! I won't go into attributing any of this to underlying ideological pretexts, given I strive to AGF and maintain discussions neutral; however we need to find consensus when there is an obvious neutrality issue at hand.

The fact of the matter is "vulture" remains a pejorative term. There wouldn't be a need for the use of such a term weren't it for its negative connotations. See this as a clear example. Per WP:BLP, the content should be removed immediately yet I did not revert Nomoskedasticity in order not to trigger an edit war. Claiming there is no neutrality issue while claiming there have been previous discussions about it is simply ignoring reality. I am saddened SegataSanshiro1 has withdrawn from future discourse. I invite any uninvolved editors to participate in this discussion so that we can once and for all leave this behind us and improve the article. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I too find it difficult to see how "consensus" was reached with only three editors, all of which have been heavily active on Singer's personal page and talk page. Standards for a BLP are much different than that of other pages, such as a company website. Comparing someone a "vulture", especially in the lead, is incredibly disparaging. Even if it is sourced, I don't understand how users see this as neutral. Meatsgains (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether vulture fund is disparaging or not, it exists as a descriptor for funds with a characteristic pattern of behavior - namely, buying distressed debt at a discount and trying to recover full price (or at least more than the purchase price), particularly from sovereign nations. Singer's work fits this to a T. The place to lobby for eliminating this term as being too hurtful would be on the page for the term itself, not Singer's page. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't need an explanation of what a vulture fund is. You argued that the term describes "funds", so why is it being used to describe an individual on a BLP? Meatsgains (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - re "being used to describe an individual" - That's shenanigans Meat and you know it. We're not calling anyone a vulture. NickCT (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is describing his “His business practices..." thus, should be included on the company page, not his BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As he is the founding CEO the distinction is slightly artificial, but I have moved the sentence from the lead to the Elliott Management section where it perhaps makes more sense. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a good move. He is known primarily for being the head of a Vulture fund. Now the lede again has undue weight on his charity work. We're treading a dangerous line here where the article is at risk of returning to just being a nice PR puff piece. What he is best known for should certainly be mentioned there, not doing so whould simply be whitewashing. Any chance the Singer page is related to this? I see many of the same names crop up. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more complex than that: while I agree that there is a risk of whitewashing there are also genuine issues here. I've now reintroduced the "vulture" characterisation but following the source more closely in noting that opinions vary. If you think I have got this wrong then you should of course feel free to edit it, but the key thing here is, as always, to follow the sources rather than our own personal views. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think this last one is certainly a good edit. Essentially, if we want to avoid value judgements on Singer himself and separate what are criticisms of him from criticisms of his company, when Elliott Management is mentioned, it should be clarified that this is predominantly known for being a Vulture Fund - especially considering that the lede should reflect the content of the article. In some cases missing content, since there was a lot of controversy surrounding Delphi and Compuware is completely absent from the article - but this is probably for another discussion. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Thank you for your effort towards breaking the gridlock. I do think we're not quite there yet, however. We have in effect used a single source for a contentious statement in the lede, which in fact is a summary of particular portions of said source. This is not encyclopaedic. Why was just the Washington Post utilised or deemed representative? A similar analysis applies for the EM section with the reinstated comment from the lede. It now reads as if the firm's primary line of business is distressed debt (which in fact is not, per reliable sources); the preceding Financial Times statement also needs revising in light of this (per the source: "Elliott is a multi-strategy fund with $24bn in assets across global markets"). Let us please discuss how to incorporate neutral information from a representative sample of sources first, before editing the article while there is an ongoing discussion. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Easily resolved by using multiple sources citing Eliott as a Vulture fund [60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. We've been through the whole "percentage of business" line of argument, and that in no way concerns us - we must simply show what reliable sources say. It's what the fund is best known for considering these activities are extremely high profile and widely reported. Simply leaving this out of the lede would be akin to leaving out the accusation of murder from the lede of O. J. Simpson's page and focussing instead on his sporting achievements and brief acting career. We all know this, let's not pretend that it's not the case. Any attempt to remove this from the lede is clearly an attempt at whitewashing. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, you and your sources are referring to Elliott Management as a vulture fund. So why are we including it on a BLP? To compare Singer, whose business practices are LEGAL, to the accusations of OJ Simpson's murder is completely out of line. Singer is covered in countless reliable sources on various topics outside of his investments. Meatsgains (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Do a quick Google News search for "Paul Singer" and tell me how far you have to dig to finally come across an article that compares Singer to a vulture. That is not what he, nor his fund, are "best known for". Meatsgains (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not comparing Vulture funds with murder. Clearly analogies aren't your strong point. The first couple of lines of the article are:

Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American hedge fund manager, investor, philanthropist and political activist. He is the founder and CEO of hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation, what the New York Times terms an "activist hedge fund", and (via his Paul E. Singer Foundation) a prominent New York based philanthropist.

I'm simply saying to change this description of his company to what it is widely regarded as. I'll ignore the rest of the straw man.

Also, again just as a side point, this sentence highlights the problem which has historically plagued this article - giving equal weight to "activism" and "philanthropy" in an attempt to detract attention from what should be given far greater weight. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I find it astounding how instead of engaging in actual discussion people resort to facile arguments. I am also gobsmacked at the fact that the very content which this post is intended to discuss is being willy-nilly reintroduced into the article without proper process per Wikipedia policy. This reeks of agenda-pushing and needs to stop. It looks like we're sadly heading to upper levels of dispute resolution, given the lack of outside participation. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This topic has already been extensively discussed in many different places. Further forum shopping is not the answer. There's plenty of room to discuss details, but there is an established consensus that the term "vulture fund" is not inherently contentious or derogatory, and that the only relevant policies here are the usual ones about sourcing and weight. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See, for example, the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Using "Vulture fund" as a page name. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about a page name, and thus your reference is void. This is about the use of a non-neutral term in a BLP's lede and contents. Several policies come into play here. Furthermore, creating a post in the relevant noticeboard before actually editing the article is precisely the opposite of forum shopping. I have solicited nobody's attention. This discussion is open to all parties. Can we discuss the issue at hand now? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Focus, if I can just remind you of the RfC in October entitled Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?, the consensus was:

There are comments on past RFC's. RFC's findings are not forever, consensus can change, but it is not guaranteed to change. There is consensus to use the term "vulture". The majority argument is that the word is used by reliable sources WP:RS. The minority opinion cites WP:BLP, but BLP is not a policy against inclusion of information found in reliable sources. Its purpose is to make sure those sources exist and are used. The lede of BLP clearly sets this forth.

A similar RfC in August 2014 also gave (weak) consensus to use the term. I'd just like to remind you again that you're not bringing absolutely anything new to the table here, and even more forum shopping is going to weaken your position since it does appear (at least from the outside) like there appears to be an effort to suppress reliable sources be editors who are personally offended by a term due to their ideological positions. This has extended far beyond just this article. Again, I also remind you of the RfC which you were a part of which, as Jonathan A Jones points out, "established consensus that the term "vulture fund" is not inherently contentious or derogatory". SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the RfC I participated in discussed a different article altogether. Even more forum shopping? Can you provide evidence of a single instance of forum shopping? I haven't even edited the article while trying to bring about a civil discussion (when several editors here have). I have also never suppressed any sources - which you seem to treat as acceptable practise on Wikipedia. I am in fact trying to weigh sources, but am met with constant refusals to do so. I also hold that your constant accusations of ideological persuits are laughable and cannot be held to any degree of seriousness. It's amusing how you're the only one using an ideology card; engaging in discussion (the very definition of neutrality) so far appears to border on the absurd. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You alluded to two previous RfCs, can you please provide links to those? Are they about Paul Singer? I believe I participated in an RfC in the W2W talk page about a different article a few months ago. If as you say there was weak consensus in August 2014 (about Paul Singer?), then reassessing said positions seems appropriate and even prudent - especially when there is clear contention. I'd also urge editors experienced in the matter to come forward and provide expert opinions, given interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV can be quite daunting - and none of us here appear qualified to provide such interpretation (especially with such entrenched views). The fact of the matter is "vulture" is a derogatory term, as acknowledged by reliable sources, and as such cannot be used in a neutral encyclopaedia. That is a whole different (yet related) issue to the way the article is structured and its contents. We can thoroughly portray the work the subject does, but using neutral language. Politically-charged terms should not have any place on Wikipedia, and doing so when the exact same rources used to support its use acknowledge the term is pejorative seems utterly unreal. What place does opinion have in a lede? Imagine I introduced similar text to an actor's article: "the NYT describes Brad Pitt as a 'leftie nutjob' or a 'dramatic' actor" - what good does that sentence bring to the table, regardless of its provenance? I'm tired of saying this but let's keep things in perspective and engage in discussion. Avoiding discussion won't make dissent go away - ask Lenin. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you that you started the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#Paul Singer (businessman). Starting this discussion shortly afterwards in a clear breach of WP:FORUMSHOP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you I started the second discussion after the first one went stale (nobody outside the article's own talk page has cared to comment in either, by the way) - in turn after the talk page's own discussion went stale; when both policies are at play; and in the appropriate venues to do so. I haven't solicited anybody's participation in other outlets. Have you ever even read WP:FORUMSHOP? In case you haven't: noticeboards are precisely where consensus is sought for, and I have, per the quoted policy itself, provided links to show where else I have raised the question. Now, can we please set these attempts at discrediting serious editors aside and focus on the discussion at hand? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The other RfC on Singer's page was in October and can be found here. As it has been noted multiple times in this discussion and the other two you have started, consensus was established to use the term. I really think you can't accuse anyone here of not engaging in discussion, since It is pretty evident that this has been discussed to death - there have been two on Singer's page, one on W2W and at least one more on Vulture funds. These discussions (along with the other RfC you participated in and another on the Vulture fund page) have found using RS that Vulture fund should be used since it is WP:CommonName. Ignoring this consensus and the other established here whilst repeatedly forum shopping and still continuing to make the exact same claims which all these discussions repeatedly refuted is bordering on WP:CPUSH since it should be fairly obvious by this point that your POV is a minority one. As you have been told repeatedly, you are not bringing anything new to the table and the reason you feel that others are "unwilling to engage" is really just seems like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and (speaking only for myself here), I don't feel like going through all this again to satisfy the whims of one editor. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Note the use of quotation marks (and that the RfC uses the quotation marks itself) - which is the practice of most reliable sources using the term (NYT generally uses either "so-called" or quotation marks for usage of the term). Collect (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm unnecessarily reopening a can of worms, but I'm not sure I understand: If there's a clear consensus (and it appears there is) that Wikipedia policy does not forbid calling a vulture fund a vulture fund any more than it forbids calling a loan shark a loan shark (in both cases the most common term for a particular style of business practice), why does the lede call a vulture fund an "activist hedge fund"? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hello there IP whose only mainspace edit is restoring a word in Sex offender registries in the United States! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hello there person who seems extremely troubled by the term vulture fund being applied to a Paul Singer's vulture fund!

Did you want to answer the question, or were you just being friendly? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your appearance here out of all places looks odd, that's all. Now, a few remarks on your post above: 1) we're an encyclopaedia, not a village barbershop - neutrality is paramount to everything we do; 2) there is no clear consensus - 3 editors who've extensively edited the article feel like they own it and have since established a smear campaign on several capitalist enterprises (nothing to do with their declared Communist-Socialist affiliations, of course); 3) as has been previously discussed, "loan shark" doesn't carry the same popular connotations as "vulture fund" - the former practise being in several domains illegal and having such a long history it counts with widespread use, the latter is still in its etymological infancy, if you will, and is treated by sources as pejorative, hence its appeal to mass media markets (see use of quotation marks - it is a legal practise and as such shouldn't be treated any differently; its only appeal is due to the fact sensationalism sells); 4) finally, the lede calls Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" given the New York Times does so in the reference used for that specific claim. Hope this clears your questions. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that the vulture fund business model is entirely legal. Indeed I would go further than that: vulture funds are ethical and provide a valuable service by exposing the bankruptcy (not just financial, but in many cases intellectual and moral) of the debtors. As has already been established there is nothing intrinsically pejorative about the term. And so once again we come back to the fundamental principles: follow the sources and apply due weight. We call Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" because the New York Times does so, and similarly we describe Singer's investment style as 'either "an activist investor" or a "vulture capitalist"' because the Washington Post does so. There's nothing complicated here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Focus, I don't feel like I "own" anything, I have been looking at this page for a few months and the "smear campaign" extends to Vulture fund, and that's it... The editor who feels like they own the page is Meatsgains, who has very clear free market leanings and has been protecting that page for quite some time. I think that now since you're resorting to cherry picking sources based on your own views, there is nothing further do discuss here. What you are trying to do seems overwhelmingly obvious. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - WP:DONTBITE NickCT (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: - WP:AGF FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - I'm pretty sure it was you who was not assuming good faith by implying foul play. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: Foul play? You mean like Maradona? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - I see you have just descended into childishness now that you haven't gotten your way. Judging from your snarky and xenophobic jibes in this discussion and the W2W discussion, I take it you're from the UK. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the content at hand rather than the behavior of users? Meatsgains (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(In response to "4) finally, the lede calls Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" given the New York Times does")

Yes, it does. And I'm sure it's pure coincidence that led you to look up that source and use it to change the wording.

Unfortunately, WP:UNDUE suggests that Googling until you find a source that uses your preferred terminology, then changing the lede itself to pretend that it's the majority viewpoint, is a Very Bad Idea. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War I'm revamping the article; a couple of years ago added material (1917 Part II) that didn't seem as NPOV as it does now, with me being more experienced. I'd like someone with an interest in NPOV to help me identify what certainly can't stay in since it's my OR. The problem I've got is that the paraphrase of Edmonds, Travers and Green is OK but they all get it wrong and that's the bit I couldn't resist adding. Edmonds tucked certain potentially embarrassing facts away in footnotes and appendices and occasionally they contradict the narrative. I'd hoped by now someone would be in print so that I could cite this to them but alas not (Unless there's an adept who knows better?). Everyone who writes on the 3rd battle of Ypres swallows the biggest mistake in the book. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll get me coat.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is Zamzam Well. The text is:

"The British Food Standards Agency has in the past issued warnings about water claiming to be from the Zamzam Well containing dangerous levels of arsenic;^[1] such sales have also been reported in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where it is illegal to sell Zamzam water.^[2] The Saudi government has prohibited the commercial export of Zamzam water from the kingdom.^[2] In May 2011, a BBC London investigation found that water taken from taps connected to the Zamzam Well contained high levels of nitrate, potentially harmful bacteria, and arsenic at levels three times the legal limit in the UK, the same levels found in illegal water purchased in the UK.^[3] Arsenic is a carcinogen, raising concerns that Muslims who regularly consume commercial Zamzam water in large quantities may be exposed to higher risks of cancer."

Although there are times when "alleged" may be called for, I'd say that nitrate and arsenic aren't alleged health risks. This is a new account making the change. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

However a later paragraph in the same section has the Saudi authorities denying high levels of arsenic: presumably the "alleged" is meant to refer to the presence of arsenic, not the consequent danger? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

True, although I'd like a source from the Saudi authorities directly. But this probably isn't worth arguing about after all. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Veganism currently has a dispute on the talk page by editors over the neutrality of the lead. There is also a dispute over the placement of a dispute tag to indicate that. I would like to request comments from other editors on whether or not the placement of an NPOV dispute tag on the article is appropriate. Zippy268 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to offer balance to edits written by one editor bloodofox. He is making this into a WP:COATRACK. I have put the following addition at the end of the Reception article -

'Academic theologian Ted Peters in reviewing Painted Black refers to Raschke's critics as "anti-anti-Satanists." He writes that "Raschke shows no investment investment in anything other than garden-variety secular values regarding human decency. Even so, he is attacked by the anti-anti-Satanists not for the position he actually presents but as a front for the targeted enemy, the church."[12] A review in the The International Cultic Studies Association said "With his book, Painted Black, Dr. Carl Raschke...makes a unique and valuable contribution toward the understanding of this bizarre and frightening problem [of Satanism]. Raschke's book is not merely a survey of recent outbreaks of Satanism, but a comprehensive treatment of the phenomenon. He does not limit himself to criticizing the practices of Satanism while granting an unearned respect to the belief system that inspires them."[9].

Bloodofox continues to revert this edit by saying ICSA and Ted Peters are not "reliable", which they are. He just has own dogmatic point of view and is making up reasons to eliminate them, calling what they say "nonsense." He also makes absolute negative claims about Raschke without citing evidence and won't allow anything other than what he writes to go up there. He also makes claims about me that arent true. He is clearly on a vendeta for some reason (probably because he is on the opposite side of the satanism argument) and is completely violating NPOV policy. In his mind anything that is not purely negative is not "reliable." I request that you allow the edits above and block him from further reverting them. Or someone should explain why they cant count as "evidence." You can see the discussion on the talk page.LH Chicago (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago

This guy. See this ongoing discussion over at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am an editor on Hindi language wikipedia. Most religion related articles on that wikipedia present religious beliefs as a fact. For example an article on Hindu god Brahma will say "Brahma created the Universe" instead of saying "According to Hindu mythology Brahma created the Universe". Complete article are filled with unverifiable claims like these. I want to fix this but other editors are not allowing. So, I wanted to know if there are any wikipedia guidelines regarding style of writing for religion related articles, so that I can show those guidelines to other editors. Please excuse me if this is not the right place for asking this question. Thanks --Gaurav (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gauravsood0289: AFAIK, each Wikipedia has its own content policies and guidelines, so you may want to raise this issue at in-wp. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He's asking if en.wiki has guidelines on that subject. Do we? DS (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:I just want to show them English wikipedia's guidelines. Everyone there generally accepts English wiki's guidelines.--Gaurav (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Doh! WP:NPOV has all you need: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - Note the emphasis on viewpoints, and specifically WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Thanks Cwobeel. I wanted to know if there are guidelines specifically for religion related articles. I found this proposal, but for some reason it has become dormant. --Gaurav (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter if the subject is chewing gum, or religion, the NPOV principles would apply all the same. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: I have been using WP:NPOV so far for arguing. But people cite religious websites and books to back their claims and its very difficult to convince them that they are not neutral. So, I thought it would be easier arguing if there are guidelines specifically about religion related articles. I suppose I will have to work with WP:NPOV. Thank you for your time. I really appreciate your help. Do tell me if you find something specific to religion. I will also post on the talk page of WP:RELMOS. --Gaurav (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)