Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12

10th-century city wall, Jerusalem
This article's title is completely pov, but I'm not sure what else we can call it. The Jerusalem Post reference that is cited makes it clear that other archaeologists disagree with Mazar on several grounds. Mazar represents one pov on dating called the high chronology, others suggest different dates. There is also disagreement among archaeologists as to whether there really was a strong centralised state at that time. As I've said, we shouldn't have an article with this title, but I'm not sure what to do - probably merge with another article and make the content npov. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Archaeology of Israel could be a merge target but it needs a lot of attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also assume that the articel means 10thC BC. But I would not agree thst this is a merge case as it seems to be a touch fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said, there is a major problem with the title. Not only is assuming this wall is 10th century clearly pov, there is no wall actually named '10th-century city wall, Jerusalem'. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not the least fringe. There will be scholarly articles in due course, but it is typical of some archeologists in this region to publicize their work in newspapers. For general background,see City of David. see also Broad Wall (Jerusalem). We do need a better title--this one is pure POV. I made the suggestion on the article talk page of moving it to City of David Wall, Jerusalem because it at least in the region known as the city of david, whether or not it dates back to that period. . If it were merged it would be to the established article on City of David, but  normally we have separate articles on all archeologically significant buildings.  DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, not fringe. And not new either, this seems to be a continuation of the wall she excavated in the 1980s and had been discovered earlier. See for instance . Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Urban Outfitters
I would love some input on the discussion page for the colorful discussion at this article's discussion page re the article's Criticism section &mdash; it seems to focus on a half dozen or so items sold by the company that received criticism; the section comprises about a third of the entire article, doesn't seem to me to meet NPOV or guidelines for the criticism section. Any insights would be welcome. The discussion, and this section of the article, could use some very sharp minds. Thanks. 842U (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A concept in three sources could still be POV?
A long term dispute on the Falun Gong page is whether some of the following information, based on the sources below, can appear in the article.

'''An occurrence on Fuyou Street: the communist myth of Falun Gong's original sin National Review, July 20, 2009 by Ethan Gutman'''


 * "In 1999, the Public Security Bureau estimated that Falun Gong had attracted 70 million practitioners, 5 million more people than belonged to the Communist party itself. It was at that point that a physicist published an article in a Tianjin Normal University journal portraying Falun Gong as a dangerous cult. China isn't the West, and these things aren't random: The physicist, He Zuoxiu, is the brother-in-law of Luo Gan, at that time the head of public security, and the Tianjin Normal University journal answers to the state. The article was a flare in the night sky, a signal and trial of the party's designs. "

Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study By Noah Porter (described as "excellent" by David Ownby)


 * "He Zuoxiu, a scientist and one of Luo Gan's relatives, perhaps partially motivated by how Li Hongzhi calls modern science limited, seems to have intentionally provoked Falun Gong... Things could not have worked out better for the two if they had planned it — which, it appears, they just might have."

Zhao Yuezhi, "Falun Gong, Identity, and the Struggle Over Meaning," in Contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world edited by Nick Couldry, James Curran, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003


 * "A number of factors were involved in the souring relations among Falun Gong and the Chinese state and the news media, including ... lobbying efforts on the part of Li’s qigong opponents and scientists-cum-ideologues with political motives and affiliations with competing central Party leaders, which caused the shift in the state's position."

The reason for the information being excluded, as far as I can tell, is that Ethan Gutmann's article was published in the National Review ("an anti-China U.S. conservative publication" and because Noah Porter, the anthropologist, refers to Falun Gong primary source materials in his thesis). I stated how I don't think those reasons are adequate for excluding the material. I thought the NPOV board would be a good way of getting an outside opinion. The point is to mention two things (at least):


 * He Zuoxiu, the outspoken Marxist scientist critic of feudal superstition, is brother-in-law to Luo Gan, the public security tzar;
 * There is speculation about whether the articles written by He were part of a plan to attack Falun Gong in the media;

I believe both those points are clear from the material above, and that no real reason has been provided for excluding the material, despite the reams of discussion. Outside editors, please state your views about whether the above points would contravene NPOV by being on the page. (The previous discussions on this are here: .)--Asdfg12345 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

scrap this, actually belongs at the RS noticeboard. the reason given for excluding the source was related to its reliability. --Asdfg12345 12:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please consider that Asdfg12345 was banned from editing Falun Gong articles for gross POV violations. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchism in Canada / Republicanism in Canada
The article Monarchism in Canada currently reads like an advocacy of the canadian monarchism and lacks objectivity in both the partiality of the tone and the undue prominence of pro-monarchy content. The main author and contributor does not want to introduce statements which could be interpreted as anti-monarchy, even if they are relevant to the issue being discussed. I think it should instead describe the monarchism movement in the country, its history and talk about the various monarchists groups. Most of the article can be considered a POV fork, together with Republicanism in Canada. Shouldn't the arguments be incorporated, instead, in a more neutral way, in the common Debate on the monarchy in Canada‎? It is currently mostly a poll war, but I think it could be restructured to include the main arguments of the two parties. --zorxd (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was I who divided the content of Debate on the monarchy in Canada between Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada, due to a) the repetition of information between the three articles, and b) an editor who adamantly asserted that Republicanism in Canada could not be merged into Debate on the monarchy in Canada due to the existence of Republicanism in the United Kingdom, Republicanism in Australia, and Republicanism in New Zealand. Though I've put a vast amount of effort into improving Monarchism in Canada, I don't flat-out object to combining it and Republicanism in Canada together into Debate on the monarchy in Canada. However, I strongly suspect that such a move would create an immense article, and I don't yet know how that could be accommodated. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have to be so long, because it would contains only the arguments, and not the whole canadian history as seen by the two parties. The history of the monarchism movement in Canada could stay in its article. But part of the problem also come from the fact that even the article about republicanism in Canada as a stong pro-monarchy POV. Just look at this example :


 * republicans will phrase this argument as "no Canadian citizen can become head of state," though this is technically not a valid claim
 * Not a valid claim? It would be hard to be more biased. It also minimize republicans to Quebec separatists as much as possible (emphasizing on the marxist FLQ, of course!). The conclusion of the article is even that it would be too hard to get rid of monarchy! The article really can't be compared to its Australian equivalent. --zorxd (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't seek to eliminate information by labeling it as what it is not. Both articles outline examples of either republicanism or monarchism throughout Canadian history, not republican or monarchist versions of Canadian history. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we both said our view : I think that both articles have a monarchist bias, as if they were written by a monarchist, and you think that they are fine. I started this discussion so that we get the views of more contributors. We should wait for feedback. --zorxd (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they are fine. We don't need others' input to confirm that. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't accept any anti-monarchy statement to be added to the article. Should we remove anti-republican statements from the republican article? --zorxd (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more clear with what you mean by "anti-monarchy statement". Republicanism doesn't belong on a page about monarchism (and vice versa), but there are comments against monarchism on the Monarchism in Canada article. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Example : saying that most of the population didn't want the Queen to attend the 400th of Quebec city is not republicanism, but it does not help the cause of the monarchy either. Does it mean we can include it? --zorxd (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not starting this discussion all over again in a different place. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dense Inert Metal Explosive - due weight concerning the legality issue
Bjmullan inserted in Gaza War and in International Law and the Gaza War an opinion of Sir John Stanley (see here and here respectively). Sir Stanley argues that DIME weapons are illegal and using them violates the international law. None of the sources cited in DIME entry imply that it is illegal. Global security says that it has not been "declared an illegal weapon"; neither Norwegian doctors in Gaza nor HRW military expert imply somehow it is illegal; Colonel Lane, military expert testifying in front of the fact-finding mission in July 2009, was asked about using DIME in Gaza. In his reply, he never suggested that DIME is illegal; finally, Goldstone report in para. 49 says that "DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law as it currently stands". my concern - citing Sir Stanley on this issue violates WP:UNDUE. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sceptic, I haven't been following the discussions very closely on the talk pages for this issue but what strikes me most isn't concerns about legality, it's the mismatch between how the issue is addressed in the wiki articles compared to how it is addressed in the large number of sources that talk about this issue. The emphasis is completely different. The focus of the majority of the sources is on the consequences of it's use against real people in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead (assuming of course that DIMEs were being used). It's the unusual nature of people's injuries, the oddly high number of amputations and maiming injuries seen by NGO's like Physicians for Human Rights working with people in the Gaza Strip and the probable long term health risks to actual people that they discuss at length. In other words and unsurprisingly the sources focus on the effects of the use of this weapon on real people in the Gaza Strip. In contrast, the section in the Gaza War article seems to be completely detached from the reality presented by the sources. For example, the people have vanished. It presents the issue in an sort of sanitised, abstracted, technical way that detachs it from the subject of the article, the war and its effects. There's already an article about DIME which is where the abstracted, technical stuff belongs (although I see that it somewhat understates the impressively bad 100% tumour yield for this material in animal tests). Legality is pretty much a non-issue or just gets a very brief mention in the majority of sources so I'm not convinced that your question here addresses an issue that deserves any weight at all from a wider perspective. The whole legality issue seems undue to me.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * consequences of it's use against real people in Gaza War article were addressed here, here, here, not to mention other info added by Bjmullan. If you think that this is not enough, you are welcome to edit the section and participate in the talk page. This inquiry was started for completely different reason. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's already far too much. If the section was reduced to a sensible size the legality issue would become vanishingly small. Hence it's not a completely different reason, it's directly related to the excessive amount of information about various aspects of DIME weapons which magnifies the legality issue out of proportion.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This section has gone the same way as the section above on White phosphorus. It's not about the impact the the stuff has on real people but just about giving excuses for it's use. Bjmullan (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

→The inquiry is not about proportions of legality issues per se in the section; it is not about the impact of the stuff on real people or excuses to use it. The inquiry is about one simple question. Does inclusion of the opinion that DIME is illegal violates the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE or it does not. My rationale is presented above. I would like to see defenders of keeping the opinion bring arguments based on sources and wiki policies. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism
The article suffers from a distinctly pro-catholic bias... coatracked arguments with cherry picked sources. It does not treat the subject from a neutral POV. A bit of help from those with a history or political philosphy background is needed. Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination - title of article misleading
I feel the title of the article is extremely misleading, because readers (and some editors) are not aware of the "rules" that have been set by the active editors - that material added must not only agree with the government investigations, but it must also not challenge the simplified version of those findings that the editors have agreed upon, or digress into details about conflicting evidence. The average reader likely assumes, due to the title of the article, that this article is a wide-ranging examination of the JFK assassination, when it is actually, primarily, an account of the government's findings about the assassination. Items that don"t fit the litmus test are deleted, sometimes without comment. My referenced lines about the rifle found in the Dallas School Book Depository initially being identified as a 7.65 Mauser were deleted as "conspiracy theory", and then when moved to the "conspiracy theory" section of the article, way down in the article, they were deleted a second time, without comment. I had to get a debate going to find out what was going on. I quote one of the editors.


 * "THE PAGE IS CHIEFLY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS. The debates belong elsewhere. It's not about "defending" anything.(!) Which is why, throughout the article, you see phrases like "...government investigations concluded..."; "According to the Warren Commission..."; "The Warren Commission theorized..." and why, if you glance at the notes and references on the bottom, the large preponderance of citations are from the Warren Commission. The reason this is so is that there is little dispute over what the investigations claimed, IOW, there is no argument that the WC claimed a single bullet caused JFK's non-fatal wound and Connally's wounds. The moment we start to open up the debate, the page massively opens up to disputes back and forth over evidence. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE HUGE DEBATES OVER VIRTUALLY EVERY ASPECT OF THE ASSASSINATION. To delve into those debates would make the page completely unwieldy, and so those discussions are left to the attendant pages, where relevant."

If you are going to call the article "JFK assassination" it should be a broad and inclusive article. The other editors feel this is unrealistic for the reasons given above. But I feel this results in an "official", simplified story that readers will assume is "the truth" as agreed upon by all serious researchers, which it is not (I have references I can supply if you doubt this). My suggested fix is to rename the article "John F. Kennedy assassination - U.S. government investigation findings". All of the editors participating in the debate oppose this, but the current article, as currently titled, seems clearly NOT NPOV to me, and definitely misleading to the readers, who have no idea about these "behind the scenes" restrictions on content.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go with the regular editors on this one. Like Collapse of the World Trade Center, this is an article with a generally accepted explanation, and thousands of conspiracy theories. The generally accepted explanation is the one that gets the main page, while conspiracy theories go onto their own page. The fact that there is debate is beside the point. NPOV does not mean "give equal time to every proposal on one page." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you support a "winner take all" approach to encyclopedia articles? If the article on U.S. history omits any evidence or commentary that the indigenous people got a raw deal when they were driven off their land, we can just exclude that as not being "generally accepted" and put it in a separate "Native Americans" article? If the "Collapse of the World Trade Center" article is only based on the 9/11 Commission report and other government sources, it should also be subtitled "official government investigation findings" because that is what it would be.Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This person tried to gain consensus for changes to first the content then the title on the relevant page. There was never a "ban" of information that disputed the government investigations, indeed the disputes with the conclusions are mentioned in the lede, and a section briefly discusses them. At least six editors participated in a discussion and all disagreed with his proposal and disagreed with his contention there was a problem with the page. He next took it to Editor assistance/Requests where he was a) told this smacks of forum shopping and b) his dispute had been adequately addressed. Three outside editors there all agreed that there was nothing to remedy. All the while I have suggested his material would help improve an existing page, on conspiracy theories related to the Kennedy assassination, and have offered some specific and concrete advice on how best to present the evidence of conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I could have just engaged in an edit war with you, and reverted your edit without comment, as you did mine, but I thought it might be better to a) first discuss it on the talk page b) when that failed to resolve the issue, I took it to editor assistance c) they suggested discussing it further on the talk page, which I pointed out we had done and that Canada Jack said further discussion was pointless, so then, d) I've raised the issue here. Are you accusing me of misconduct?Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with the article title. There already is an article John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories; this article is linked from John F. Kennedy assassination. Which basically solves any NPOV problems. This sounds like a content dispute and should be settled on the article talk page not here. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So we don't have to worry whether or not an article is NPOV, as long as it is balanced by another article somewhere else? A flat earth article is balanced by a round earth article?Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * These are the kinds of authors and references that are excluded from the main article, because they point out problems with the Warren Commission investigation:
 * Mark Lane (1966). Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission's Inquiry Into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald. Holt Rinehart & Winston.
 * Henry Hurt (January 1986). Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
 * Michael L. Kurtz (November 2006). The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy. University of Kansas Press.
 * Gerald D. McKnight (October 2005). Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why. University of Kansas Press.


 * The last two books are by history professors. Anything that challenges the government's version of events can be, and usually is, removed from the article. If the title of the article was "Bill Clinton", would material that conflicts with his official,

Clinton-approved biography be excluded, restricted to one section, or moved to another article?Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The references above are accepted as part of the "Conspiracy" section of the article, but this implies, again, that only the official government investigations are credible, when in fact they are highly suspect. The views expressed are excluded from the rest of the article, leading the reader to believe that the version of events given in the article is unquestionably valid. In reality, it is just the goverment's THEORY about what happened, and as Canada Jack admits above, it is highly controversial. But in this article, it is the only version of events.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As simply as I can put this, the article is not about "John F. Kennedy assassination". It is actually about "John F. Kennedy assassination - U.S. government investigation findings." That is the scope of the article now, because the editors have made a decision to limit it in that way. Here is the information that was excluded from the article: For example, Deputy Sheriff Boone and Deputy Constable Weitzman both initially identified the rifle found in the Dallas School Book Depository as a 7.65 Mauser. Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day describing the weapon as a "7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it".[10] Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the weapon. Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade told the press that the weapon found in the School Book Depository was a 7.65 Mauser, and this was reported by the news media. But investigators later identified the rifle as a 6.5 Italian Mannlicher Carcano.[11][12][13] Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If consensus is what you are looking for, then my 2 cents worth is in for keeping the title just as it is. If you want to do another article on "Conspiracy Theories Regarding the Kennedy Assassination", I would certainly think that that is notable. Oh, wait...John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories already exists. Leave it alone. Rapier1 (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the title of the article were "Earth", and it stated that the earth is flat, and gave evidence from official Middle Age Vatican cosmology, government investigations and astronomers who support the idea, detailing why this is so, and this made up most of the article, and conflicting material that suggested the possibility that the earth is round was excluded, because it would make the article "unwieldy", except in one short section called "Round Earth theories", and most of the "Round earth theories" were in a separate article, would that be ok?Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, a poor analogy, because the material that is being excluded isn't the round earth theory, it's the observations by some historians and researchers that some evidence doesn't support the "flat earth theory" (i.e. lone gunman).Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go with your analogy, Nemo. Look at Earth. It's based on the scientifically accepted reality that's been clearly documented. Flat earth has its own article, as it is not supported by the evidence but has a notable following (and history). Same thing with JFK: we have a scientifically accepted reality, and unsupported conspiracy theories. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You think so? On the reliability of the Warren Commission's findings (on which the article is mostly based, which is the basis for the simplified version of events given, and which is the basis for excluding other information):
 * http://www.seattlepi.com/national/191397_kennedy18.html
 * http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=52023
 * http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-11-21/news/0311210105_1_oswald-assassination-of-president-assassinated-jfk
 * http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/hsca.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AS an example of the intellectual dishonesty on display here, I chose to, as an example, discuss the claims made on one of those above sources, and showed how the Baltimore Sun article is, quite simply, bullshit when it asserts four people saw Oswald on the ground floor when JFK was shot. SO I posted what the Warren Commission and others actually reported in terms of those four, yet here we have Ghost posting this stuff AGAIN as if it is the unvarnished truth. It's a prime example of the nonsense which would invade the page if his suggestions were adopted, as each and every one of the assertions above is easily answered. It would turn the main assassination page into an endless shouting match. This despite the fact there already IS a page and other places where many of these alternate scenarios are to be found. Canada Jack (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I proposed the following on the article talk page and it is currently being discussed: You could note, before the narrative of the story, "The following version of events is a simplified version of the Warren Commission's findings. It is a theory based on evidence available at the time it was written. Its findings have been challenged by some researchers but supported by others." That way the readers will at least know what they are reading.Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your proposal is 1) wikipedia does not generally include disclaimers and you have repeatedly been told this; 2) the fact there are disputes with the WC etc is clearly noted in the lede; 3) much of the narrative is introduced as " The Warren Commission said..." thus there is little chance a casual reader will be unaware many issues are contentious; 4) there is already a section on the page which discusses the fact there are many alternate theories on the subject; 5) your proposed text implies there is new evidence which has emerged which renders the Warren Commission conclusions incorrect, but this is a POV assertion; 6) there is no competing narrative per se to include. IOW, there is no definitive counter-argument to the narrative which is agreed upon by critics. Which is why those counter-arguments have their own page; 7) a page is already dedicated to counter-arguments, which has several links, including in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, point by point: 1) I noted this! But I also noted that explaining the source of your material may not be the same as the disclaimers covered by the "no disclaimer" policy (which I provided a link to!) No one "repeatedly told me" about this policy. I pointed it out! 2) Yes, but despite this, the entire narrative is based on that source, which is NOT pointed out. 3) If parts of the narrative say "The WC said" why not describe the entire narrative that way? 4) The alternative theory section comes long after the narrative, it is tightly restricted (you removed my material), and points in the narrative are not allowed to be challenged, so controversial statements cannot be challenged 5) There is new evidence! The HSCA uncovered some, many "secret" documents have been released, Gerald Ford admitted that he changed the description of the location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's neck! 6) You can't provide a complete narrative of events because there is not enough information, but we can see that the Warren Commission's attempt to do so was flawed because some historians and researchers have said so. 7) The "assassination conspiracy" article is not under discussion here. My problem is with the "assassination" article pretending to be NPOV when it's not. Just because you ALLOW a counter article to exist doesn't mean the main article is NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Yes, but despite this, the entire narrative is based on that source, which is NOT pointed out. 3) If parts of the narrative say "The WC said" why not describe the entire narrative that way?

This is the endless inanity we've had to put up with the past week. For one, Ghost has admitted HE'S NEVER READ THE REPORT. Yet he feels qualified to do roundly critique it. If he HAD read it, he'd realize that almost all the conspiracy critiques of the report COME FROM THE REPORT'S OWN EVIDENCE. SO it is entirely appropriate to link much of the material on the page to the Report. BECAUSE MOST OF THE CONSPIRACY COMMUNITY DOES SO TO. For example, the material on the sequence of shots, the nature of the wounds, the testimony etc., doesn't come from researchers asking questions decades later, it comes from the evidence gathered by the various official investigative bodies. Which is why it is quite clearly stated "The Warren Commission concluded..." etc. The other problem which Ghost, in his general ignorance on the subject as he seems blissfully unaware of this, the VAST majority of evidence to the assassination was carried out by those several government inquiries.

4) The alternative theory section comes long after the narrative, it is tightly restricted (you removed my material), and points in the narrative are not allowed to be challenged, so controversial statements cannot be challenged Ghost admits there indeed is a section on the page for the alternate scenarios, which links to a page which further explores the claims. It's been patiently explained to him that therefore his claims are moot. He tried to insert a lot of material which properly resides on the conspiracy page the section links too, minitua on aspects of the assassination. It was patiently explained that in the case of the Mauser rifle debate THERE IS ALREADY A PAGE DEDICATED TO THE RIFLE!!!! That's not good enough, it would seem.

5) There is new evidence! The HSCA uncovered some, many "secret" documents have been released, Gerald Ford admitted that he changed the description of the location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's neck!

The fact that the HSCA came to different conclusions is STATED IN THE LEDE. Various different interpretations of the HSCA IS IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE. While Ford changed "back" to "neck" as he noted THIS DID NOT ALTER IN ANY WAY THE HSCA'S CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SHOTS FIRED BY OSWALD, therefore does not rise, in this relatively broad article, to being discussed. It is, I believe, on the autopsy page where these issues are more greatly explored.

6) You can't provide a complete narrative of events because there is not enough information, but we can see that the Warren Commission's attempt to do so was flawed because some historians and researchers have said so. The Warren Commission narrative is listed, along with the HSCA where it differs, and the fact that others don't agree is mentioned as well. The basic problem here, completely unaddressed by Ghost, is there is NO ALTERNATE NARRATIVE WITH ANY BROAD AGREEMENT. It suffices to say others differ, because there are literally HUNDREDS of alternate scenarios put forward by other authors. How the hell do we deal with that on one page? By putting these alternate scenarios on another page. WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Further, virtually EACH AND EVERY point determined by the WC and the HSCA has some alternate scenario somewhere. AS I said earlier, attempting to incorporate these views (even if we could get a "representative" view, which is impossible) would turn the page into a shouting match.

7) The "assassination conspiracy" article is not under discussion here. The fact that it exists, that there are multiple links to it, including in the lede, renders much of your complaints moot, a point repeatedly made by outside editors. Canada Jack (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We've got this discussion going on in two places now. I assume this means you are willing to discuss this further on the talk page, but we still are not making any progress. I'm just asking for a note at the top of the article to explain that the article is primarily based on government and supporting sources, and that other points of view and conflicting evidence have been excluded. Here is my response, from the article talk page, to your assertion that having not read the Warren Commission report (and presumably being familiar with the material in the 26 supporting volumes of evidence) renders me incapable of recognizing a NPOV: I rely on the opinions of journalists, researchers and historians, and don't assume to question them based on my personal (original) research. By the way, since you often question the validity of news stories and the published findings of historians, are you qualified to do so?Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest we put this code at the top of the article, and request some expert assistance:

Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced I'm wrong, but I give up. It doesn't seem NPOV that anything that conflicts with or challenges the government investigation findings is removed, and editors are told to put it in the "JFK assassination conspiracies" article. But I'm a minority of one apparently, so I can't save Wikipedia from itself. I have to assume good faith, but I have to admit that the rejection of the common sense solution, to rename the article "JFK assassination - government investigation findings" has me scratching my head.Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Plasma arc waste disposal
There is no evidence that these facilities have ever been net electricity generators. Moreover, all sources are industry sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.22.240 (talk • contribs) 04:40, February 24, 2010
 * Considering there's no article at that title, I'm not sure what you're asking. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed heading - case sensitive. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Austrian School
Over at “Austrian School”, one or more editors has tried to have the article declared (underscore mine) citing a webpage as support. In 1959, it was demonstrated (in a peer-reviewed article) that some total-orderings do not correspond to any assignment of quantities (unique or otherwise), and in 1977 "The Austrian theory of the marginal use and of ordinal marginal utility", a peer-reviewed article by J Huston McCulloch in Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie v37, used this result to demonstrate that the orthodox conjecture that a quantification could be fit to any economically rational ordering were false. The passage in question treated a false conjecture as a theorem, on the strength of a claim from a source that is not peer-reviewed.

When I attempted to remove this bald, false claim, BigK HeX restored it less baldly as with the summary assertion though in fact McCulloch's article had been cited on this matter on the talk page. Caplan's claim as such was already in a “Criticism” section of the article (where McCulloch's article is also noted), so reïteration of the claim is redundant; and the source here is poor. None-the-less, BigK HeX asserts again on my talk page that I haven't provided an appropriate source, and preëmptively threatens to use WP:3RR. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And now BigK HeX has removed any reference to the peer-reviewed article by McCulloch. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the reference to McCulloch because SlamDiego insists on using it to promote a conclusion that is very clearly NOT evident in the source. I basically posted the following summary on the article's talk page. That mainly, I believe there is a violation of WP:SYN.  SlamDiego made this edit:
 * "McCulloch, however, has formally shown that there are economically rational preferences to which none of [ mainstream microeconomic theorists' ] weak quantifications can be fit."
 * and when pressed about it failing verification, he apparently describes how he based his statement on text from page 274 of his source which discusses "Table 4." The only relevant conclusion about a "Table 4" there is the following:
 * "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be essentially cardinal."
 * ....that's it, as conclusions on "Table 4" go. The passage in the editor's source makes no mention of mainstream theories, much less describing them as "weakly quantified," and we have certainly NOT been presented with evidence of McCulloch equating all things "essentially cardinal" with things that the editor refers to as "weakly quantified."  And, no matter what phrase SlamDiego  chooses to use (whether "weakly quantified" or something else), that he still has NOT been able to quote where his source attempts to make the same conclusion that he has synthesized.
 * Given SlamDiego's contested edit, it seems that he is using the source as if it read, "the unrelated ordering of Table 4 cannot be realized by the weak quantifications of the mainstream microeconomic theorists described by Bryan Caplan" He has substituted the source's concept ("essentially cardinal") with his own concept (of what can be "realized by the 'weak quantifications' of mainstream microeconomic theorists").
 * Even further, it is clear that the author, McCulloch, wrote that passage with the express aim of building his conclusions about a non-mainstream theory there [the Austrian theory of utility], which makes SlamDiego's use of that passage as a reference for assertions about mainstream theory even less defensible, as it is completely disregarding the context of the source. BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It needs to be noted (as it was on the talk page) that McCulloch had elsewhere defined “essentially cardinal” orderings as those to which quantifications can be fitted. (McCulloch had defined “unrelated” orderings as those in which goods an services do not act as complements nor as substitutes.) Thus, in providing an ordering that was economically rational what could not be “essentially cardinal”, he had provided one to which no quantification could be fitted. Caplan (rightly or wrongly) is cited as having allegedly said “mainstream theorists since then have shown that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so also hold for ordinal preferences”, in rebuttal to Austrian School claims that utility could not be quantified.
 * BigK HeX is claiming that, because McCulloch was speaking of the theory that Caplan was supposedly rebutting, but not in reply to that rebuttal nor (supposedly) in explicit response to other mainstream claims, it is synthesis to cite McCulloch in response to Caplan. (BigK HeX is not even accurate in pretending that McCulloch concerned himself only with the Austrian School theory, as McCulloch specifically noted that the von Neumann Morgenstern formulation could not be reconciled with “intrinsically ordinal” preferences, and this point has been made to BigK HeX repeatedly.)
 * McCulloch's demonstration wasn't based upon a prior exclusion of mainstream theories. The fact that McCulloch's principal concern was the Austrian School theory (the theory that Caplan was supposedly refuting), rather than the theory that Caplan supports, doesn't make it “original synthesis” to cite McCulloch.
 * The removal of the reference to McCulloch is an attempt to protect a PoV by pettifogging with WP:SYNTH. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even ignoring your blatant misuse of the source to draw a conclusion not evident in the reference, your edit is still problematic since it's written as if it were a refutation of Caplan's assertions when IT DOES NOTHING TO REFUTE THEM.  The assertions that you attempt to refute are not present in the article --- certainly, I don't see Caplan making arguments similar to the ones you endeavor to "refute."  So, on top of the problem of you not having a source that even makes the point you're trying to create, your usage as a refutation is even worse because there's not actually any content in the article for it to refute (except, perhaps, a strawman). BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your begging of the question, Caplan is discussing exactly Austrian School ordinalism, and McCulloch's article is indeed principally about that ordinalism. Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted; McCulloch had already shown a class of preferences that vindicates those claims.  In attempting to stand the relationship of McCulloch's claim to the Caplan claim on its head, you are turning the relationship of the Caplan claim to the article on its head.  Such inversions are wikilawyering to push a PoV. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor Comments

 * In any case, I submit the following observations in concluding my remarks here. Perhaps, only "A" and "B" would be of relevance here.


 * A) SlamDiego's claim of "repetition" (for mentioning the mainstream understanding of a certain economic concept in two different sentences) seems weak, and I have, indeed, referred him to NPOV and made a reference to WP:STRUCTURE as well, which seems to be what he refers to as "wikilawyering." In any case, the specifics are this: the first instance of the "repetitious" sentence is used to help bring a balancing perspective to a minority viewpoint, and the second mention occurs as one example of many in the "criticism" section of the article.
 * B) SlamDiego's complaint about an "unreviewed webpage" are easily corrected (and thus not really useful for him here), since the claims of the webpage were submitted by that author to peer-reviewed journals of a reliability equivalent to the sources used throughout that wikipedia article. I'll probably adjust the citations later.
 * C) SlamDiego's contentious edit made assertions that I have been unable to verify in the provided ref.
 * D) When challenged for clarification, it became pretty clear to me that he is definitely drawing a conclusion not evident in the source, as explained above. His rebuttal basically has centered around explaining how one should ultimately be able to reach his conclusion, but that smells to me a lot like WP:SYN; there is an opinion other than SlamDiego and myself --- that editor on the talk page seems to agree with my conclusions; I do not think anyone has weighed in and agreed with SlamDiego's understanding. As an aside, it's not really relevant, but I've investigated SlamDiego's claim and would assert that his contention is flawed; I'd further suggest that this flaw is a good reason why he has been unable to present from his source any assertions that similar to his full contention.
 * E) A further problem is that SlamDiego's edit is written as a refutation. Another editor and I (on the talk page) have stated that the assertions which are supposedly refuted are not even present in the article (i.e., strawman).
 * F) Obviously, I tried to seek clarification [immediately above] that SlamDiego has not engaged in the creation of a strawman. It is pretty apparent that my request for clarification on this page went unfulfilled.  I still contend that the wording&placement of his edit as a refutation is fallacious (on top of it's WP:OR problems).
 * G) Of four editors who have weighed in on the talk page, I believe all of the editors except SlamDiego have concluded that his source is not used appropriately, for various reasons.
 * In closing, I would like to make clear that I do think SlamDiego's source has information that could be helpful for the article and that SlamDiego likely possesses some potentially helpful expertise, but, in this case, it is my sad opinion that the (mis)usage of this source is a disservice to the article. BigK HeX (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though much of my issue with the contentious topic would be more appropriate elsewhere, but I am of the opinion that the mention of a mainstream view in two different sentences is hardly a problem for neutrality. BigK HeX (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that BigK Hex ultimately deals with my responses to his question by moving the discussion out of sight. I'll not play along, but reply to his (hidden) response:
 * I have already quoted the passage from Caplan above; if it is not a criticism of or rebuttal to the Austrian School, then it doesn't belong in that article at all.
 * I use the word “alleged” because I'm neither denying nor agreeing that Caplan's actual remarks are being fairly summarized.
 * The immediate point of my remarks which BigK HeX has now hidden is that he is applying onbe standard to the Caplan passage, and a very contrary standard to the McCulloch passage.
 * As to his “concluding” remarks,
 * BigK HeX can claim that it's “weak” to object that in fact the Caplan passage is being quoted twice, but this sort of repetition is generally rejected in other articles.
 * BigK HeX, as stated, perversely invoked WP:UNDUE to justify referring to the same point of an unreviewed webpage in two different sections of the same article.
 * BigK HeX may indeed be able to provide a better reference, but he hasn't. (And the fact that work has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal does not make it a reliable source.)
 * BigK HeX refers again to a single contentious edit, when there are two issues under discussion, and the first was raised before he escalated to removing the McCulloch passage (as part of seeking an edit war for which he would attempt to blame me).
 * As noted, McCulloch offerred an example of an economically rational ordering to which no quantification can be fitted, as per Rothbard's claim and contrary to the alleged claim of Caplan. BigK HeX has insisted that the reference doesn't count by applying a standard that he could not successfully apply to Caplan's passage.
 * Any serious review of the discussions between BigK HeX and me would show that, rather than seeking clarification and then thinking himself to discover that the McCulloch passage did not say what the article claimed him to say, BigK HeX began with the presumption that McCulloch could not be cited in refutation of the Caplan passage, and has subsequently refused to ackowledge otherwise.
 * In fact, at least six editors have weighed-in on the talk page concerning the McCulloch passage. When it was first introduced, two other economists and I discussed it, with no one arguing that it in any way misrepresented McCulloch's work.  The unnamed editor upon whom draws for the claim that I have misrepresented McCulloch, RLV, has a demonstrable bias with a personal component (for example, see RLV's complaint to ANI and its outcome).  And the remaining editor claims that Caplan's claim isn't noteworthy in the first place, so that he or she would remove both.
 * — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 10:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody has said that what Caplan wrote "is not a criticism of or rebuttal to the Austrian School." What has been denied is that in the Wikipedia entry, Caplan is alleged to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted." In fact, the Wikipedia entry makes no claims at all about Caplan's opinion on whether or not the Austrian approach of associating commodities with needs to satisfy requires an ordinal or higher scale of measurement. The entry does say, "Caplan stated that Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. He argued that several of the most important Austrian claims are false or overstated. For example, Austrian economists object to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results hold for all monotonic transformations of utility, and so are true for purely ordinal preferences." This is supported by the following quote from Caplan's essay: "As plausible as Rothbard sounds on this issue, he simply does not understand the position he is attacking. The utility function approach is based as squarely on ordinal utility as Rothbard's is. The modern neoclassical theorists - such as Arrow and Debreau - who developed the utility function approach went out of their way to avoid the use of cardinal utility." (Caplan says something close to the same in a journal article that Cretog brought to our attention on the talk page after the entry had been locked.) McCulloch treats the Austrian approach and doesn't address, much less refute, any claims in the Wikipedia article about Caplan's views. Much else in SlamDiego's comments is false. And he also violates policy with his personal attacks. -- RLV 209.217.195.132 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hold the same conclusion that RLV states above. Within the article it is made exceedingly clear that Caplan endeavors to refute the Austrian (mis)characterization of mainstream utility theories; within the coverage of the wiki article, Caplan does NOT attempt to refute Austrians' assertions about their own utility theories, contrary to the claim made by SlamDiego [i.e. "Caplan is alleged in the article to claim that the Austrian School claims about their ordinalism are refuted"].
 * I'm not sure if SlamDiego is one to admit a mistake, but unless someone comes in to agree with him, I think it's pretty clear that his repeated accusations of me "pushing a POV" should be retracted. My deletions of his text are not due to any "POV pushing" on my part, but due simply to the unacceptable errors in his edit. BigK HeX (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My remarks concerning Robert's claims are below.
 * I have made a point of providing links to diffs to support my claims about relevant behavior. The simple sequence of the edits rather plainly exhibits much of what I have said. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  05:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Robert is mistaken both on the mathematics and on Wikipedia policy.
 * Caplan is mistaken on the mathematics. Were the mainstream utility function (which maps to quantities) bases as squarely on ordinal utility as the Austrian School utility function (which does not map to quantities), then it would not impose an restrictions peculiar to quantification.  McCulloch showed a that quantification would rule-out some orderings that the Austrian School model does not.  Thus, as we are discussing Caplan's criticism of Rothbard's claim of peculiar virtue for the Austrian School approach, there is relevance and no original synthesis in noting a various precise claim of that peculiar virtue.
 * Robert (and interested editors) might review NPA's own explanation of what is forbidden. I have made a point of providing evidence where relevant behavior is at issue. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  05:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interested parties should note that every time he elaborates on his assertion that "Caplan is mistaken on the mathematics," that SlamDiego goes through a list of supposedly logical steps (perhaps citing ONE of three or four of these steps), instead of showing us how he is just echoing/paraphrasing a conclusion that is evident from some WP:RS. He accuses me of POV violations for deleting his edit, though its pretty clear his edit is the result of original research. BigK HeX (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What BigK HeX wants to characterize as “a list of supposedly logical steps” is a few trivialities in combination with material indeed found in a reliable source; for example, one of these (BigK HeX demanded one and is getting it, again) is exactly “McCulloch showed a that quantification would rule-out some orderings that the Austrian School model does not.” As noted, McCulloch showed that a quantification could not be fit tot he ordering in Table 4, and at the same time he made a point of characterizing the ordering as “unrelated” because the Austrian School model derives its results on marginal rates of substitution from an assumption that McCulloch calls “unrelatedness”. (His definition of “unrelatedness” is found in his paper.  Also found in his paper, but certainly not original to McCulloch, is the point that the Austrian School presumes an absence of complementarity or substitutability to derive diminishing marginal utility.) — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  12:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if McCulloch says what SlamDiego pretends he does, nothing in that would refute any of Caplan's claims echoed in the Wikipedia entry. If fact, McCulloch says nothing about whether a "quantification" can or cannot be fitted to anything. McCulloch's acceptance of the usual definition of the ordinal measurement scale level is shown by this passage from pp. 256-257: "For example, in Table 1 we could square each of the ordinal utility values so that from the top down they read... The marginal utilities in Table 3 would still decline from 25th to 9th to 4th to 1st to 0th. The Austrian law of diminishing marginal utility is thus invulnerable to monotonic transformations of the utility index." SlamDiego is performing Original Research. -- RLV 209.217.195.119 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * SlamDiego says, "Note that BigK Hex ultimately deals with my responses to his question by moving the discussion out of sight."
 * At the same time, observers should note that I was baited into this discussion over an accusation stemming from text that I deleted. That entire line of discussion centered on OR issues.  Since that time, I have realized that such discussion is not really relevant to the purpose of this noticeboard.  SlamDiego's response immediately above [at 10:44, 17 February 2010] is full of mischaracterizations, but I am not going to further pollute this noticeboard with talk of the WP:OR issues.  My response for this noticeboard is simple -- SlamDiego is making much ado about a sentence used twice as  being "repetitious," and he complains about the current source but a journal-published equivalent is available. I'd say it's pretty disingenuous (or worse) to complain that I haven't changed the refs yet, knowing full well that the article has a full-edit protection ["gold lock"]. BigK HeX (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You weren't baited into anything; and, again, this discussion was begun over your restoration of redundant criticism. Your deletion of the McCulloch passage was an escalation after discussion began here.
 * The discussion is relevant to this noticeboard because it concerns your attempt to push a PoV, notwithstanding that you're attempting to do so under cover of a comlex of other policies. (Readers may note, for example, that the discussion above on “Waterboarding” raised other issues, yet was relevant to this noticeboard.)
 * BigK HeX says that I am making much ado, as if it were about nothing; yet it is a nothing that he insists should abide, and about which he raised a charge of edit-warring even before he first deleted the McCulloch passage. It is evident who is baiting whom.
 * As to BigK HeX changing refs, not only could he have done so directly before his manipulative complaint about edit warring resulted in protection, but he could always present the ref(s) to an admin in order to get the change made. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved comments

 * These long drawn-out discussions on technical economic theory aren't really appropriate in this notice board, I think, especially since you're all involved. It seems like each person should focus on a single paragraph where they state their views. You should try to keep this on the Austrian School talk page. This stuff is also worded in fairly impenetrable economic jargon, even for someone like myself with an BA in economics and a particular interest in heterodox schools. When you're appealing to uninvolved editors, the discussion needs to be taken to an introductory level. I am inclined to side with BigK HeX and RLV in that I do think mainstream economists just believe that their microeconomics is focused on ordinal utility. I'm guessing that Austrians think that is inaccurate and that mainstream economists actually require cardinal utility. Perhaps so, but Wikipedia isn't the place to find the true answer. Of course, I'm not sure I really understand what's going on here but I'm not that interested. II  | (t - c) 23:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an appropriate request to post here, but I have an Rfc on a NPOV issue here. Unfortunately, being an Isreal-Palestine issue, most editors who have weighed in seem to have existing POVs which makes me question thier neutrality. Some fresh input would be most appreciated!

P.S. If this is not an appropriate area for this request, please let me know. I seek to learn!

Thanks NickCT (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Menzies
This article is the recipient of continuous numerous biased personal attacks against Gavin Menzies by Dougweller. Despite many efforts to explain the concept non-POV and neutrality Dougweller, ClovisPt, Nickm57 and several other editors refuse to follow Wikipedia policy on academic neutrality and persist in their personal attacks against Gavin Menzies in an effort to discredit his discoveries.

The above is from, who started off as , already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using on other articles, is clearly also. Way over 3RR. He's also complained at ANI and AIV. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this one, IP! Now added to my watchlist. (I hear that Pluck's ego often gets him into trouble... Auntie E. (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV category title?
I'm looking for help choosing a neutral and fair category title to embrace mechanical, electronic, and other man-made (manufactured) devices such as the radionics device and the GT200 which are broadly pseudoscientific. Devices like these are:


 * Highly discredited
 * Incapable of having ever worked under scientific analysis. For example:
 * The "sensor" in a GT200 is a sheet of scissor-cut paper between two sheets of card and the device contains no power source, being claimed to work off "the user's static electricity".
 * A radionics device appears to be a non-powered set of dials that are twiddled)
 * Identified as fraudulent or incapable devices by authoritative sources (legal judgments, fraud cases, government statements, overwhemling reliable sources, etc)
 * Not supported by any other than "tiny fringe" groups (if at all).

The suggested test for this category would be whether there is a substantial consensus that the device cannot or would not operate under known scientific principles, or else whether the device is so clearly determined to be non-working and incapable of being made to perform the claimed function that reliable sources have used strong terms such as "fraudulent". It would also include other notable fraudulent devices made and sold in human history.

I think such a category would be useful, but I can't think how to title it appropriately - "fraudulent" and "pseudoscientific" are emotive and (if misused) pejorative terms.

FT2 (Talk 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not easy. Purported electronic devices? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't easy is it. And the radionics dial twiddler isn't powered so it's not even an 'electronic' device. More ideas? FT2 (Talk 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is a good 'glob' word; it would depend on the device in question. For instance, even though 'radionics' might itself be pseudoscientific (I don't know enough about it to know) I'd tend to call devices like that simple fakes or shams (since any pseudoscientist who sincerely advocated for radionics would probably consider them fakes as well).  I mean, I think we need to distinguish between people who are honestly trying to be scientific and failing utterly at it, and people who are just trying to rip people off.  'sham devices' might be best, since it avoids the legal implications of fraudulence and carries none of the misbegotten seriousness of pseudoscience...  -- Ludwigs 2  19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sham devices isn't bad. Viable though? Other options? FT2 (Talk 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that "sham devices" isn't bad; although "sham" has a bit of a slang-like sound to it. I prefer "discredited"... it sounds more encyclopedic, and suggests that someone gave it a fair look before rejecting it as non-working or fraudulent.  Some other possible words are "bogus" and "hoax". Wildbear (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Discredited" works best of these three but compared to "sham" it covers too many devices that "just didn't work". Most of these were not really "hoaxes", and "bogus" is a bit too infomal and "slang". Good thoughts, but more ideas? FT2 (Talk 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:Dowsing. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Pseudoscientific devices" is another option. Trying to avoid creating another war zone if possible though, and this excludes blatantly fraudulent devices that don't claim a pseudoscientific basis. FT2 (Talk 18:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

well, since your third point seems to limit the category to things that are express chicanery, 'fraudulent devices' might be best. you could go with 'duplicitous devices' instead - less harsh, and has a nice alliteration...
 * p.s. or maybe 'misbegotten machines'...  -- Ludwigs 2  19:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Are "propaganda" and "regime" biased terms?
I would like to know the position of the Wikipedia community on whether the terms "propaganda" and "regime" are biased, in particular in reference to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party in its anti-Falun Gong campaign. The relevant section is here, and below is a small excerpt:

"According to James Tong, Professor of Political Science at the University of California and Chief Editor of the journal Chinese Law and Government, in the wake of the official ban the regime aimed at not only coercive dissolution of the Falun Gong but also reform and rehabilitation of the practitioners. This was accomplished through four program initiatives: a mass campaign of electronic and print propaganda; intensive individualized reeducation; special programmes for true believers that emphasised 'internal transformation' rather than 'external conformity'; and for the still defiant, punitive and rehabilitative labor reform."

Tong's profile:. The question is whether those terms should either be put inside direct quotes from the source whenever they appear, or should be changed to "Chinese government" and "statements" (instead of propaganda). My view is that the terms are not controversial or improper and can be used without needing to be modified or identified as quotes. They are commonly used terms in discussing the CCP/Falun Gong issue, and in China scholarship generally. If the source cited did not use such terms, however, then they should not be used. I am interested in the opinion of other Wikipedians.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you on this. The terms are obviously biased, as is the term "true believer."  However, if those are the terms commonly used in the sources, then Wikipedia is actually merely reporting.  The sources are where the line is being drawn for us.  If the sources did not regularly use these terms, then there would be no reason to not use these terms when speaking, for example, of the United States government.  However, we are writing of a foreign government.  We should ask ourselves whether we are biasing Wikipedia toward the Western POV.  For example, do scholarly sources in other countries commonly refer to the US gov't in the same terms?  If they do, then it is Western bias to use these terms for the Chinese gov't if we are not going to use them for the US gov't.  Becritical (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but the issue of how the United States and its activities are dealt with by scholars is separate to this. If indeed there was a bias among scholars, that is something we would presumably silently accept rather than "correct." In the case of James Tong, he deals in Chinese, not U.S. politics. It is worth our pondering though (even for non-U.S. residents).--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "true believers," this may have been my own bias creeping in, because I do not think the source used that term. I will check. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we both are correct on reflecting bias among scholars. It seems to me that we do correct POV, and that is a very essential part of WP, that is we report on the POV but we do not reflect it.  If we detect POV we do not "internalize" it but report on it.  So if these terms are POV, then we would use them only in the context of reporting what named scholars say. If I'm correct in this, then I would say that 1) yes, the terms are POV and so 2) we should use different terms or make clear that the terms are from the source.  Becritical (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Before going any further, does making clear that the terms are from the source involve anything more than saying "according to..." and citing it? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds sufficient to me. I don't think simply changing the terms would make the passage any less damning to the Chinese Gov't though. Becritical (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The neutrality of the terminology is ambiguous and should either be explicitly attributed to the speaker as suggested or neutralised/clarified for use in Wikipedia's voice if unattributed in my view. Propaganda is an especially complicated and contentious term that means all sorts of different things to different people in different places if you don't explain what you mean by the term.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly, the term propaganda or regime should not appear in the "Wikipedia voice." But some editors had suggested that it should not appear outside quotation marks at all. The message I get is that it does not have to appear inside quotation marks to be acceptable, but that it should be attributed to the individual who made the statement, both in writing (such as "... writes X" or "... according to Y") and with a citation. One editor had proposed that these might be words to avoid; this was what I wanted to get clarified. Please confirm that I understand the broad point here: just make sure it's clear that those are the words of the source, use attribution and citation to do so. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda seems to me to be a term which can be used as it requires less subjective interpretation. There also isn't another word which conveys the same meaning as propaganda. However, regime seems to be something which shouldn't be used as the word government will suffice in its place. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In relation to sources, remember that verifiability and neutral point of view are not the same concept. Not all sources, even if reliable, are as neutral as we would desire, and may be biased at some broad level (such as a national or regional one) or give undue prominence to one point of view in relation to others, even if being properly neutral when adressing specific disputes MBelgrano (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't a standard definition of propaganda so there is no standard, universally agreed meaning conveyed by the word. I think the interpretation will be entirely subjective. Many people will see it as a derogatory term suggesting that the information is false when in fact the information may very well be true and still qualify as propaganda for other reasons. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some subjective intepretation is required but propaganda is:

"a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience"
 * Propaganda can still present factual information, just in such a way that it heavily influences its audience. My point was that regime doesn't have such a clear-cut definition. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV doesn't mean finding "one true representation of reality", so much as representing the significant views and their balance neutrally. If there is a significant view that considers the topic in terms of "propaganda" and "regimes" then those may be appropriate terms to use in representing their viewpoint, with a clear neutral explanation for the reader of their stance and position and information to gain an understanding of how much WP:WEIGHT it carries. It's when Wikipedia uses those terms to declare XYZ is "propaganda", that we veer into POV. Representing a significant viewpoint faithfully is very different. There will presumably be other significant viewpoints that do not hold this stance, and the article should show the various views, who holds them, and the backgrounds and reasons why they do so. NPOV implies representing the topic as a whole faithfully, including the significant views that exist about it.  In brief they would be POV if we asserted them as "the truth"; they are correct and appropriate words when representing a significant view if they accurately describe and faithfully represent the viewpoint's position. (SImilar to how we wouldn't say "X is a terrorist" but we would say "The United States Government and most other governments consider X a terrorist"). FT2 (Talk 18:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider FT2's response to have nailed the issue. I had the thought in mind, given the line of debate that had gone on earlier, to start asking about how far our "neutralisation" of terminology extends, and whether this is a Wikipedia-wide issue, and how certain terms are determined to be "biased," etc. It certainly raises a number of issues. Whatever the case, with regards to the Chinese Communist Party's use of propaganda and indoctrination, and its being termed a "regime," there is a wealth of literature. Scholars have written about it for decades, and these terms are par for the course. In particular, with regard to the propaganda and indoctrination campaign against the Falun Gong, these words are used most regularly. I will take away from this fruitful discussion that it is important to acknowledge the source in all cases, but that it is not individual editors who decide what is biased and neutral with regard to terminology, but the body of reliable sources writing on the particular topic. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Authors personal view of events expressed and lineage information inaccurate (biased)
In the article on Lama (martial art)the author has in many areas expressed a biased view on the differeing white crane schools and their masters. In one particular case the Author describes the outcome of a public fight on January 17th, 1954... "The result was somewhat embarrassing, but it still brought public attention to the style." There is no mention about the reason for the exposition and if memory serves me correctly it was to raise money. the fight was called off after a couple of bouts with no winner declared so there would be a) no deaths and b) no ill feeling between the 2 schools involved.

Chan Hak Fu, one of the 2 figheters is still alive and living in Macau today.

Much of the article is biased and in areas is a blatant attempt to discredit many of the white crane schools and their masters. Insinr8 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insinr8 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the reference provided for that piece wasn't up to WP:RS standards, so I've simply removed it for now, with a talkpage explanation highlighting the need for a reference. Thanks, Doc  Tropics  03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks and I am learning what I can to try to provide references and to correct the article... that is untill it gets reverted to its previous form. here is a published account on the fight including reference to the fight being a fund raiser where the result was more than one hundred thousand Hong Kong dollars being raised. John Christopher Hamm, Paper Swordsmen.  As for Mr Chans Address, maybe i can find it in the phone book for reference LOL.  It is true his lineage extends to Australia and the rest of the world.  He is the head of Pak Hok Pai and he resides in Macau.  I do not know any other way to make changes and reference the sources without having the changes reverted by Nysanda.  Thank you for your assistance. Insinr8 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism article
There have been long running battles in this article between pro and anti-property libertarians which had settled down with compromises over last 6 months to a year. Comparing this February 1 version to this this March 3rd version, one can see a lot of material has been removed by one editor in an attempt to purge the anti-property libertarian views - bringing up all the old settled arguments yet again! (Meanwhile some question edits by anti-property people also have snuck in as well, causing more problems.) Anyway, the pro-gutting editor has an RFC up and comments on these two versions and how to deal with the issue welcome. Talk:Libertarianism CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anti-property libertarianism is really a flavor of anarcho-libertarianism, which is itself a WP:FRINGE subset of libertarianism. Without looking at the article, and thinking about it from a blank slate, it makes most sense to segregate the anti-property stuff to part of a single section or subsection with a main template. THF (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you use "socialism" (the article, not the idea!) as a model to some extent? There must be roughly as many flavours of socialism as of libertarianism. I think your main way forward is to make more use of university textbooks on political science. Try to choose some from different countries. They are RS even if not in English, so long as you use English sources where you can. I don't see that "fringe" applies; these are political views and while we have to give due WP:WEIGHT, we also need to give information about all the varieties of those views whether they seem odd to us or not. So is libertarianism a single political position in which there is disagreement about property, or is it two completely different positions with the same name? I don't know, and you should go with what the sources say. Liberal and conservative share the same problems, don't they? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The place to give those minority views is a "See also" section, or at most, a single sentence each in a "Other uses of the word 'libertarian'" section. Libertarian socialism, which is what we're mainly talking about here, is utterly inconsistent with mainstream libertarianism, while the different strains of socialism are more like variants of chicken curry on Brick Lane. THF (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not had the impression that the gulf is as wide as you say. And I don't think that all libertarians who don't think much of private property want to call themselves libertarian socialists. We should, as far as possible, pick apart all the different variants. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn
I feel this article has been hijacked by left-wing critics of Richard Littlejohn who are using dubious sources such as left-wing newspapers, biased blogs and comments from clearly left-wing figures such as Johann Hari and Will Self. I feel there is a lot of POV and biased content in this article. It seems to be people trying to force negative material about Mr Littlejohn rather than a balanced biographical article. I would appreciate a neutral opinion. Christian1985 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * New stuff goes at the bottom. Read WP:RS, find stuff that fits that criteria, and add it to that article.  Can you point out anything that explicitly violates the NPOV policies? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

in re Whaling in Japan, industry euphemisms
I believe that the whaling-industry euphemisms "take" and "catch" are non-neutral in the context of illegal whaling (and especially in questionable "research whaling") and thus should not be used in an unqualified voice. These terms falsely imply that the whales are not killed -- disregarding the rare to nonexistent 'non-lethal research.' In contrast to Japanese whaling, there is the legitimate research of wild animals which are caught, tagged and released for further study. This association is exactly why the terms "take" and "catch" are effective euphemisms by the whaling industry. Especially when our readers are not familiar with the controversies. PrBeacon (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for a little more background, an editor was concerned over the term "slaughter" some time ago. "Harvest" was another unpopular term. "Take" and "catch" are used in the industry, overseeing bodies (who are against the hunt), and media coverage. "Kill" was a concern for some but removing it completely has not occurred (and I would be against its omission completely). Another editor has expressed concern that overusing "kill" could cause neutrality concerns. I propose using a variety of terms. This seems like a pretty easy fix to me that has been blown a little out of proportion.Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be a little more specific regarding "slaughter", since what with so much reanimation of dead threads the talk page is hard to understand: An editor (Cetamata) was concerned over the term "slaughter" to the point of reviving an old thread about it at a time when the term had not been in the article for a long time. The editor used the "slaughter" straw man as an excuse to argue for more extensive use of industry euphemisms (instead of neutral descriptions such as "killing"), and was supported in this by Cpnono. In order to understand Talk:Whaling in Japan it is important to keep apart the several threads it contains:
 * One anonymous comment from January 2008.
 * One answer from July 2009 (1 1/2 years later).
 * Long discussion started by Cetamata in December 2009 under the pretext of continuing the old one, thus creating the impression that the word "slaughter" was still in the article.
 * Discussion restarted by PrBeacon in February 2009 under Whaling in Japan. Hans Adler 08:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the title of the article is "Whaling in Japan" and describes that parts of whales are used for various products (including food) I have to say that a reasonable person, even unfamiliar with Japanese whaling (including research whaling), would understand all of these disputed terms mean a whale is killed. It's not reasonable to assume everybody who reads the article will lose all common sense and think Japan is "taking" whales for a ride or "catching" them for fun. In my opinion it is not neutral (or reasonable) to remove every instance of "take" and replace it with "kill". This will negatively affect the neutrality of the article. Cetamata (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that only using "kill" would make the article less neutral. I agree that we shouldn't do it. One thing readers can take away from the article is an understanding of the terms the whaling industry uses. To achieve this, we must use them synonymously with non-euphemistic terms, alternating between them. But it is crucially important not to overuse the industry euphemisms. Throughout the article whenever they are used they must be implicitly defined, e.g. by making it clear that they function as a synonym for a more neutral word such as "kill". Otherwise we run the danger of lulling the reader or seriously misleading a reader who reads only specific passages. Hans Adler 08:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What's happened is basic. Because it's a controversial issue, the facts and even the language used to describe the facts become issues of debate. So anti-whaling opinions imply the whalers are actually poachers who illegally slaughter whales for profit while calling it "science" to sidestep regulations. Pro-whaling opinions imply the whalers are legally harvesting whales for research purposes and to preserve their hunting traditions and food culture. I've tried to use terms that don't imply a benign "harvest" or an illegal "slaughter" and I've been attacked during the course of my editing by those who thought I gave too much weight to controversy, then science and now language. Apparently, all I can do is to bend to the whim of every opinion repeatedly and stop editing. Cetamata (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, this is not the place to continue the dispute either. We're looking for fresh input. As far as the mix that HansAdler is describing, I'd say the intro for Whaling does a decent job though not ideal. I'd still like to qualify the contentious terms when they're used. PrBeacon (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you should add cattle and fishing to the list of articles if we are setting a precedent here.Cptnono (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point Cptnono and it seems the more controversial the subject (animal rights opposition) the more often the word "kill" appears in a Wikipedia article in the following cases.
 * fishing 0
 * History of Fishing 1
 * cattle 1
 * beef 1
 * poultry 3
 * bycatch 3
 * venison 1
 * foie gras 1
 * shark finning 6
 * Whaling in the United States 4
 * History of Whaling 11
 * Whaling in the Faroe Islands 19
 * Hunting 22
 * Seal Hunt 25
 * Fox Hunting 27
 * Wolf Hunting 67
 * (PrBeacon's edits of) Whaling in Japan 32
 * (Prior to PrBeacon's edits) 8


 * But, does this establish failure to follow NPOV? Cetamata (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And now PrBeacon is edit warring at fishing in an attempt to modify terminology in the lead. That seems inappropriate since there is an ongoing discussion and edit warring is bad. He has opened a report at the edit warring noticeboard against the other editor. I am considering opening an edit warring report but feel that might be considered forum shopping, it could just as easily be done here or at the alert noticeboard due to inappropriate edit summaries and talk page incivility, and have a feeling he might already be digging his own grave. Things have become way to heated to the point that Cetamata is coming across upset like this and PrBeacon is opening multiple reports like this. I've tried to ask everyone to calm down but it doesn't look like it is happeningCptnono (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you're mischaracterizing my side of that situation, too, but this really isn't the place to be posting it anyway. And you're accusing me of forum shopping? Whatever. I started on Talk:Fishing before my edits and politely asked the editor not to revert & instead discuss, which he refused to do. I didnt start the edit warring in either instance. And it's no wonder that no one else has offered to weigh in here with you two slugging it out against me. PrBeacon (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't recall ever characterizing you. Right now, I am simply explaining to you how others view your edits. No one is slugging it out with you. I have asked you multiple times to not edit war and to be civil. You just need to stop. If you want to have a broader discussion not related to the terms used feel free to respond on one of the talk pages already used.Cptnono (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PrBeacon charged at the fishing article, determined to enforce ill-considered changes to the lead paragraph. In the end, I had to respond in detail, which I did here. While I was doing that he opened another ANI accusing me of edit warring. He didn't inform me that he had done this. An examination of his edit history shows he gravitates to articles where he thinks he can stir up trouble, which he promptly does in tenacious, pugnacious and unhelpful ways. This wastes the time of other editors. I suggest, PrBeacon, if you want some respect from other content editors, that you see if you can write, by yourself and without the wikidrama, half a dozen articles and bring them up to, say C-grade. There are many background articles in whaling and fishing that are needed to clarify the silliness that is going on there. I am writing some of them myself. If you seriously want to make a difference, you can do it that way. But it is hard work, you have to actually deliver, and you have to do it without drumming up the audience you seem to crave. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh... While I was writing the comment above, PrBeacon was adding this comment to the fishing talk page, announcing his intention, in his usual uncivil way, to continue his disruption and dramatising, wasting yet more time. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of that is plainly incorrect. I did inform you of the edit-warring. I could care less about your respect by this point because you haven't shown me any. Reverting me twice before even touching the talkpage is more wikidrama than my words here and elsewhere, and you know it. Continuing the dispute here is inappropriate. PrBeacon (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Though unresolved, I'm tagging this resolved because it has only continued current dispute(s) and thus deterred outside, impartial feedback. I opened this thread which is not meant to provide another soapbox for entrenched editors. PrBeacon (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing the "resolved" tag because this needs the input of 3rd parties and PrBeacon is one of the "entrenched editors". Cetamata (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, failing to let the reader understand that take and catch are synonymous with killing would be misleading and would fail to take into consideration the rationale for NPOV in the first place. I second Hans Adlers approach. Unomi (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If I Can Dream (series)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:If_I_Can_Dream_(series) ... this article is written like an advertisement for the show. 'The series intends to harness new media equally, if not more so, than traditional broadcast, creating a truly cross media viewing experience.' ... 'Aside from introducing a new paradigm of reality based programming, If I Can Dream also represents a significant leap forward...' ... 'Accompanying the new technology platform is a state-of-the-art website built by a renown interactive design firm.' ... i would guess that the article has been written by the show's publicists. it needs to be flagged and rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.132.112.255 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been fixed now. If not, post a link to the article and let's have a look. FT2 (Talk 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Background for Israeli territory - Request for neutrality check
Notes by  Article:

I'm having issues with 3 editors with a strong political perspective (read: who view Israel in bad light) -- mostly with Nableezy/Tiamut -- and are dominating the page in an article they've created about an Israeli policy. i.e. Judaization of the Galilee.

I request clarification in regards to the background of the Galilee. I've tried removing the old second paragraph as it makes no sense and I worked some chronological order into the first paragraph so that it won't sound like Israel "instead incorporated" the area without basic context. The third paragraph is by a disputed academic (read: criticized as a policital advocant) of no special notability - I've moved it to a 'reasoning' sub-section, which was tagged as POV for having only the perspecitve of this disputed fellow. As I'm unsure yet on how to work out the issue of 'reasoning', I'm leaving it out of the current discussion as it needs to be resolved at a later date once more mainstream perspectives are assembled.


 * Note: My changes to the background are taken from the lead of the main article of the 1948 War. added 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in full disagreement with Tiamut's argument that: I tend to see this as WP:CENSOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP vios (per: tired Zionist propagnda) but it is up to the community to denote their opinions about the text.
 * - "If a soruce does not discuss info in relation to Judaiztion, we shouldn't either. As such, I've removed all the crap you added about Arab armies and rejection of the partition plan (unrelated and tired Zionist propagnda etc)."  T i a m u t talk 15:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

 * - The background section Jaakobou wrote is unsupported by any reliable sources discussing the issue of Judaization of the Galilee. The version supported by other editors has in its fvour that the information is presented by reliable secondary sources who discuss Judaization in the Galilee. Having no background section, as suggested by itsmejudith will leave the article without any context for the policies implemented (possibly leaving the reader vastly confused). Its important that any background information be presented by RS' discussing this topic and not just pinned into the rticle arbitrarily pursuant to editor biases. This is my main obejction to Jaakobou's version.  T i a m u t talk 17:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Okedem, the first paragrph for the background section prior to my adding more to try and appease Jaakobou, was simply, "'According to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the Western Galilee region was to form part of the proposed Arab state.[4] Incorporated into Israel following its establishment in 1948, the Palestinian population, largely decimated by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, still formed the majority of the population there.[5]'" It was sourced to David McDowall, and Dan Rabinowitz, both of whom discuss the Judaization of the Galilee and provided this historical background information. As I have said, including background info not included by sources discussing the subject is a bad idea, that leds to WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, as you are aware from previous discussion, the Arab rejection narrative as regrds the partition plan is a contested one. Including it here, without an extended presentation of all POVs on the issue would be POV. Tht issue is covered in the partition plan article itself. It is not the subject of this article, and is mentioned only in passing by RS who do discuss this topic. Per itsmejudith, I agree the background should be kept to a minimum (though I don't agree with deleting it altogether). As such, I will (continegent upon the feedback in this discussion) remove the information I added to please Jaakobou and stick only to what the sources say.  T i a m u t talk 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@FT2, I appreciate the suggestion. A couple of comments and questions though: 1) Its not a "covert state policy", it was openly adopted and plans to pursue it were often published explicitly using citing the policy of Judization of the Galilee; 2) Should information not mentioned in reliable sources discussing this policy be included in the background section? For example, you write about the Arab armies invading Israel, but that's not covered in any texts discussing Judaization. I would also note that the 1948 Palestine war began long before the intervention of the Arab armies in May 1948. If we mention their invasion, shouldn't we also mention the fighting previous? And then, where do we draw the line as to how far back we go? 3) Is Asaf Romirowsky's critique of Oren Yiftachel in response to his work on Judaization? Or are you just adding a general critique of Yiftachel's work here, and then why would we do that? Shouldn't that just go in Oren Yiftachel's article itself, as its quite unrelated to the subject at hand and comes off as well poisoning? If however, it is directed specifically as response to his writing on the Judization of the Galilee, then I would see it as relevant, and would appreciate ref info, so that I can add it to the article.  T i a m u t talk 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, I didn't realize I was one of the combatants here. I originally posted in the "External Parties" section. Anyway, here is my reply to both Jaakobou and Tiamut:
 * - Sorry, I didn't realize I was one of the combatants here. I originally posted in the "External Parties" section. Anyway, here is my reply to both Jaakobou and Tiamut:

Itsmejudith is right (see her opinion below) - both of these versions are trying to make a political point by introducing facts that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The history of wars, and how Israel got sovereignty over this territory, is not germaine to the Judaization policy. Had Israel purchased the territory, rather than won it in war, would that make the policy better or worse? All of this stuff should be axed.

I also think that Yiftachel's presentation of Judaization has been misrepresented by both Tiamut and Jaakobou. The creation of a Jewish majority in the Galilee is only one of the objectives that he cites for the Judaization program, and not necessarily the main one. Others include the dispersion of the Jewish population of the country, which was and is heavily concentrated in the urban center of Israel, the resettlement of immigrants, and the provision of services to the rural settlements of the Galilee. The destruction of Arab villages is not actually Yiftachel's assertion, but a citation in his book from Benny Morris, and is not central to Yiftachel's arguments.

This is not to say that there is no place in the article for a review of Israel's development policies in the Galilee, which have, indeed, included destruction of abandoned villages, the mass acquisition of Arab-owned land by eminent domain, and the restriction of growth - physical, economic and cultural - of Palestinian villages in the Galilee. But a fair representation of Yiftachel's arguments, and of Israel's policies, should include the positive as well as the negative. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

External opinion
Both versions have too much background. People can use the wikilinks if they don't know the history of the area. I'd prefer to see no background section at all. So no more reason to argue.... Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we want to mention the partition plan, and the Western Galilee's designation in it, we have to explain why it didn't happen. Just saying that in the plan it was supposed to be in the Arab state, but "The region was instead incorporated into Israel" strongly implies that Israel disregarded the plan and conquered it. In reality, the Arabs were the ones who rejected the plan and opened war on the Jews of Palestine. Either discuss the issue in full, or leave it out completely - but don't selectively omit the parts you don't like. Now, I do think we can remove some details in Jaakobou's proposal, basically dropping the second paragraph, or incorporating it into the first as one sentence. Tiamut's comment shows total misunderstanding of the way articles are written, and deep ignorance regarding history, specifically of the partition plan. okedem (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tiamut, your reasoning is flawed. There's no obligation for every source used to discuss everything, and we can use specific sources for specific points. I've explained the problem with your formulation. Your claim as though the Arab rejection is "Zionist propaganda" is laughable. The sources on this point are extremely clear, and your attempt to rewrite history convinces no one. okedem (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both versions are ignoring the other. Assuming all data is actually factual and cited from reliable sources, the key points seem to be:
 * The Western Galilee was proposed by the UN to be within the Arab controlled region. Following the state's formation, Israel was invaded by Arab states. At the end of the war it had obtained, and retained, control of the region. The Western Galilee's population was still largely (__%) Palestinian at that time. Oren Yiftachel, a prominent Israeli critical geographer, argues that the priorities of the Zionist movement shifted from securing a safe territorial base for Jewish immigrants (many of whom were refugees of European persecution), to building viable Jewish communities of the newly created sovereign state, 'the ingathering and assimilation of exiles', and the transfer and destruction of Arab towns and villages in favor of Jewish development, a process he calls "Judaization" of the region and considers to have been a covert state policy. Yitachel is disputed in this by critics such as Asaf Romirowsky, a fellow Israeli scholar, who criticize him for teaching "an ahistorical, one-sided interpretation of the Arab-Israeli conflict".
 * Add cites and a sentence on Romirowsky's view, possibly one further sentence on the mainstream view by "the world's scholars" (if one exists and can be decided) and try that. FT2 (Talk 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments to Tiamut in the order asked:
 * If it was openly adopted then scrap "Oren Yitachel..." and replace it with "According to (reliable source X) a formal policy was adopted in (year) under which (briefest of summaries)" or some such. Make sure it's an authoritative source for something like that - a government statement or the like. If it's anything less - a comment by a minister or general etc, use the same styling as I've shown for Oren: "According to X, a minister at the time, a policy of...(brief description)".
 * No, information not in reliable sources rarely if ever has a place on wiki, much less in a contentious topic like this where you want higher quality sources not lower and where there is an acknowledged propaganda war on one or both sides (take your pick) which may lead to false documents distributed and circulated.
 * The setting of a matter in a historical context is not a problem here. To understand Israel/Palestine around the 1940s onward and how the situation actually arose, it is quite appropriate to state there was a war, and that is how the land became de facto under Israel's control. It does not need to be in a book about Judaization to be used. What's important is not to use it to imply a novel view that isn't in reliable sources.
 * You can go back as far as consensus says is salient. If it helps to add extra sentences stating that Moses kicked out the Canaanites and the Jews were removed by the Romans and then... etc etc... then do so. Generally you want to get onto the topic not rehash other stuff, so immediate background and key context points in summary, and use wikilinks or "see also" to point them to more detail.
 * I would draw a line at the formation of the state and the 1948 war. But that's just my opinion. The rationale is that the article broadly relates to Israel's policies in a given area. It's useful to know that it acquired control of that area in a war, and the population it was fighting remained were a majority in the territory afterwards. Before that... less relevant. That's enough knowledge for the present topic. If someone wants to know how they came to be at war, how the state formed, and all the previous skirmishes and military/political issues, they can look it up. As far as context for this goes, knowing "Israel was founded, a war arose when it was invaded, it won that war and kept control of a chunk of hostile territory afterwards" is sufficient. Its factual. We aren't rehashing the 1948 war here so it suffices to note there was one. One could even say "Following its victory in the 1948 war, Israel..." and omit who invaded whom, that's not essential either.
 * So far as I can tell from the versions above, Yiftachel is cited as a prominent spokesperson for the view "yes there is Judaization". That is one significant view and a significant voice for it. So far so good. But it's not the only significant view. There is a second significant view that says there was not a campaign of Judaization (or that says those advancing such claims are mis-citing history) so far as I can tell. Not all significant sources in academia, politics, or otherwise, agree there was such a campaign (if they all do, then cite evidence). So we can't just say "There was a campaign" or even "prominent person X says there was a campaign". We have to acknowledge there are other views too. Rather than a "proponent" and "criticism" section, create an article that characterizes and describes the views and their disagreements. As you can see, NPOV policy says to try and work the various views into one narrative.
 * The quote from Romirowsky is drawn from the article under his name, and cited there. If it turns out that it's about something completely different, then it would not have a place here. But if for example, Yiftachel is mainly known for his views on Israeli policy, including Judaization, etc, so that when Romirowsky says he is one sided he is clearly referring to him in his role as social critic or historian and his views on Israel-Palestine generally, then it's relevant. To give an analogy in everyday life (don't take this too far) - suppose you will ask a lawyer's advice on ownership of a widget factory. You read in a book that someone prominent says "that lawyer is one sided and doesn't tell stuff like it is when it comes to widgets". Now, they didn't mention specifically "widget factories". Is the concern relevant when considering how much weight to place on the lawyer's opinion? If he meant "generally in his opinion-giving capacity on issues related to widgets" then probably yes.  In this case Yiftachel is prominent as a speaker on Judaization themes. Is it relevant that a second authority writes that he is one sided in I-P matters generally? Probably yes. It is needed so a reader can evaluate Yiftachel and understand that while he takes that stance, other prominent people may strongly criticize him as being unreliable on topics in the I-P field generally. You cannot quote Yiftachel at great length without mentioning other authorities exist who dissagree or hold other views. There are multiple views and proponents of each will have critics. Explaining simply the significant views and who holds them, and their counterviews and how strongly those are held, with cites, might make this a good article, if you let it. The aim is to explain the landscape of the topic, not to resolve "an answer" to the real-world dispute.
 * Last, a final comment. I notice the whole of paragraphs 2 and 3 are almost entirely Yiftachel's views at length. This raises a further NPOV concern: Yiftachel at great length, and nobody else probably isn't going to be a balanced representation of views in the debate.
 * FT2 (Talk 01:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the John Birch Society "far right"?
Is it neutral to begin the lead "The John Birch Society is a far right... group"? The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right defines the "far right" as "those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5) However, Chip Berlet in "When alienation turns right" writes, the term is "sometimes used to describe all groups to the right of the electoral system".  Most academic literature appears to use the first definition.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If RS call them Far right then that is what we report. Not how we interperate what they are based on our reading of sources, that wouold be synthais.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Far-right is a poorly defined word. So I give him his due. But he lamely states they support the auditing of the federal reserve when such a thing is not being done yet; It should be "supporting an auditing" (big difference), and claims that it is cosponsor of a conference which is over. He fails to even to even find the PAC group that would be currently supported. Furthermore, he introduced this when it is entirely irrelelevent.--173.31.191.192 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of interest I had a look at conservapedia at to see what they thought. They call them 'a American anti-conspiracy organization'. I think that is really quite funny but I guess they would see it as a reasonable description. :)  Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One problem with Routledge is that the title of the book is being used to give the label, Unfortunately, doing so ignores the fact that the same rationale can be used to call them "fascist." TFD has rightly called attention to the fact that assigning labels to any group is almost always a matter of opinion and not of demonstrable fact. We also cite the SPLC for calling JBS a "patriot group" and listing the definition SPLC uses which includes the possibility that a "patriot group" may support " extreme antigovernment doctrines ." states "'The Tea Parties and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,' the report says." And "groups like the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a communist agent." Problem is that while the notorious Welch letter is well-known, the claim about the specific belief of Ike being a Communist agent being associated with the JBS does not seem to have any RS sources using JBS official statements of any kind. Thus "JBS has been described as "far right" by (named sources)" would be far more proper than making what appears to be a "statement of fact" which is based on opinions. RS opinions remain ... opinions. Collect (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, as I have explained to you I am not using the title of the book to give a label, I using the book's definition of "far right". Obviously a book with this title is a good source for that and also a good source for what organizations belong to the far right.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, it's polite to let other involved editors know if a noticeboard thread has been started.
 * Collect, we have dozens of sources which call the JBS "far right" (see Talk:John Birch Society), so using a formula like "JBS has been described as "far right" by (named sources)" would be unwieldy. When so many sources make an assertion, and no sources dispute it, then the attribution is no longer necessary and we can simply that that it is the thing rather than it has been described as the thing.    Will Beback    talk    18:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also polite to use the noticeboards to discuss the issues raised which in this case is the "neutrality" of the description. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would it be neutral to call the British National Party a "far right" group but not to call the JBS the same thing? Is it because you agree that the BNP is far right but you disagree that the JBS is also far right?   Will Beback    talk    10:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe the Birchers as far right, and this is because of their extreme opposition to any form of collectivism or redistribution, and their systematic tendency to associate any form of collectivism with conspiracies by secret communist sympathizers to subvert the constitution. And I'm being very conservative in my characterization. --TS 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The British National Party is correctly described as "far right" because that is how it is described in literature about the "far right" and it fits the definitions provided. In the same sense, I would have no hesitation in calling the Italian Fascist Party fascist, because there are good sources for that, but would not apply the term to the US government, although data-mining could pro.  bably find reliable sources for it.  We should avoid trivializing terms by using them inaccurately.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Inaccurately according to whom? A single source that gives a definition? We have dozens of reliable sources, including academic journals and books, which call the JBS "far right", and none which say the description is wrong. This exact same matter has already been discussed at WP:RSN: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58. There's already been an RFC. How many more venues are needed to settle this? It's beginning to look like forum shopping. These two words now have more sources than the entire rest of the article, and have been more discussed as well. Time to move on and work on the rest of the article.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial
This article has a fictional account of AEI studies on global warming and the IPCC, and editors are edit-warring to (1) include the fictional account and (2) exclude the refutation of the fictional account. It's a BLP violation, too. THF (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't you think WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss whether the Guardian newspaper is a reliable source? There was discussion only a short while ago there with assertions that The Times was an unreliable source which sounds a similar subject. As to NPOV I saw a question over whether you used to be a fellow of AEI, do you have a conflict of interest?, this would be a funny noticeboard to approach if so. As to BLP I believe there's another noticeboard for that too and it's pretty hot on removing violations of BLP. I'd go for just one noticeboard so as not to seem to be forum shopping but why this particular noticeboard? I'll post a note onto the talk page that this has been raised here. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion at Talk:Climate change denial is continuing. I haven't seen anyone say that any coverage of the defense of AEI should be kept out of the article, and I've suggested some ideas and ways to move forward. So I think this notice here is a bit premature. If we find a reliable source such as a news article that debunks the original charges against AEI, we should discuss whether or not it debunks it well enough that we should delete all mention of the incident in the article. Until then, the article needs some kind of defense of AEI in order for us to be fair. As I say, discussion continues on the talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * THF, please try to keep discussions together to avoid the appearance of forum shopping. The article talk discussion is ongoing, there has been a very recent AFD discussion, and several enforcement requests at WP:GS/CC.  Spreading an editorial dispute to multiple pages prematurely or redundantly can be disruptive. Jehochman Talk 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, he has a talk page, and the question of whether or not it's too early to bring this matter to this forum is currently one having to do with the most likely way to get the matter resolved, not behavior. At this stage, let's just encourage constructive communication without brandishing the admin thing, all right? You're only raising the temperature. THF has tried to fix the problem with an edit at the Climate change denial page. Stephan Shulz has reverted it. New proposals for language on that talk page would be helpful right now, and that would be the thing to discuss to get this on track, it seems to me. Got any ideas, Dmcq? Can we discuss them there? And please, nobody involved hat this thread. Let someone else do it as we discuss it there. Sound good, everyone? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an NPOV issue and a BLP issue. Editors interested in NPOV and BLP are entitled to be aware of the NPOV and BLP violations in the article. You'll notice that I !voted "keep" in the AFD; I fail to see how the AFD is relevant to the NPOV and BLP violation that editors are insisting upon.  I tried to correct the problem and was reverted; I proposed a compromise edit that told both sides of the story, and was reverted.  The appalling libel remains in the article.  I'm getting other editors involved to generate consensus, since my talk-page comments were being ignored, and further edits would be edit-warring. THF (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What a shitty excuse and idea for a wikipedia article!--173.31.191.192 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There already are articles on shit, excuse, and idea :) Dmcq (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

British National Party
There is an on going dispute on the British National Party talk page about the use of phrases which some claim are non-NPOV the two phrases which have been reverted back and forth are Can someone please provide some guidance DharmaDreamer (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the BNP has become less publicly extreme 
 * the BNP has changed its stance on a number of controversial issues such as compulsory repatriation 


 * As someone who has not read the article and knows nothing about the BNP, I get the feeling the first line may be pushing the POV envelope. The second line seems neutral to me.  My 2 cents.  Lambanog (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an organization that was overtly pro-fascist, celebrated Adolph Hitler's birthday and claimed that the "white race" was superior. Those views are more accuately described as "extreme" than "controversial".  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's hardly POV to call the BNP extreme. It would be very problematic to call them "controversial" rather than "extreme/extremist". Just one recent example of how they are usually reported about, out of hundreds: . Hans Adler 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I made my comment in case this was one of those arguments revolving around subtleties. But if this is a rather open and shut case of they are a far right extremist group and proud of it, that should be relatively easy to establish.  Outright discrimination based on race and ethnicity in this day and age from a political party would fit the description of extreme pretty handily. I will strike my previous comment. Lambanog (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to the party's own home page and read its policies. This is an explicitly racist political party. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The national Front of France is not descibed as extream in thier article, thier racial policies are no different to the BNP's. What thier artciel says is that they are called extream, but also says what they claim. Indead is any otehr political party that has some or all of the BNP's policies (well those that can be considerd extream) called extream explicitly without making it clear this is an accusation from the media and its opponents?Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "extreme" is not only in violation of the WP:EXTREMIST policy (a Freudo-Marxian dialetic tactic, devised by the Frankfurt School to "blacklist" intellectual opponents, by suggestively illiciting an emotive response) but it is inherently in violation of the WP:NPOV policy, which is central to Wikipedia. We don't "take sides" in the mainspace when it comes to politics, we are not a partisan project. The Four Deuces' hysterical presentation is selective to say the least and a comedic caricature at the most. If we can violate the NPOV policy to call the BNP "extremist", why couldn't we do the same on the article of the Labour Party or any given Government of the United States? Many people across the world consider killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an "extreme" act. We could easily find sources from the Muslim world describing the United States and its main political parties as "war criminals", "fascists" and all manner of bias epithets. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, the point is that we can only use the word "extreme" and "extremist" to describe bodies and policies that are universally condemned as extreme, such as writing off people because of their ethnic origins. The meaning of the phrase starting with "a Freudo-Marxian dialetic tactic..." is unclear to me.  Was it part of your argument. How does it relate to the neutral point of view? --TS 21:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Foundation
There is a dispute at Human Rights Foundation about inserting a reference to a minor source of funding to an event organised by HRF. The reference is to a primary source, and there are questions too about the meaning of the source (see talk page, near bottom of Good Start section). The context for the dispute is the editor inserting it wishing to show that HRF is not a right-wing organisation; initial versions of the text included reference to Norway's government being left. There is a narrow (2:1) consensus against including the reference at HRF; it is already mentioned at the relevant event article (Oslo Freedom Forum). Comments please. Rd232 talk 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The secondary source mentions support from the City of Oslo, and actually seems to state that they did not receive support from the Norwegian government, but were hoping that one day they might:
 * ''He is full of praise of how much support they have received from the City of Oslo.
 * ''- Without them, this forum would not have been possible. We hope that the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs will eventually stand behind us as much. Otherwise, we have supporters in Freedom of Expression, the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, Amnesty, Civita, The Norwegian Helsinki Committee and the Human Rights House Foundation, and more organizations want to become formally involved."
 * The cited primary source does not say anything specific about the government's involvement either. It simply indicates that Norway was the source country of the funds. This is entirely consistent with the event having received funding from the City of Oslo, but this is not the same as being funded by the government of Norway. -- JN 466  22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

POV-check request @ The Invention of the Jewish People
There has been an extreme amount of edit warring over the content and "POV" at The Invention of the Jewish People, in fact the article is now locked down (protected) due to disagreements among editors. I would like to request an uninvolved third party review the article for neutrality. Additionally, in somewhat of an odd request, I feel that whomever takes on the task of the POV-check should a) not be Jewish or Israeli and b) not be Muslim or Arab. I am not personally discounting the ability of such editors to remain non-bias in reviewing articles; however given the extremely controversial nature of the article, I am concerned that if an editor belonging to one of those categories performs the POV-check, his/her suggestions may be rejected by the "other side". -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 10:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nsaum75, Personaly I would prefer unbiased admin who can comprehensively review this article and the quality of its edits. I have no problem with any ethnicity or religion -only with POV. Of course, admins are less expected to give heavy weight to their own POV when edit or mediating and so forth-that's one reason to prefer admin. The second is that his/her advices would be usually heared louder. Also, I would strongly prefer someone who is not involved with any Israel-Palestine related articles. Not sure that this boared is the right place-maybe arbitration is a better option--Gilisa (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt your motives, but it's not possible, since many editors are anonymous and aren't going to disclose their ethnic, national or religious background. I've looked at highly controversial articles before and will give an opinion on this one. There may be other contrasting views expressed here and you will have to weigh them in the balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at it, and saw that, first and foremost, anyone who wants to take this up should actually have read the book. Some of the disputes are so detailed that intelligently commenting w/o prior knowledge of the book's content is impossible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, I've had my first look and this is what I think. This article is in the very fortunate position of having a range of really good top quality sources to choose from. You need simply to reflect what they say. Just to give one example, you say that "Schama proceeds to debunk..." Exactly what points does he debunk? Schama is a prominent historian and two or three sentences from him would not be too much. The "Criticism" section should be named "Responses". You have a sentence in the lede which I see has been attacked on the talk page as in breach of NPOV, and I agree with that to some extent. In any case, we should avoid references in the lede, as the lede should simply summarise the properly referenced text in the article main body. Try doing that here and say something like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise", if that is the balance of the reviews that you find. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Itsmejudith, Have you seen the versions of the lead that preceded this sentence? Does they seem to you more neutral? Also, you suggest that the lead will include statement like "the book attracted much criticism and some praise" if that is the balance of the reviews that we find. However, how should we now agree on the balance? What about the transletors notes section-is it normal in such articles? I have these and more reservations here.--Gilisa (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the previous versions and none of them were particularly good. "Debunked" would be misleading, because if you look at Schama in the FT he does not say "all the book's claims are false". He says "we all knew these things anyway, there is no new story here". "Controversial", on the other hand, is well sourced and I think you could include it in the lead without any reference at that point, although others might disagree. The "Translator's notes" section is inappropriate. There are currently two people's opinions mentioned there and they could both go into Responses. One would expect a translator to have nothing but praise for the book, so only include her view if she is an important scholar (of history, not language) in her own right. The other comment is more likely to be relevant, but the original interview in Yedioth Ahronoth should be found, rather than sourcing it at third-hand to Haaretz. Take out the Praise and Cricitism subheadings in Responses. The reviews should speak for themselves, some reviews might be mixed, and in an academic context criticism is not the opposite of praise. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Itsmejudith, Schama does not support Sand's thesis as may be sounded from this quote. Also, among the praisers no one is notable expert of Jewish history or Jewish genetics (both disciplines are relevant) -so while they are notable for their own expertise-I think that WP:UNDUE should be implied regarding their comments on Sand's book which deal with a field out of their expertise. As for the translator -she had no expertise aside for her being an author, journalist, professional transletor from English to Hebrew and vice versa (her parent came to Israel from the UK)and anti Zionist activist. As for the second comment, Abrum Burg is not an historian and very far from being expert. He was the chirman of the Jewish agency-but I think you would agree with me that there is no place for special section for what he said--Gilisa (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Frederic Raphael's review essentially acknowledges that it is propaganda at the site entitled Invention of the Jewish people dot com. "It may be that this book comes too late to help men arrive at a sane and rational compromise in the Middle East."  John Rose (UK politician)'s review (at the same place) says "Shlomo Sand’s book, already a best seller in Israel and France, will accelerate the disintegration of  the Zionist enterprise." Tony Greenstein of the Weekly Worker "has  reviewed it as “an important book” which hammers another nail into the Zionist  coffin." Surely we do not want to give a voice to anti-Jewish propaganda? There were all sorts of reliable sources that said that Joan of Arc was a witch as well. This is a thoroughly debunked concept, and while popular, we do not have to presume its veracity. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are also highly popular, but we acknowledge that it is a hoax right away, even if we seem to have problems acknowledging that the hoax is antisemitic. We should not be pushing this perspective but letting people know right away that this book is fringy and to be taken with a large grain of salt! Stellarkid (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This book is certainly not anti-Jewish propaganda; and neither John Rose nor Tony Greenstein, both prominent anti-racist activists, could be described as anti-Jewish. There are of course legitimate debates to be held about Sand's thesis; but this sort of over-the-top hysterical rant is not in the least helpful. RolandR (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In principle, and I don't know who are Greenstein and Rose, "anti Racist activists" may well be selectively racist. Also, fringe book which dismiss the history of the Jewish people and their being people in a direct intent to slough Jews from their history and to disconnect present days Jews from their homeland (and Sand had some declared very similar intentions that are cited on the article's talk page)-using unreliable arguments and ad hominom attack on his critics, can be easily considerd as anti-Semitic. Even when it's not a decalred one, even if the author declare he/she isn't, and even if he/she don't see himslef/herself as anti Semitic by himself/herself. As for Sand's book, its arguments are heavily cited in neo Nazi sites, as can be seen when googling -I would not deduce that that was his intention, but these are the facts--Gilisa (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Conflating anti-zionism and anti-semitism is not at all helpful. Please desist. Unomi (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment oh please! This tiresome old chestnut! The book is called the Invention of the Jewish people - not the Invention of the Zionist People. Stellarkid (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you read the book you will see why this is not 'anti-semitic' even if it attacks an oft used premise of Zionists. If anything it is anti-racist. Unomi (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unomi, and why isn't it racist? Because it say that Jews are not apeople because they are people of different races? Meaning, that real nation is one based on race? Or maybe because it argue that Jewish people are not realy descendant from the Israelites (heavily refuted argument btw, both according to mainstream history and to genetic research) but Palestinians are? And that therfore the all idea of state for the Jewish people is immoral ? Because even according to the EU convention, such assertions do considerd racism. Evne if it's warpped in velvet.--Gilisa (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that this is a racist book? Have you even read it? RolandR (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A nation should not be based on the idea of a 'race' or a homogeneous 'people', there be dragons, as ww2 and its fetid mix of nationalism and race theories should have taught us. Personally I am aracialist, I find it very likely that my ancestors came out of Africa, but that doesn't mean that I find it sane to lay claim to a beach in Ghana. Have a look at our article on Race (classification of human beings) a vanishing number of scholars find the term 'race' useful, and more,   while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact.. So where does it end? Haplogroup screenings? I don't care who descended from the Israelites and I don't understand why you do. You are here now, that is all that matters. Unomi (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unomi, I quote you: "..I find it very likely that my ancestors came out of Africa, but that doesn't mean that I find it sane to lay claim to a beach in Ghana.." And you realy compared between that and Zionism or between that and the history of Jewish people? And how exactly does it help in getting to NPOV? Also, Zionism is not race based ideology more than the Palestinian world view is. For instance, Ethiopian Jews -on whose absorption Israel spent and spend dozens of billions of dollars- are racialy not Jewish and many of those have even converted back to Judaism (a religion they adopted assumably about 600 years ago) only after they came in Israel...Also, about half million non Jewish Russians have Israeli citizenship while most of those have no direct Jewish background. As I wrote, the European Union convention explicitly considerd assertions that exclude the national rights of the Jewish people as anti Semitism. But lets go back to your example again, I think that Afro Americans, for example, have the right to return to their ancestors countries of origin -had they wanted to do so.--Gilisa (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you don't accept the similarity. Ok, the African exodus might have been some 120,000 years ago, but time doesn't matter, right? By ancestral right I must have a claim. You seem to be distancing yourself from the position that Jewish people constitute a race, yet you are also saying that the link to Judaism is weak. I would certainly agree and so would Neturei Karta. In truth Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism, it is a perversion. If you are in Israel I would suggest that you go have a chat with these guardians of the city and find out how they come to hold the position that they do. I also hope that you read Who_is_a_Jew and have a good long think about the history Israel is repeating. I don't care one iota what the European Union has said on this matter. You asked about NPOV, this is it. By all means, have a country, but stop wasting the opportunities that you have and stop appealing to myth, fantasy and delusion. It gets tiresome. Unomi (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unomi, I failed to see how all of this is relevant for NPOV notice board. We are away of topic. But in short, if you are defined by other people as African and/or see yourself as such, certainly if you are persecuted for that for generations, your very ancestors (or you yourself) were praying to return to Africa every day and so forth, then time doesn't matter. Otherwise it's. The whole issue is that those who are racist against Africans are according to the comparison you made, Africans by themselves. And oh, I didn't distance myself from anything, just was pointing to the complexities you ignored from. And if you were replying here on the position of neutral mediator then I afraid that you distanced yourself from it by your own very words (which don't seem to have much with the issue itself, if any). Regards--Gilisa (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a very simple request that people stop conflating Zionism and Jewish people. You then confronted me with arguments and appeals to authority for why they should be. Personally I hope that we can make progress with this, perhaps your problems with NPOV stem from a misconception. I find it troubling that you don't see the inherent problem of insisting on defining a nation purely on racial and sectarian basis, both without legitimacy as I alluded to above. Yes, we are all Africans. We are all brethren from primordial soup. We are all stardust and nothing. Why pick a random moment in time as an imaginary 'starting point' and lend it so much importance? Do you really believe in a literal interpretation of the Judaic tradition? And if you do how can you support Zionism? You may want to watch this. Unomi (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unomi, you only present here your own political views, nothing more, honestly. You return to it once and again. It's not very helpful. Obiter dictum, Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious. It's great that we are all Africans, sadly no one realy think so. How sad is it that I can jump to my near by enemy and tell him that I'm an African exactly the same as he is (even if he have pale blue eyes, fair hair , light skin and Nordic features). Yes, there are some who will accept this that we are all Africans, and should deeply see ourselves as such, but then they will argue that I'm not Muslim/Chrisitan/Shintu/Budaist/Capitalist/Commusinst and so forth. You understand how ridiculous it's by now..Sadly, you distanced yourself from being a neutral mediator, at least on these issues.--Gilisa (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented here simply to address some flawed and disturbing rhetorical devices that were in play. As for Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious that is patently false. While it is true that the Judaic tradition is prone to changing interpretations, as most religions are, the position of the NK was the overwhelming view see Ravitzky, at least until recently. That this position is now termed 'Ultra-orthodox' should tell you that, hint: look up the definition of orthodox. For a brief treatment of the changing interpretations on this subject please see http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1908060 . As for the rest, perhaps AGF should be thought to extend beyond just wikipedia. I may have failed as a neutral mediator, but you have to understand that the premise of what I ascertain to be your POV is problematic, perhaps if you were to substantiate it, we could make some progress. Unomi (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you realy can't rebuke me on my POV while certainly many of those who were orginally involved in the editing of this article clearly have there own. You can't rebuke me on POV while you deserting your obligations as mediator on this notice board and joining to the article talk page as a side. And as for your arguments regarding Judaism, bust don't true.--Gilisa (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone has a POV, thats just the human condition. We strive for NPOV wording by using good sourcing and, far too infrequently, by checking our assumptions. There are no obligations to not join in the conversation on article, rather it should be welcomed. What I have stated regarding Judaism is sourced, you may want to refer to the Talmud particularly Three Oaths. As you seem to condone Zionism I can understand you are likely not familiar with Judaic tradition, I would suggest that you study it more deeply so that, if God wills, you can find knowledge. Unomi (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please save the sarcastic tone, it's far too frequent, for some reason, among part of the editors who favor the book on its critiques and you should know how unwelcomed it's. I have no problem with any one who choosed to join for the discussion- I just pointed that one who took for himself the position of mediator and soon after choosed to take side, can't rebuke someone who was a side from the very first place for having allegedly wrong POV. As for your assertions, if it's ok by you-I would like to ask what is your background in Jewish tradition or where did you gain your acquaintanceship with Jewish sources? Because quoting one or two sentences from the Talmud, or even complete homiletic interpretation discussed in it, is more than just disposed to miss the Talmud meaning. There are mountains of interpenetrations of the Talmud, the Talmud editors wrote it through generations and in any case the Talmud just does not disconnect between Jewish people and Israel. The history of the Talmud speak easily for itself. It's very popular to quote the Talmud, many times out of context. Parts of the ultra orthodox Jewish people have created their own radical (and distorted) interpenetration, but it's not widely accepted and never was.--Gilisa (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please read this about the Three Oaths for checking your assumptions further and also to get a bit more knowledgeable.--Gilisa (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
If you believe that to be a RS and you further believe that it contains arguments which have not been mentioned at Three_oaths I would suggest that you add them there. Generally speaking, I can tell you that I view the attempts at employing legalistic arguments to the Three Oaths as problematic for a number of reasons, but even if we entertain the thought: Zionism predates ww2 - Persecution of Jews unfortunately does not have as much detail as it should, but this was taken to be penance (from a religious perspective what happens after the start of Zionism should give pause); Compare the number of participants of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 to the participation in the torrent of resolutions condemning the actions of Israel, as an example: "Reiterates its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to cease all such illegal and unilateral measures..." approved by 160 to 6 with 7 abstentions. It is quite frankly almost inconceivable to me that one can reasonably use a Judaic, religious justification for Zionism, but I welcome your thoughts on this matter. Going back to the discussion of Neturi Karta don't realy represent any present or past main stream views in Judaism, both secualr and religious then I still hold that this is a false statement. This should be abundantly clear to any one reading Jewish_beliefs_and_practices_in_the_reform_movement further consider the Judaic tradition prior to the rise of Reform movement in Judaism. That the reform movement engendered alternate interpretations of the Talmud does not change historical fact, and it is truly ironic that some people call orthodox groups like NK names, while denying their own past. Unomi (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution content fork
I think I found a WP:Content fork regarding the legality of prostitution. Left prong: Legality of prostitution, right prong: Prostitution (criminology). Both articles are so huge though, I think any merge would be a significant undertaking.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, same topic as far as I can see. Will look at this. FT2 (Talk 13:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One significant undertaking now undertaken. Loads of cleanup, POV fixing, scope fixing, and everything else needed, but the basic framework is merged sensibly. FT2 (Talk 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I'll probably read it through and give it a once over.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology
An editor has been going around changing the name of specific types of Israeli settlements, moshav and kibbutz, to simply israeli settlement, calling the changes "More correct and neutral terms in accordance with international community".


 * Diff set 1: and
 * Diff set 2: and
 * Diff set 3: and

Whereas the former terms are a more specific type of the latter, it would seem that they would convey more information to the reader, rather  than the blanket term "settlement". However I was curious what other editors thought. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The original terms are types of community. In geographical terms this is a bit like replacing specialist descriptive terms like "town", "village", "industrial complex", "religious retreat", "commune", by the single term "settlement". It doesn't improve neutrality, it's a pointed replacement of a non-contentious descriptive term of the type of locale (does any reliable source say it's not a Kibbutz?), by a highly politically contentious term for Israeli habitation in that area generally. Doubtless others will disagree. FT2 (Talk 13:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states
The article Occupation of the Baltic states has two debates: a) Soviets as liberators or occupiers in 1944? b) Baltic states under soviet rule 1944-1991; occupation or annexation? Please give third party reviews. Peltimikko (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me re-phrase "b)" a little bit. Many reliable sources use the term "annexation" whereas other sources call that "occupation". The authors that thoroughly dissected the issue argue that the case is complicated and controversial, so, although it would be correct to say that the Baltic states were illegally annexed by the USSR, the period of Soviet domination can also be described by the word "occupation" with some reservations (e.g. "occupation sui generis"). Therefore, both terms must be used, and, taking into account that "annexation" is more abundant outside the Baltic states, priority should be given to the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun laws in the United States (by state)
There is an ongoing discussion about NPOV over at Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state), and the editors there agree that it would be helpful to hear the opinion of third party editors. If someone here would like to drop in at that talk page and give us their opinion, that would be much appreciated. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the more editors who could join the discussion in that talk page section, the better. I believe the discussion will be of great interest to editors who want to help preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia articles.  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam Harris in Islam and Jainism article
I'd appreciate it if someone could provide some input on the appropriateness of Sam Harris being quoted in this article.Prezbo (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given my input on the matter, but it seems that the input from more editors are needed. Unomi (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hooding at Ady Gil
The pilot of the vessel was arrested for allegedly illegally boarding a Japanese vessel at sea. Another editor continues to insert that he was hooded as he was taken ashore in Japan for arrest. It is clear that there is something on his head but one video (potentially day before) shows him with a similar colored windbreaker covering his head from the wind. It is unclear if this is a standalone hood. As he was coming ashore, Japanese authorities put up tarps in accordance with Japanese privacy laws. So any hood could be similar to someone doing a perp walk with a newspaper or their hands over their faces. Hooding on the other hand is torture designed for sensory deprivation. A single source has made a mention that he looked like a terrorist with the hood but it is appears to me that we are scandal mongering by asserting it is torture with its wording and the wikilink. Even without the wikilink we are alluding to it being because he is a terrorist and not for privacy. Is this appropriate? The edit in question: Cptnono (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The footage of Bethune inspecting the ship was taken the day AFTER his arrest (see article discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ady_Gil#Hooding_of_Pete_Bethune . One of the references, besides the news report saying Bethune was hooded, is an Associate Press video showing a hooded Bethune being taken into custody. The line in the article follows the referenced press report very closely, and it is clear from the video that Bethune was hooded. Stating the facts is not scandal mongering. I did edit the hooding article to refine the definition of hooding to include any instance of a prisoner's head being covered. It now states that it is considered torture when it is used for sensory deprivation during interrogation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless if it was before or after, it looks like the same jacket to me. And was he hooded or did he have a jacket's hood over his head? The source is scandal mongering and does not need to follow the same neutrality standards. It is not clear that it was torture. I would go as far as saying torture is the least likely considering the tarps and press around. So anyone else want to way in? Alluding to it being torture when the source doesn't say that and we have every reason to believe it is not is not OK. This is a gross violation of standards as I am seeing it. Am I nuts here? Cptnono (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the hooding article. It no longer implies that all hooding is torture. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the correct way to do it because now you are potentially breaking another article. You are also still implying that it was intentional sensory deprivation. Go revert yourself over there. I am done reverting at the Ady Gil article and neither of us wants to actually full on edit war on this so lets just see what people think.Cptnono (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The news source says, "Japan took extreme lengths to protect Mr Bethune from waiting reporters and protestors. They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." I was IMPROVING the other article to give a better definition of hooding, so it WOULDN'T imply all hooding is torture. Let's see what happens here before we make any more changes. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this might take a while. The current edit says his wife was shocked by his arrest, but that's not what the reference says. The reference says she was shocked by the IMAGES of his arrest. I'm going to insert this for now, just to make the line in the article accurately reflect the source: "They called him a terrorist, and with his head covered by a black hood it looked like he was." I won't link to the hooding article for now. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok couldn't do that, because it looked like it was quoting his wife. I paraphrased the article instead. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So another editor reverted GoN's edits. He has now removed the wikilink but the edit still infers that he had a hood on because he was being treated as a terrorist. We are looking at what is boardering on edit warring here and intentionally presenting information in a tabloidish way. Two editors disagree with inclusion. One continues to add it. Can we get a couple fresh opinions on this?Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the current edit, which I did: "His wife was shocked by the images of his arrest. Protesters were calling him a terrorist, and Bethune's head was covered by a black hood as he was taken into custody." Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the references:
 * http://www.3news.co.nz/Pete-Bethunes-wife-shocked-at-arrest-/tabid/417/articleID/146204/Default.aspx
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gkzjNoOxPQ Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Us repeating our arguments is not going to attract outside perspectives. Anyone wnat to chime in or should we start edit warring?Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Is his wife a notable commentator on Ady Gil related issues ? If not, what is the policy based reason for including her views ? Perhaps the Japanese police were simply complying with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." I'm not sure any of the info is really pertinent, notable or encyclopedic. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think his arrest is notable? The news media seem to think so. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think that the fact that he has been arrested by the Japanese authorities is notable. I don't think that fact's notability is automatically inherited by commentary about that fact. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What if we remove the comment about his wife's reaction, drop the 3News reference, and just say, "Protesters present at Bethune's arrest called him an "eco-terrorist". Bethune's head was covered with a black hood when he was taken into custody." and reference that with the AP video. That's a neutral description of the circumstances of his arrest. One editor at the Ady Gil article discussion page says prisoners in Japan are routinely handcuffed, so he could not have put the hood on his own head. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, it doesn't matter why the Coast Guard hooded him. It's a fact he was hooded. Explaining why he was hooded, based on your original research WP:OR, would not be admissible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But, if you could find a reference that says, "Japanese police routinely hood suspects when they are taken into custody, to protect their privacy" that would be very relevant. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I left the 3News reference, because it backs up the video, but left out the reaction of Bethune's wife. That seems very NPOV - just stating the facts. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit still implies that he was hooded in an inappropriate manner. You are connecting calls of him being a terrorist with the stigma of hoods to suggest that he was being treated poorly. One editor has gone as far as to contact the coast guard for you (that is OR of course) and others have provided sufficient reasoning to not have the line. You are becoming increasingly manipulative with your arguments and going against guidelines. I will be reporting you for edit warring if you do not revert it.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This information is important because prisoners in most countries are NOT routinely hooded. Bethune has been accused of being a terrorist. The news story that is referenced points out the fact that he was hooded and that it made him look like a terrorist. This seems pretty straight-forward to me. So I have to ask at this point, and I'm assuming good faith, but this intense desire to remove simple observations that have been reported in the news media about an event that seems to be worthy of inclusion just leads me to ask this. Do any of the editors involved in this dispute have a WP:Conflict of interest? I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Sea Shepherd Society. I am not a Greenpeace member, but I may have donated money to them 25 or 30 years ago when I was a college student, one of many, many groups who solicited me for donations and to whom I made donations. I do not belong to any anti-whaling groups. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edit-warring, I think we are making progress on improving the content. The link to the hooding article is gone. The remarks about Bethune's wife are gone. It seems like we are moving towards a consensus, but you seem to want to remove this information completely. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want the strained correlation between his privacy and terrorism removed. Continuing to keep the hod in is not OK. I really don't care about the other parts of the line.Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The news media found it worth mentioning. It does not appear that he hooded himself because it's likely he was handcuffed. It's unlikely that he requested to be hooded for privacy, since he is an activist who apparently relishes publicity and who doesn't consider himself a criminal. I think we should go with the news media over your personal opinion. No WP:Conflict of interest? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything (like a reference) to support the assertion that Bethune requested that his head be covered for privacy reasons? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He could have refused to be hooded. Ghostofnemo, do you have anything to support that Bethune was hooded against his will? Oda Mari (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He has never worn a mask or hood while engaging the whaling vessels. He has been interviewed by the media. He has never denied his involvement. He is not claiming he did not board the Japanese vessel. He does not feel he has committed a crime. He has nothing to hide or be ashamed of. Bethune asking for a hood is as unlikely as Watson avoiding media attention! Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To all editors involved: I don't mean to be rude or to throw around accusations, but I've asked twice now if any of the editors involved in this dispute have a WP:Conflict of interest. This is very important. Please respond, as I have, about any conflicts of interest you may have regarding this article. If there is not COI, please state that. Thanks. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't know if it was privacy (yet the blue tarps lead me to believe it is) and we don;t know if it is for sensory deprivation. Thanks for making my point for me. And no.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is immaterial WHY he was hooded (unless he hooded himself, which is very unlikely for the reasons I've given above). The line in the article just says he was hooded. It doesn't speculate as to why. If you want to add a line that "all Japanese suspects are routinely hooded when taken into custody" with a reference, that would be fine. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not repeating the argument just because you reworded it. You know why we are concerned. Are you going to insist on keeping it in?Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You say you think he was hooded for privacy reasons. Great, add that, but reference it.
 * The WP:Conflicts of interest that could apply here are in the sections "Financial", "Legal antagonists", "Campaigning" (group membership), and "Close relationships" - to save people from reading the entire article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghostofnemo, you didn't answer my question. Please give me your answer. Do you have anything to support that Bethune was hooded against his will? Oda Mari (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please answer the above question. And as said before, you are making it read like hooding even if you are no longer wikilinking it. Your edit leads the reader. So answer the above question and please remove the edit. I don't want to report this to edit warring based on the drama and friction it will cause but I will. You are simply going against consensus and neutrality. Cptnono (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Ball is still in your court. There are three people on the talk page agreeing wih its removal and another person here who appears t lean that way. I think we have followed the dispute resolution process pretty well (minus the leangth of time your edit as been live) so can you verify if you are going to revert if it is removed?Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The line does not state whether or not Bethune was hooded against his will. You want me to speculate? I would guess the Coast Guard did that. My personal suspicion is they were jerking him around, as cops in most countries do to suspects they don't care for. But I don't have a source, so I just stated the fact that his head was covered. It probably was a hooding, but I can't prove that, so I don't say that. I found another video from Australian TV showing Bethune's head covered by the hood, but it's very similar to the AP video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpAXYNErHk&feature=related Cptnono and I have both stated we have no WP:Conflict of interest regarding this issue. Would the other editors care to address that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBEb4n1fT_A&feature=related Now, if I was trying to stir things up and make this an emotional issue, I would have used that video, but I didn't. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring since you refuse to delete the edit as suggested.Cptnono (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Patriot movement article - violation of neutrality
Patriot movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to mark this article for review on the basis of violation of neutrality. Tom of WikiTalk refused to allow me to edit this article myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.132.35 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis
Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish traditions advice needed
Hello, here I have a little debate about the lead of the Diablada article where we have two positions, I won't say which one is mine to avoid polluting the results I'll say editors A and B. The debate is regarding the Spanish influence of this Andean dance, and basically there are two theories:
 * Autos sacramentales:
 * Ball de diables:

There are more sources explaining both theories, it's just a sample. But there are two opinions regarding the presentation of both theories:

Editor A considers that the Ball de diables shouldn't go in the lead because in these two sources say the following:

The derivation of the devil dances or Diabladas  constitute a topic of controversy in Ibero-America. Nowadays there are two theses about the emergence of the devil dances.

The motive of the criterion divergence is based on the descent of the dance. Most authors affirm that it proceeds from the Autos Sacramentales of the Middle Ages  which were represented in the atriums of the churches, where the  presence of the speeches and other features identify it as an auto  sacramental...

And :

Regardless that in this order most authors agree in its derivation of a peninsular Auto Sacramental I consider that is a little bit  risky to consi...

...a devils dance which characters are the same as in our Andean Diablada.

Using the documents exhumed by Amadés in relationship to the Ball de diables'....

Editor A interpret those sources as an affirmation that the Autos Sacramentales constitute a majoritarian view and therefore the Ball de diables theory should not belong there.

Editor B considers that it's weasel terminology and that the snippet view of those two sources doesn't really allow to see the real intention of the authors, in the first case the author mentions two theories and here he also mentions the Ball de diables below. And the second author, according to editor B, sounds doubtful about that theory and also introduces the Ball de diables.

Editor A considers Editor B's criterion as original research.

Which way should we go? How can it be more neutral? Maybe it could be written differently, avoid saying Autos sacramentales or Ball de diables directly but use a general term like "Spanish traditions", I don't know what you people suggest? Thank you in advance  Erebedhel  -  Talk  06:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Editor A is missusing the sources, for what I can see both theories are equally important and Editor B's suggestion is much more neutral. Morbidmonkey (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice, I think this could be considered solved then.  Erebedhel  -  Talk  04:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Section on "Violence and conflict" deleted from Criticism of Judaism
The Criticism of Judaism is missing some important content about war and violence, and so I drafted a new section that described how critics claim that Judaism is sometimes used to justify or motivate violence in modern times. (Note: the Criticism of Judaism article already has a small section on ancient violence but that only addresses ancient violence, whereas the deleted content addresses modern violence). I inserted the new content, but it was quickly deleted. Objections include: (1) the content is not notable; (2) the content give undue weight to the criticisms; (3) not neutral, and (4) the content is a synthesis. Addressing those concerns individually:


 * Notable - The claim that "Judaism has been used to justify war and violence" is immensely notable, and is documented in many secondary sources such as The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst; and Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam James Heft (Ed.).


 * Undue - The deleted content is only slightly larger than the existing section Criticism of Judaism. Secondary sources on "criticism of religion" indicate that "religion causes war and violence" is one of the top two or three criticisms of religion.


 * Neutral - The deleted content is about 90% critical information, with about 10% balancing information. Additional balancing information is needed, but while that research is underway is no reason to delete all the content:  rather than delete, we should improve.


 * Synthesis - The Criticism of Judaism article is, by definition, a compilation of various notable criticisms. There is no requirement that a single independent source also include the exact same compilation.  Other similar articles such as Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Islam contain similar compilations.  The controversial article Israel and the apartheid analogy is a compilation of uses of an analogy, yet no independent source contains such a compilation.  In these kinds of articles, there is no requirement that an independent source contain a similar compilation.  Even if there were such a requirement, there are several secondary sources that do contain compilations of relgion-related violence in the Middle East, including:  The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst; Jewish fundamentalism in Israel by Israël Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky; Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence by Mark Juergensmeyer; Religious radicalism in the Greater Middle East by Bruce Maddy-Weitzman

I tagged the article with a POV tag here, but that page has only a few editors that participate, so I'm also raising the issue here to get input from disinterested editors. --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Article has been tagged for a long time; checking the history indicates that Noleander may have a POV issue, especially as regards adding non-notable criticisms and antisemitic canards. Unfortunately, due to the Passover holiday, I am going to be pretty much unavailable until April 8, so any mediation should be postponed until then. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi: you were the editor that deleted this content yesterday (without any prior discussion on the Talk page, by the way). You cant delete a section on a certain day, then claim that discussion must be suspended because of the timing.  --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi: You are incorrect to say that "the article has been tagged for a long time". It did not have a POV tag until you added it two days ago here. --Noleander (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about this. Of all the criticism of zionism's ensuing violence (...let's say, since the violence referenced would seem to mainly be in service of that), I've personally never heard much claim that Jews defend it citing religion. I don't doubt some make that claim, but the section seems unduly large. Some mention of this might be good for the article, just not so prominent. Equazcion  ( talk ) 16:29, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
 * Many criticisms of Judaism (being used to justify violence) are not made in the context of Zionism - most are in the context of "There is a lot of violence in the Middle East, and religion is the root cause of it". As for Zionism: although Zionism is often presented as a non-religious movement, there is a significant religious component, see article Religious Zionism, which illustrates how many founders and leaders of the Zionist movement use religious themes in their writings.  Here are some of the many secondary sources that discuss how Judaism (the religion) has been used to motivate or justify conflict and violence in the Middle East:
 * Arab attitudes to Israel by Yehoshafat Harkabi
 * The Bible and Zionism by Nur Masalha
 * Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice by John B. Quigley
 * Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians by Rosemarie M. Esber
 * The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited by Benny Morris
 * Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.)
 * Israel and the Palestinian refugees by Eyal Benvenisti
 * The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe
 * World orders, old and new by Noam Chomsky
 * Sacred fury: understanding religious violence by Charles Selengut
 * Jewish fundamentalism in Israel by Israël Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky
 * The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst
 * Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence by 	Mark Juergensmeyer
 * Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence by Elliott S.Horowitz
 * Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -	 James Heft (Ed.)
 * So this content is about the religion, not about Zionism. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

i just want peace and suffer of killing people and i know israel is responsible for killing people cwho are unarmed and very poor and weak i accept israel but this country must and have to accept human and people who GOD creat theme freedom and money is just a tools the real reach is side of GOD. i hope GOD bless to jewish and every pepole who creat by GOD tanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aria single (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The section still exists, the three paragraph subsection was out of line with WP:UNDUE, which is why it was removed. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposal - Since the primary objection seems to be that this content on modern violence has undue weight in the Criticism of Judaism article, what if, instead, the content were placed in the Religious Zionism article? The content (which says "Religion, including Judaism, has caused violence in the Middle East in modern times") is very relevant in the Religious Zionism article.  What do you think?  --Noleander (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections to this proposal, I will retract my POV issue on the Criticism of Judaism article, and instead insert the content in Religious Zionism. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Noleander, when you were last taken to WP:AN/I, (now archived at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597,) you were advised to prove your bona fides by splitting your criticism of people of religion across several religions. Looking at your recent edits, I estimate that you have made around 400 edits since that time of which 350 concern Jews and Judaism. Please explain how you have not deviated from the behaviour which User:SlimVirgin and other advised?


 * On the braoder issue there certainly are some Judao-fascists making land grabs in Palestine and carrying out shootings of both Arabs and Jews. However, I don't really see this as a distinctively Jewish problem. I would much rather see a general article on religious (or even ideological) violence than have a series of POV forks off Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and every other religion that has adherents who have indulged in religious wars, communal violence, the destruction of the holy places or holy objects of other religions etc. That just means that Wikipedia reflects the views of axe-grinders according to how numerous they are ratehr than thta it produces NPOV material.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly every "Criticism of someReligion" article has been nominated for deletion multiple times, and the consensus every time is to keep. The reason is, in my opinion, that there are a large number of critics of religions, and their criticisms - although sometimes exaggerated - are notable.  Here are some articles/sections containing criticisms of other religions pertaining to violence:
 * Criticism of Islam
 * Criticism of Christianity
 * Mormonism and violence
 * Militant Hinduism
 * Criticism of Catholicism
 * Sikh extremism
 * Criticism of religion
 * In the case of the Middle East, the notion that "religion is responsible for the conflict" is a very widely held notion. Failing to document that in an article entitled Criticism of Judaism is hiding notable, sourced information from the readers of this encyclopedia.  Regarding your suggestion for a single "general article":  there is a section at Criticism of religion that is a start in that direction.   But even if that were expanded into a full, detailed article, there would still need to be wiki-links from the various Criticism of someRelgion" articles to that suggested article.   --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Conservapedia
I am a Conservapedia sysop so cannot edit the mainspace. I have posted NPOV concerns on Talk and have only recieved a response from a red link editor who mischaracterizes and poo-poo's these concerns. Can an experienced Admin or editor review these concerns? Thank you. nobs (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A section template tag has just been reverted.
 * Per WP:COI
 * outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved. An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site. Those who post here in this fashion will also be subject to administrative sanction. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons gives details on how biographical articles on living persons should be written.


 * Can a neutral Admin restore the Template tag, please? nobs (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what part of the text you consider to be POV (and which lacks appropriate sourcing to justify it)? I'm not seeing it, but if you can explain the issue, the POV could be fixed, rather than leaving the tag around as a perpetual red letter. The point of tags is to draw attention to an issue that requires fixing, and ultimately lead to a fix, not to remain in perpetuity. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also accept an argument on the grounds of WP:UNDUE, but this is a very short section in a fairly long article, so it would need a really good argument. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TY. The text qualifies Lipson only as a doctor of internal medicine. Here are two sources adding further qualification:
 * The Register article states,
 * Lipson duly enlisted other disgruntled editors and started RationalWiki 
 * Tony Sidaway states,
 * It does not reflect well on RationalWiki that the site owners turn a blind eye to... people going in and deliberately inserting the most outrageous material. nobs (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for. The section clearly notes that he and other editors started another wiki that is critical of Conservapedia; the fact that said editors dislike Conservapedia is self-evident. Calling them "disgruntled" isn't necessary. To the second point, it is already noted that the editors engage in cyber-vandalism, so I'm not sure what else you want. I have no problem referencing the statement that he started RationalWiki with former Conservapedia editors with the link to the Register article if that's what you desire. Your second source isn't really reliable though; blogs are frowned upon in most cases. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I replaced the reference linking to RationalWiki with your reference from The Register. I linked RationalWiki to its wiki article, which is generally more useful to those interested in a summary than a main page link would be. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Register article (wrongly) paraphrases the LA Times article that is already the main source for the section. Lipson was among the first members, but he didn't start it or enlist people for it. So the WP article is pretty much correct in its current claims that "Several editors, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki". The second incident has no connection at all to Lipson or the founding of RationalWiki. It's about RationalWiki, not about criticism of Conservapedia. So aside from RS issues, I don't see why it should be included in the Conservapedia article. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Though actually Lipson didn't help found RationalWiki so the LA Times article and the Register which copied it got their facts wrong, Do we just go ahead and repeat what they say as LA Times is a 'reliable source'? There is a bit of a BLP problrm also as it asserts Lipson is a cyber-vandal which seems a bit shaky given its other error. Anyway I can't see that this has gone too far for the talk page yet. Dmcq (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get the NPOV section tag restored while this is sorted out? nobs (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be an NPOV issue in any event. It's just a factual discrepancy that should be fixed or just plain removed (since it is of arguable relevance to Conservapedia itself). &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't read the right section on the talk before I added it. I went to the "brusque and offensive" section, since it was linked from the report and missed the discussion relating to this. If no one else has done it, I'll remove the Register reference until we can work out decent wording and sourcing at the article talk page. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 17:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get the tag restored? I'm having diffficulty on the Talk/Conservapedia page, being trolled by Rationalwiki editors. It is supposed to be unproblematic for me defending an institution I've declared a COI with, which has been the subject of violations of WP policies. Thank you. nobs (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help if you clearly stated what you objected to rather than just quoting wikipedia policies. Dmcq (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

History of Venezuela
The article History of Venezuela, apart for being long, is also full of cases of undue weight, bias and excessive personal views overall.

Here are some quotes:

"Guzmán Blanco probably got bored of ruling Venezuela and he decided to retire to Paris in 1887 at the age of 59. He died there in 1899."

"Delgado Chalbaud was twice a betrayer, but Venezuelan historians tend to speak well of him, analogously as they argue in America that John F. Kennedy would not have allowed the Vietnam war to escalate. But both positions are contrafactual, hence un-provable. What is often said is that Delgado Chalbaud was planning to restore Venezuelan democracy."

"The idea that Vallenilla Lanz and Pérez Jiménez had was to open the doors of the country to as many Europeans as wanted to come, with which they, and many non-pardo Venezuelans, believed that two flies would be killed with one swat: the country’s population would grow, but not with more ignorant pardos: with Europeans who brought with them, however lowly they might have been in their own countries, a higher average education than Venezuelans had. But this backfired for the immigrants were precisely from countries that had given rise to the existence of pardos—a euphemism for bastardy and ridiculous illiteracy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuyvesant 1976 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I Agree, quoted material is not neutral and should be revised in my opinion. It looks like a narrative. If you want to write a narrative, try talking to a book publisher before just editing Wikipedia, yn?

Chad595 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Africa
Can some editors take a look at the Africa article at the arguement on the talk page please? I believe there is a quite a severe lack of WP:NPOV on the article. Personal views amongst some of its editors is getting in the way of NPOV. I'm interested to get users unassociated with the article involved. Yattum (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Defining news organisations
Hi, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. It is not as clearly defined as other similar reliable sources policies and it should be. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources ~ R.T.G 19:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Jolina Magdangal articel NPOV clean-up
The article on Jolina Magdangal needs to abide to to neutral point of view, and has been edited based loosely on fan edits, administrative help needed. Wiki pseud (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexism In India Neutral point of View
The Sexism in India article seems to keep having neutral point of view issues, with being the neutral point of view header being removed/changed without consensus or discussion in talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.143.82 (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence, new draft
A new draft of the race and intelligence article is being edited into mainspace, based on discussion in mediation. It should be completed sometime on 4/1/2010. Since this is a highly contested article that has had numerous debates about neutrality and fringe theories, I am announcing this on the relevant noticeboards to get wider feedback on the draft. Interested editors may review and comment on the draft and suggest revisions at the mediation page, so long as they abide by the mediation rules listed here.

Please discuss changes at the mediation page rather than trying to correct issues in the article directly, at least for the time being. The topic is sensitive, and the best hope of achieving a stable article is to begin from this draft and talk through any revisions needed to create better balance and more complete coverage. -- Ludwigs 2 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Assassination - Neutral Point of View?
I was reading the Wiki on Assassination. While I'm not advocating the practice, I got the impression the article is approaching the issue from one particular side. Rather than challenge the page, I thought it best to seek second opinions. Maybe it's just me. I welcome any other opinions as to whether this page represents a neutral point of view. Zendell (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

USCCB Comment
"Quote:"

In 2007, Office director Harry Forbes was sharply criticized for giving a too favorable rating on the Golden Compass movie, which strongly attacks the Church's teaching and Magisterium.

"End Quote"

Is this a quote from a particular article or person? The way it is worded now states as a fact that The Golden Compass is anti-christian. From what I understand most people, including myself, believe that this statement is of an opinion, rather than fact - and that there are also many who would disagree. If this is a quote, it should be presented as such, with citations. Otherwise, it should be removed.

Also, I would recomend changing "the Golden Compass movie" to "the movie The Golden Compass," as it is a title and should be written and italicised properly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Conference_of_Catholic_Bishops'_Office_for_Film_and_Broadcasting


 * Could it be rephrased as:
 * "In 2007, Catholic Exchange, a Christian media organisation, criticised Office director Harry Forbes for giving a favorable review of the Golden Compass movie —a film which had been attacked by some other catholic organisations. "


 * This makes it clear who is making the criticism. However, I have no idea how important the opinion of Catholic Exchange is (I'm just an impartial bystander!) I notice, though, that there is no Wikipedia article for Catholic Exchange. I'd also take out the bit about the film attacking the church's teaching. That is not mentioned in the cited source, nor in the Wikipedia article about the film. The main criticisms of the film, by the church, seem to have been that it would encourage children to read the books on which it is based, which are more overtly critical of the church. The mention of the Magesterium is odd, because this is a fictional organisation, so I'd take that out too. Bluewave (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for eyes on Hutaree
I'm fairly unbiased on this (got brought in due to a WP:ANI post), but I figured it's a good idea to get some neutral eyes on it. Hutaree is have an ongoing edit war/content dispute where an IP insists that information regarding the leader of the Hutaree being a Ron Paul fanatic (term taken from an interview with his ex-fiancee) is somehow anti-Ron Paul. I don't see it, but I'd like outside opinion. The IP should have been warned and blocked for edit warring before this (myself and one other editor have reverted him four times between us, and he has reinserted five times), but I'd still prefer to do this the right way. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ohalo College
In the Ohalo College a couple of editors on insisting on saying that the college is located in "Golan Heights, Israel". Nearly every country in the world and countless high quality sources explicitly say that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel, yet we have in this article, and others, a statement that the Golan is in Israel. The argument made in favor of saying it is in Israel is "If the local garbagemen, postmen, and policemen are paid by the Israeli government, it's in Israel". I would like to note that even Israel does not claim the Golan is within its territory. Is it acceptable for Wikipedia to present this extreme minority viewpoint as a fact? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the college should just mention the town it's in, e.g. "Ohalo College ... is a teacher training college in Katzrin in the Golan Heights." I note that the town doesn't directly mention the country in its own lead. Crum375 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is fine. My problem is with the insistence in saying that the Golan is in Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever there is dispute like that, I look a step higher. The town has no country in its lead, so a college within that town shouldn't either. Vice versa if there is agreement to add a country to the town's lead. Crum375 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another criterion I would use is to see how reputable mainstream sources which are not connected to the dispute refer the college's location when describing the college, and rely on their terminology. Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Ottapalam
This is a highly offensive article. For example lines like "Mr principal by the time you realize you were wrong in your way of dealing things, the reputation of school will go off".

''
 * Have you tried editing the article to take out some of the unencyclopedic wording? For example, the first sentence "Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ottapalam was started in 1986, thanks to the magnificent efforts by Sri KR Narayanan..." could become "Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ottapalam was started in 1986, with the support of Sri KR Narayanan..." Bluewave (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't read this carefully enough when I first commented. Now I see the problem. The article looks like a vehicle for presenting a particular POV. The first question is whether the subject is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. If not, the solution is easy! If it does deserve an article, I think the present one needs to be edited to remove the POV (as well as the hyperbole). This will leave it as a stub that will then need expanding with non-POV material. So, could you please first give us a view on the notability of the subject? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have edited out the potentially defamatory material and some of the grandiose language (alumni "cherishing their fond memories" etc). I also did some general wikification of the text while I was about it. Could the original poster please confirm whether the issue is resolved. Bluewave (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
I've tried to update Legal Action topic with the text above, with a plenty of references, but another editor reverted: On June 1st, 2007, the indictment in Brazil of the two pilots and four controllers made by the Federal Prosecutors' Office was accepted by the Court of Sinop city, state of Mato Grosso. They were charged under an article of Brazilian Criminal Code that foresees exposing to danger an embarkation or aircraft, one's own or another's, or practicing any act that tend to impede or hinder maritime, fluvial, or air navigation. According to the charge, the first controller gave wrong instructions to the pilots, not telling them about Embraer's altitude changes. The second controller was responsible for monitoring the area in which the Embraer was flying, about one thousand feet above the altitude it should be. He was accused of not alerting the US pilots about their wrong altitude. Prosecutor said that second controller informed consciously and willfully the controller who took over from him that Embraer was at 36 thousand feet of altitude feet, when actually it was at 37 thousand feet. Therefore, on the wrong way, since the odd altitude is reserved for planes coming to Brasília and not going from Brasília as it was the case. The third controller who replaced second controller, was charged for taking too long to attempt a contact with the Legacy - about ten minutes after starting his shift - even though he was aware that Embraer's transponder wasn't working properly. The last air controller charged was third controller's assistant. Pilots were charged mainly for their use of transponder and for not following the written flight plan. The prosecution says "For not knowing how to operate some items in the plane, they ended up deactivating by mistake the transponder. To this momentary active ineptitude followed a long omissive negligence." On September 28, 2007, the judge of the 11th Military, in Brasilia, rejected the indictment by the Military Prosecutors' Office (MPM) against five air traffic controllers, among them the four indicted in Sinop, for involvement in the accident. On December 8, 2008, the magistrate in Sinop, Mato Grosso, absolved the pilots from accusations of negligence not taking emergency steps for communications loss, ruling that nothing suggested an emergency situation. He also dropped charges against two of the air traffic controllers involved, accepting as normal the fact that they weren’t alarmed by another failure of an ATC system characterized by poor functioning, and by repeated defects. A third controller was partially absolved of accusations of negligence in establishing communications with Embraer, but continues to answer for the accusation of omission in configuring radio frequencies on the control console. Federal criminal charges remain against another controller, and judge has asked that charges be considered against a fifth. All five controllers, who are Air Force sergeants in Brazil’s military-controlled ATC system, continue to face parallel criminal charges in Brazil’s independent military court system. On February 4, 2009, the Federal Prosecutors' Office appealed the decision of Federal judge of the Court of Sinop, in Mato Grosso, absolving the pilots. The Supreme Court in Brazil ruled that defendants can’t be jailed until all appeals are exhausted, a process that can take more than six years. On January 11, 2010, the Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF) of the 1st Region, located in Brasilia, decided to cancel the decision of the judge of Sinop in Mato Grosso that determined the absolution of the pilots. However, the appeal judges of the TRF maintained the absolution of two controllers. A third controller continues to answer for incompetence. With the suspension of the absolution, the case returns to the trial court. The pilots' lawyers can still appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice to try to revert the decision. He said: "Supplying references addresses just one requirement, WP:V. But WP requires articles to comply with other policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The material you added is too one sided, favoring one side in the litigation and thus violating NPOV, and too detailed, violating UNDUE. Because living persons are involved and there are criminal and other negative allegations, this also violates BLP".

He was not able to say which side is favored. Does it violate NPOV? X X Sdruvss 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC) PS: I expect that people know "Wikipedia:Don't revert due to 'no consensus'". X X Sdruvss 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A few facts that Sdruvss neglected to mention:
 * Sdruvss is a single purpose account focused on this article only, whose mission on WP is to prove to the world that "Wikipedia is been used in defense of personal interests. I think that Wikipedia is full of manipulation..."


 * When his article talk page posts seemed to get no traction, he set up three sockpuppet accounts to try to create a false consensus, including on WP:RSN, and when confronted lied about their use while accusing others. After more denials and counter-accusations, his multiple sockpuppets were confirmed by CU.


 * This article is a featured article, promoted in August 2009 to that status and recently recertified. Sdruvss feels that the article is anti-Brazilian, and nominated the article to featured article review, claiming NPOV violations and "censorship". One of his main contentions was that The New York Times, used as a source in the article, is tainted and corrupt, since it employs a columnist who has a personal blog that includes some unflattering comments about Brazil's air traffic control system. (This blog is not used as a source in the article as explained here.) Throughout the FAR discussions, Sdruvss derisively and repeatedly refers to the New York Times as "Sharkey's paper", and argues it should be avoided as a source.


 * The reviewers in the FAR initiated by Sdruvss unanimously voted to keep the article as a featured article, with one reviewer commenting that if anything, it was slanted too heavily in Brazil's air traffic control's favor.


 * Regarding the specific NPOV issue that Sdruvss raises here, there are multiple ongoing legal cases resulting from this accident. The article already mentions the criminal charges filed against the pilots, as well the various civil lawsuits. None of these cases has been settled. I believe that WP should not provide a "play-by-play" of the various legal briefs, hearings, attorney and prosecutor statements, or other ongoing legal maneuvers and proceedings. When a verdict is obtained, it should be included in the article, but for us to pluck pieces out of the complex legal proceedings in multiple civil and criminal cases in the various jurisdictions, would likely violate (at least) WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and NOT.


 * So as bottom line, this post by Sdruvss amounts to forum shopping, having failed to gain traction elsewhere. Crum375 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My answers:


 * Sdruvss is a single purpose account focused on this article only, whose mission on WP ...
 * This is true, and this is an example.


 * When his article talk page posts seemed to get no traction, he set up three sockpuppet accounts to try to create a false consensus...
 * This is false. I didn't create usernames to "create a false consensus". I have many usernames, and this is not prohibited by WP. They not even participate of the same debate and they were blocked many months ago. Everyone can have multiple usernames, and I am sure Crum375 has.


 * This article is a featured article, promoted in August 2009 to that status and recently recertified. Sdruvss feels that the article is anti-Brazilian, ...
 * This is false, I've never said that NYT is tainted and corrupt, and I expect you retract. And NYT is "Sharkey's publisher", he says it!


 * The reviewers in the FAR initiated by Sdruvss unanimously voted to keep the article as a featured article...
 * This is not the point here, we are trying to update legal action.


 * Regarding the specific NPOV issue that Sdruvss raises here, there are multiple ongoing legal cases...
 * The article ommits completely legal action that is going on, and that criminal charges filed by Federal Policie against the pilots and the controllers were accepted by Justice; what charges were accepted and what charges had verdicts. I agree that article is not the case of mentioning legal briefs, hearings, attorney and prosecutor statements as can be seen in my text.


 * So as bottom line...
 * This text is an update of the article, so it is expected to face more debates, since we have no consensus. If I strongly disagree of you, and I have the same right to disagree as you, I have the right to do it. Sdruvss (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And as bottom line, a fact that Crum375 neglected to mention: I am the main contributor of Voo Gol Transportes Aéreos 1907 (Portuguese). Sdruvss (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And now, what matters:

WP:NPOV - If it violated NPOV, one must be able to point what point of view was favored, and then be balanced. The editor that reverted was not able to point which side was favored. He is not being bold. WP:UNDUE - Only one source, a mainstream newspaper Folha Online published 138 articles after Justice accepting indictment. Criminalization of aeronautical accidents was an important issue been debated. So, the text doesn't violate UNDUE. WP:BLP - "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (WP:BLP). The whole text is very well sourced and exactly quoted. Reporting that a group of persons were charged, reporting the main reasons to be charged, and saying that indictment was accepted is not criticism. Saying someone is suited is not criticism. "Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual" (Criticism). Sdruvss (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added my 2 cents on the article's talk page in hopes of breaking this stalemate. Always welcome others' inputs.--Dali-Llama (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Credit Solutions of America
After reviewing the article primarily written by Myk60640, there are several causes for concerns, namely an appearance of a lack of Neutral Point of View. After reviewing the article primarily written by Myk60640, there are several causes for concerns, namely an appearance of a lack of Neutral Point of View. Myk60640's juxtaposition of Credit Solutions' reported success rate and comments by the NY Attorney General and Better Business Bureau cases seems to be done to imply a falsehood on Credit Solutions' results. However, Myk60640 does not state that the statements by the NY Attorney General have not been found valid in court, nor does the author reveal that all but 6 of said BBB cases have been resolved with the customers. Such omission of fact distorts Credit Solutions active resolution of customer concerns.
 * Background

While listing the 2007 award from JD Powers and Associates (a well respected organization), Myk60640 does not list the over 20 other awards honored to Credit Solutions, many for customer service. The author also fails to mention Credit Solutions' ISO9001:2008 certification.

Myk60640 fails to report that none of the claims made by any of the Attorneys General have been proven to be valid in court. Such an omission creates a negative implication.
 * Controversy

While describing the ABC News Nightline piece on Credit Solutions, Myk60640 fails to mention many claims made in the report turned out to be grossly inaccurate. In fact, one of the main claims, that the customer in question did not receive any settlement offers, was proven to be irrefutably false. Credit Solutions made public a video highlighting the negative impact and false claims of the Nightline piece, complete with evidence. 
 * Media Coverage

Myk60640's authorship fails to mention many of the substantial benefits and positive works done by Credit Solutions. Such work includes founding "Credit Solutions Cares" a charitable organization which, through Credit Solutions employees, friends and families, donated over 7,000 hours ad raised over $16,000 in 2009.
 * Lack of Positive Aspects

A summary of Myk60640's Talk Page reveals multiple examples of using sensational sources and POV postings.
 * Previous Instances of Author's Lack of Neutral Point of View

I am writing as a member of the Credit Solutions organizations. While one editor made slight adjustments to the article regarding the BBB cases, the overall issues do not seem to have been resolved.Texasbiker02 (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hungary–Slovakia relations
An editor has posted a request at WP:EAR. POV tags have been placed on the article, but reverted by editors who seem to favour posting accusations about perceived Slovak racism, using un-encyclopaedic language and tone. Some of the referencing appears to be somewhat suspect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has now been nominated for deletion, but the discussion page therof tends to keep the article, but with rewriting to get NPOV status. However, when that is done, the article should be protected or at least followed by some neutral admins. POV tags have been placed before and removed by nationalists.Knorrepoes (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Suspect referencing is quite the understatement, I believe that pending the acceptance of the newer, trimmer and more neutral version, that will be our next concern. Interested contributors welcome. — what a crazy random happenstance 11:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately already for a few days all attempts to improve the article are immediately reverted by nationalists...Knorrepoes (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian rocket attack articles
This entry is about


 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008
 * Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2010

The problem is that these articles list every single rocket and mortar attack, even attacks that cause no casualties and no damage and land in the middle of nowhere. Much of these articles read like the following excerpt:

July 12, 2008 A rocket lands in an open area in Sha'ar Hanegev regional council. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack.[52] July 13, 2008 Two mortar shells are misfired and they land on the Gaza side of the border security fence in the Nahal Oz region. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack. Israel responds by only closing the Nahal Oz and Sufa crossings.[52] July 15, 2008 A mortar hit is identified.[52] July 25, 2008 A rocket misfires and lands in Gaza near the Kissufim crossing.[52] July 29, 2008 Another rocket is launched from Gaza and mistakenly lands in Gaza.[52] July 31, 2008 Again, a rocket misfires and lands in Gaza.[52]

Gripping stuff, eh? Most entries in these articles are pointless information that would not be notable enough to appear in a national newspaper, let alone a purported encyclopedia.

I get the impression that the point of these articles is not to list any useful encyclopedic information, but rather to make Israel appear to be the victim in this conflict by creating the impression that the rocket attacks are causing significant damage.

The solution is simple: there needs to be a notability threshold that each entry must meet or else it is removed. A simple, ungamable objective test such as actual human casualties.

The similarly focused but much superior article, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2001 through 2007 only contains notable events and is an example to be followed. Factomancer (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhpas there should be on artciel, Wikipedia is not a new paper.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have a point, Slatersteven. Unfortunately in the I/P topic area even worthless articles can't be deleted due to the prevalence of bloc voting. Factomancer (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understood it AFD's did no not require a consensus to remove as long as the arguyment for its removal is strong enough. Perhaps then this is more a question of those with the power to enforce not using it with enough vigour.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that the biggest problem is that the Lists of attacks on Israel are kept separate from any mention that we have on military action taken in the occupied territories, I think they would be somewhat more useful as a timeline of exchanges rather than disjointed lists. Unomi (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there are more than just news reports. There are graphs and images in the '08 article. It really falls under the same umbrella though. So merging them might be a solution. However, bringing this to this noticeboard is exactly why people have concerns with the topic area. For example, there are multiple articles on the checkpoints that could be addressed. Maybe if editors focused on tightening the topic overall it would be better.Cptnono (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod. I think as a whole that detail is good, I don't mind that we mention every rocket attack, but we should take care to also mention context(should there be one). I also share your impression that we seem to have too many articles that cover the same ground yet without actually giving more detail. I don't mind detail, but a series of unfocused articles makes it hard to get an overview. Perhaps we should take WP:IPCOLL into use? Unomi (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "However, bringing this to this noticeboard is exactly why people have concerns with the topic area." Huh? I tried to start a discussion about this on the talk page of the 2010 article but was rebuffed and was met with hostility and contempt. Where else was I supposed to go? "For example, there are multiple articles on the checkpoints that could be addressed." What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that this is okay because Palestinian editors do the same thing? Anyway, no, there are not multiple articles on the checkpoints, there is one - Israeli checkpoints. And that does not approach anywhere near this kind of non-notable NPOV banality.


 * These articles do mention Israel retaliation for rocket strikes and resultant Palestinian casualties. Unfortunately this frames all Palestinian casualties as being the direct result of rocket attacks, which is an inaccurate picture. Factomancer (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Factomancer you make a very good point regarding Israel retaliation and also the general overall worth of these articles. Perhaps a merger into a single article which only listed major incidents would be the best solution.Bjmullan (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the NPOV issue with these articles. I do see a slightly absurd claim that a list of things shows an "inaccurate picture" because it only lists the things it's supposed to list according to its title.
 * There are similar articles, for example List of suicide bombings in Iraq in 2003. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)