Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 16

An user keeps misinterpreting a source to support their POV
First of all, are i correct here?


 * Please see Operation Charnwood's talkpage; that is what Blablaaa is hinting at. I would also suggest glancing the MILHIST talkpage where some of these concerns have already been looked at, in quite some depth.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * no of these concerns was raised on milhist. the historian said a operaiton was a partial sucess and the troops ultimately failed. the user made "tactical victory" out of this. This are all needed facts. What did the historian say and what does the editor make out of this Blablaaa (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * it must be noted that a "tactical" victory is a special condition which must be cited directly. Even if historian says victory nobody can claim he said tactical victory. But in this case the historian not even said victory he also said the troops ultimately failed... Blablaaa (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i must update my post, another editor already raised concerns with this "It must be said that Beevor doesn’t use the term tactical on p. 273, and yet the same reference is used in the infobox to support tactical victory as is used in analysis to describe partial success." . but this sentence was ignored by user enigma Blablaaa (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a fine place to bring this up, but you need to provide a little more context before we can help you (perhaps a link to a diff or permalink to the appropriate section). Clearly if a source says a battle was a "partial success" that should not be cited as a "tactical success"; sources should be closely adhered to. The talkpage has a discussion which seems to suggest that User:Blablaaa is correct and EnigmaMcmxc seems reluctant to clarify the source, which is not right. If you don't have access to the source and he does, it may be prudent to remove the source pending clarification. II  | (t - c) 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The talkpage has a discussion which seems to suggest that User:Blablaa is correct and EnigmaMcmxc seems reluctant to clarify the source, which is not right." Indeed you got this correct. It must be noted here that Enigma is known to do this and I can't see how he will ever stop considering he's gotten away with his disruptive behavior before and has been basically supported for it by admin Nick-D.  Caden  cool  22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * II, what information do you require; i will gladly assist. The only reason i am "reluctant", per my comments on said talkpage, is the fact the OP has repeatly threatend to seek all sorts of actions agaisnt me. I will not be blackmailed into assissting someone nor will i bow under threats.
 * Caden, here is not the place for your cheap shots ala your comments on the MILHIST discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating the truth about you is not a cheap shot. It's time for your misleading edits and bad behavior to be looked at. Nick can't save you forever. Sorry.  Caden  cool  22:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Am not intrested in a slanging match, am interested in sorting this matter out with an univolved third party; that excludes you as you are clearly biased and only drop in to throw cheap shots around.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can i ask again for the quote of beevor which supports "tactical allied victory". The tactical victory is a very specific outcome so it should be said directly or something which is equivalent to this. So please can you provide this quote to us? Blablaaa (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, it's a bit disruptive to launch into attacks, Caden, without some sort of diff - if Enigma has a history of this, document them and then bring up a RfC/User (for a similar example, see Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85). Looking at this closer I found the relevant diff, and the operation is still called a "tactical success" in the lead despite Enigma's statement on the talk page section linked above that "In regards to the Tactical Victory conditions you have laid down, i would also pull me on the use of "Tactical Victory" in the Operation Goodwood article; its not specifically mentioned in any of the sources consulted" (permalink). Is it a huge deal to say that partial success is basically tactical victory? I don't think so - these appear to be close-to synonymous - but if there's disagreement, we should err on the side of being completely correct. So I think the best resolution here is to replace "tactical success" with "partial success" pending sources that say otherwise - and GBooks and GScholar show no results for tactical victory. Could we do that Enigma?  II  | (t - c) 22:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The diff which you mentioned had nothing to do with this.
 * a partial sucess is nowhere near a tactical victory. Same like an apple is no orange. Also i dont talk about the lead i talk about the infobox which says allied tactical victory. A partial sucees means they achieved one objectiv this has nothing to do with the overall outcome. You should also read the other statement of this source it says "the British and Canadians ultimately failed to secure enough ground to expand the Allied build-up"Blablaaa (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * its so frustrating to repeat myself so often. But thats not your fault so nevermind. Look Battle of Prokhorovka you can call this a partial sucsess of red army. They achieved some of their objectives. Nevertheless it was a tactical desaster. Partial sucess is nowhere near tactical victory. Victory and tactical are two complete different things. Tactical is the scale. Even if a historian clearly says it was a victory you can not simply say he says a "tactical victory". The historian not even claims this was a victory but the infobox claims even tactical victory.  Thats why we need always a cite for phyrificc or strategic or operaitonal or whatever. Good example to show that there is no correlation is that both belligerent can  have partial sucess in the same battle at the same time. Nothing to do with tactical victoryBlablaaa (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you maybe are not fimiliar with tactical and so on but enigma clearly is and if he is sourcing "tactical victory" with this then this is simple misinterpretation of a source to push POV. sorry but thats itBlablaaa (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know it is confusing with the lead. But this is not the issue. All regarding this issue is present at talk page charnwood bottom section. So please only consider this facts. But i admit its very confusing ^^Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi involved editor comments: To properly understand this whole debate, I'm afraid it will probably be necessary to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: General Question, which currently fills up about 4/5 of a fairly long and active talk page. Another flowering thread can be found at Operation Goodwood tactical outcome, and there are several creepers at the Charnwood talk page, and both Enigma and Blaabla's talk pages. I'm putting this here because I believe that this subject has already been discussed Ad nauseam, and is still ongoing. As a result of these discussions (and buried deep within them), one editor is now tightening up the various victory definitions and there has been some loose agreement about what can be described as a tactical victory. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi II, thanks for taking the time to look into the matter further. I would disagree with changing the entire outcome of the article to “partial success”. The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. The rest of the paragraph, partially quoted by Balblaaa above, is contradicted by other sources and has nothing to do with the objective of the operation. One should note that most sources just talk about the high losses both sides suffered with very few talking of the tactical situation, most discuss the strategic situation (which didnt change for either side as discussed within the article) and one notes the political improvement with the French – all covered in the article and do not seem that relevent to the infobox.
 * The other source cited is D’Este, who does not call the operation a partial success; he states that “Montgomery unquestionably improved his position by Charnwood” (i.e. the tactical situation, as he notes the lack of any improvement in the strategic situation) while at the same time talking about the high losses the attack inflicted upon the defenders.
 * Other sources that support the operation was a success/victory, not used in the article, include: Lloyd Clark “Operation Charnwood succeeded...”; John Buckley “...Operation Charnwood forced a [German] withdrawal from Caen.”; the latter dances around without stating the precise phrase. Per the MILHIST talk page Chaosdruid provided the following quote sourced from Hubert Meyer: “However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses."; again dancing around without stating the precise word.
 * In addition Parsecboy provided the following link on the talkpage, most sources agree that the operation was a success; two notable alternatives is one that calls it a hollow victory and another that calls it an operational victory.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree with ranger. An historian says "it was a partical sucess... but they ultimatly failed" and a editor uses this statement to cite a tactical victory. Why the hack do you think other discussion are relevant for this. please tell PLEASE. is this statement equivalent to tactical victory? no its not!!!!! its absolutly irrelevant if we discussed 1000 hours about something. One historian made a statement and a user misinterpreted this. And now you, who said already that he dont likes me, came here and throw information in which are totally irrlevant in the hope to distract and confuse uninvolded editors.Blablaaa (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol sorry enigma but i proofed that you misinterpreted a source and now you come and bring other vague sources which support the claims. YOU deliberatly misused a source and now you dodge this with bringing other sources. Take position to your violation of wiki rules !!Blablaaa (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (numerous e/c) Blablaaa Beevor states nothing of the sort that the operation "ultimatly failed"; he states the attempt to secure more ground to carry on the build up failed - a point contradicted by Hubert Meyer iirc and you accuse me of misinterpreting sources!
 * At any rate i will rather await further comments from II or other NPOV than you tell me the outcome of your accusations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * i also want to highlight that quoting a historian who said " charnwood suceeded..." is also nowhere a quote for tactical victory. The soviets also suceeded in stoping german movements at prokorrohkva but is was not tactical victory. OMG you were caught and instead admiting it you bring more and more vague things to distract from the point. always same method.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sure you are able to read and comprehend the various points by II; he stated per the Beevor source should we replace the outcome with "partial success". Hence the "more vague things"; two points were addressed in my post, all of which was a reply to II and the points he raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * He stated nothing he thought we talk about the lead. Stop lieying please.Blablaaa (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hilarious how much OR you do. When somebody says the situation improved you claim he says tactical victory. Sorry but if people can do such amount of OR the scientific standart of wiki get destroyed. Enigma i ask you one masterquestion but you will dodge it. Yoo did the edits so i ask you directly. When a historians says a operation was a partial sucess but ultimately failed, is this the same like "tactical victory" ? Yes or no ? You will dodge question but this is the only importan question here. You made the edits but you do not say they are correct. MAsterpiece of distraction...Blablaaa (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since we yet again desended into the circula discussion that has lasted almost a full month now i shall await the response from II or other NPOV editors in regards to II points and my reply. Furthermore i suggest you re-read Beevor's comments because at no point does he state the operation ultimately failed, like you keep asserting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (several e/c's) As anyone who would care to follow the links will see, this issue has been discussed at length in the last month. The discussions are all relevant because they are all to do with the result of the Charnwood article, as is this discussion. Here you seem to be tackling exactly the same issue from a slightly different perspective, but by your own admission this perspective has been brought up at Milhist before - you even quote me in your 3rd post here. And you don't think its relevant? If you don't think that the long winded chats we've already had (and tried to broker some sort of compromise out of) somehow don't count in this thread, then I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. I must admit, I'm getting very bored of being neutral right now, especially after reading your last sentence about "not liking me". Not sure where I said that to be honest. Ranger Steve (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You did the same, You were caugh by your bias editing style. And if i try to search objectiv thrid opinion, you immedialty distract you dont talk about the problem. You spam useless information. You make mess out of such simple question : if historians said something or not. This is not more than your standart tactic. You did nothing to explain your edit. You were accused of misinterpreting of a source but you did not talk about this source one single time. You spam other sources. Even if you bring 1000000 sources your misuse of one sources is still there but you take no position you spam people with such amount of information that they totally lose the point. And thats your aim you know what you did. if you are not "guilty" you what talk about accusation rather than something totally different. I think your tacica will work again, the discussion is dead i guess. Its horrible. But ok for me. keep misinterpreting sources like you will until every of your british articles says "british" victory. When a historian says "partial sucess but failed ultimatly" then make "tactical victory" out of it. i can live with it i will collect all of this and present it them with multiple examples. Blablaaa (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger is lieing or not able to understand the point. Nowhere we discussed in length the outcome of this article, we discussed the phrasing of a statement. Please show me some edit were i talked about this sources and that they dont say tactical victory and then show me where other users said that partial victory is same like tactical victory. Go ranger search for the edits and present them here. Until now you posts were a waste of KB so please proof your claims and bring "diffs"Blablaaa (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ranger please give diffs where the outcome was discussed by me. If you have none then please admit that you totally failed to understand the point and then leave please. Thank you.Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Enigma please stop it with the wiki games. Yes, we all know you play the game well but the gig is up man. Stop distracting others from the truth here. You continue misinterpreting sources. You continue to mislead the readers. That's unacceptable. Your British POV is so biased that you can't continue doing what you do. It's wrong. You need to cut it out. Enough is enough.  Caden  cool  00:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * enigma said this above : I would disagree with changing the entire outcome of the article to “partial success”. The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. first of all this is the definition of OR but here look what the same editor edit into the article: the objective was .... and establish bridgeheads into southern Caen and here the outcome also written by enigma ...southern sectors remained in German hands and no bridgeheads established... all the edits were done by the same guy saying this was precisely the goal of the operation . what a blatant lie. Enigmas post are full of lies i could pick all day long his words and show how he contradicts himself. Not only he does simple bias OR he lies when he explains is OR. Sorry its horrible to deal with thisBlablaaa (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You two guys are hilarious and the posts on your talk page Caden about how i have a little conspiracy going on against you two, the articles, and in effect the German people is brilliant; evidence that you have too much time on your hands i think. As for the accusation of presenting a British POV within articles i would suggest going and looking at the sources in use, their relaiabilty and the fact they are a mixture of American, British, Canadian, French, and German in addition to the fact i have presented as much information from the German POV as possible.
 * As for the fact I forgot about the goal of seizing bridgeheads; the major goal of the operation was securing northern Caen and Beevor confirms they did so. The fact that a half bombed out city, destroyed bridges and German resistance halted any further advances is clearly why Beevor states “partial”. More importantly Beevor does not state anywhere that the operation failed. Hopefully your little conspiracy theory can be put on hold until II or another NPOV editor can read through II points, my reply and for further background information the Charnwood, MILHIST, yours, cadens and my talkpages.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * you forget about? sorry dont believe you ... Like always i proof something and then you dodge or claim "you forgot", its always the same. And again you try to OR and explain us what beevor means. When beevor doesnt say something you create something and then explain us why beevor maybe meant this... . In fact you lied about the objectives, your only attempted to explain your misuse of beevor was to explain that allied achieved all objectives ( which is OR anyways ) but now i showed that u lied about the objectives. So what does remain of your only attempted to explain your misuse? Nothing remains, you misused a source. And maybe its time to say sorry and showing that you will not do it again... Blablaaa (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Another proof of your bad intention is that you still claim II support you while we both know that he presented an edit which deals with the phrasing issue ^^ You know this but you try to imply he already supported you. Thats also a very bad and unfair tactic. Please enimga feel free and start discuss the real point. Can beevor be used for citing a tactical victory? Please say something to the real issue.Blablaaa (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest i dont give two hoots if you believe me or not; the fact is i forgot to mention the bridges in my summary and that is the only thing you have been able to seize on (other than attempting to claim i was bringing in additional material that was not needed, when it was in response to the comments by II). The main goal of the operation was to take the northern end of the city and Beevor supports that this happened. As for my misuse of Beevor, that is somewhat laughable considering you keep claiming he calls the operation a failure when he does not.
 * I have not claimed II has supported me i have stated that i am awaiting his or another NPOV editor's reply, in response to my reply to his questions and points.
 * How about you heed Caden's advice and take a break and await NPOV editors to reply rather than helping to crowd this talkpage up with irrelevent information and bickering?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * EnigmaMcmxc, I'm afraid I'm leaning against you from what I understand of the issue. You summarise: The objective of the operation was to capture the northern section of the city, which Beevor confirms: “Operation Charnwood had been a very partial success, taking just the northern part of Caen.” However confirmed from other sources within the article itself, this was precisely the goal of the operation. That appears to me to be the very definition of WP:SYN. If a source describes OC as an unqualified success, then use that source. But making a judgement about the matter based on what you think would count as success is out of bounds. Even though the logic of what you are saying seems straight-forward, policy is that it is for the pages of your own private diary. --FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) the fact is i forgot to mention the bridges in my summary yes you "forgot". But unfortunatly this point which was "forgotten" by u rendered your whole point useless.
 * 2) The main goal of the operation was to take the northern end of the city and Beevor supports that this happened so you decide he means tactical victory lol ? Tactical victory is not only achieve 1 objectiv. Lol what you do is the definition of OR. you claim what beevor means...
 * 3) and await NPOV editors to reply the problem is that you dont want editors to judge neutral thats why you pump useless informations. THe question is so simple did beevor said it was a tactical victory? No he didnt. But you dont want the people answer neutral thats why you butt in and spam. I ask you again Enigma, does beevor say it was a tactical victory? or does he say something which is undisputable equivalent to this? Why do you dodge this question? its the only important question.. Blablaaa (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@ formerip. This is not only OR the objective was not only to capture northern cean it was also to secure bridgeheads, but enigma forgot this detailBlablaaa (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * FormerIP, thank you for your input on the matter; would your recommendation on the source already in use, and those also mentioned, be to switch over to just a basic victory/success?
 * What are your thoughts on the information presented by D’Este, since he is also used to support the current outcome.
 * RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources in use, I would say "partial success" is appropriate. This is how Beevor describes it, and the D'Este quote (I don't have access to the complete text) appears to give a similarly mixed position. This isn't really about making a fine judgement and recommendation. In this case, I think it is about slavishly and boringly following the sources. If these sources are not giving the best representation of what happened, then find other sources that do. --FormerIP (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your neutral input FormerIP, very appreciate this Blablaaa (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with FormerIP. Further I think Beevor's "partial success" seems about right and seems like the best term to use in the infobox. You can reflect the other sources; Ford & Lyles say hollow victory, which I think clearly has different connotations than tactical success/victory. Copp's view could be reflected too and is more in-line with a tactical victory perspective but based on other sources seems to have a bit of a minority viewpoint. In the future a couple recommendations: Enigma, "slavishly" follow the sources without making a fuss unless you can find consensus (taken literally) to diverge - diverging from cited sources as the current articles does (permalink, citations 5 and 6) or repeatedly inserting uncited material is a big deal and a major offense, and Blablaa, if you're going to make a bunch of posts right after each other just update your earlier post. Numerous comments bloat the page and we need to allow the uninvolved comments space to breath. II  | (t - c) 03:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Allied Supreme Commander said that the battle at Caen was a tactical success and a strategic one. The point here is not the wording of the success but the terminology. Blaaa is applying a "Table top gaming battle" outcome where a tactical defeat is measured as the higher number of losses; and outcomes of the operations and the involvment in the strategy of the campaign does not exist as the battle is taken as a standalone battle with no after effect taken into account. THis table top battle element tends to come from Naval engagements of the old school where only roughly equal forces would attack each other and an outcome totalling losses of 2 battleships v 1 battleship would upset the balance enough for one side to retreat
 * In reality the situation is much different: a tactical or strategic victory, or even a pyrrhic victory, depend on how the results of operation are measured against its objectives and how those outcomes affect the campaign as a whole. If an operation loses twice as many men but wins the war then it was indeed a strategic victory. If the operation is to keep somebody pinned down while others assault from the rear and the operation goes as planned then the operation was a tactical success - even if you loose ten times more men. (see Tactical victory)
 * Blaaa cannot accept that evidence which contradicts his belief should be accepted. On two occasions I have provided quotes which supported evidence and he rejected them out of hand. I also asked that the section he is disputing be tweaked and was infact supporting him - his behaviour there was most uncivil and I have tried once more to help show him why the facts support what the article, as it stands now, is saying.
 * I appreciate that uninvolved editors are trying to help sort this out. However I really do believe that Blaaa will not be happy until we have reduced the article to "it was a draw".
 * SO far we have changed it seven or eight times to try and accomodate his opinions yet he has not once tried to understand the points raised to him, nor accept that now it has been changed he may infact be wrong as reducing it anymore will be making it innaccurate. THe latest thing is that he claims that the divisions should not be called divisions simply because there were not enough men in them - obviously if you are the only 100 men left in a regiment it is still a regiment. Beevor is not the only source, there are several others, and concentrating on one to prove a point is equally SYN by POV.
 * Caden - you are not helping when you turn this into a nationality issue. Blaaa is obviously upset and perceives that because there is a "tactical success" label we are denegrating the Germans and saying that they were useless - that is certainly not the case - however saying "your British POV" is a bit ridiculous and inflammatory as the operation was conducted by Canadians and British troops in conjunction with an American assault on the western flank. Blaaa - Attacking RangerSteve and saying "ranger is lieing" is both ridiculous and incorrect. Once again you have attacked the people who were trying to help you and once you realise they do not agree with you you attack.
 * I am neutral, as always, and neither support Enigma nor Blaaa. Both have given it as good as they got it and could be said to have lost control, however Blaaaa has lost it many more times and attacks people who are neutral and trying to help him, such as RangerSteve and myself. Lets hope he can resist this time.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * i only read the first two sentences of your post and stoped then. Enigma used a historian to cite something which was not said by this historians. Totally irrelevant what sources could be find afterwards. The problem is wrong "interepretation" of sources. If you find more sources which claim allied victory then cite them and everything is fine. Blablaaa (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * " Enigma, "slavishly" follow the sources without making a fuss unless you can find consensus (taken literally) to diverge - diverging from cited sources as the current articles does (permalink, citations 5 and 6) or repeatedly inserting uncited material is a big deal and a major offense"
 * Excuse me, but where have in any way diverged from what D'Este has stated in that diff; i rechecked the source and claified what he stated.
 * I can agree we/i have pushed it slightly with the Beevor source, however D'este stresses how ground captured by this attack improved the local position and how it inflicted heavy losses on the German forces: D'ESte does not state anywhere it was a partial victory, if we are to "slavisly" follow the sources like has been suggested we therefore putting words in D'Este's mouth to suggest anything else than a several page long conclusion that covers all bases from the political down to the tactical.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * now i read the rest of your post. If you consider yourself as neutral or not, doesnt madder for me, what i see that you come here and throw useless information in this thread because you are not able or willing to understand that enigma handled a source incorrect. You butt in an claim this disscussion evolved because i am upset because german lost tactical ? what? This is nothing else than the saying "blabla created problems because he is biased", but if you look the other commentaries you maybe ( if you really try hard ) find that other editors also think this statements dont justify "tactical victory", so my points were valid. I searched for third neutral opinions and was back upped. So everything is fine. Enigma now will change the outcome or change for other sources. Maybe chaosdruid you should considere your intentions. Everything i can see points to the fact that you try to insult me and prolong a discussion which is already other. Blablaaa (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If the operation is to keep somebody pinned down while others assault from the rear and the operation goes as planned then the operation was a tactical success - even if you loose ten times more men and this sir, is bollocks. Maybe the plan of the other party was inflicting 10 times higher casualties ??? thousands of example which contradict this statement. omg ....Blablaaa (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

when enigma says D'est says the allied inflicted "heavy" losses on the german then this means actually the allied sustained far higher losses. Blablaaa (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * enigma when a historian says the situation was improved then this sounds far more like "strategical scale" . Nevertheless mayb you drop the stick ? Blablaaa (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Totally baffled) Are you actually serious Blablaa? Do you really believe that there is nothing in that discussion that is relevant here? A month long discussion about tactical results and infoboxes? FormerIP and II (and any other neutral / observing parties), probably the most specific part elated to your concerns above is this convenient break in the lengthy milhist discussion where I directly ask if it is acceptable to infer the result of a battle from facts about its scope and how sources describe it, with specific reference to Charnwood. This thought is then discussed by several other editors (yep, including Blablaa). I do see exactly what both FormerIP and II mean, but I'd suggest that there is a bit more to it than that. Blablaa, suggesting that I am lying or spamming this thread is exactly why I gave in trying to help you in the first place. I'm becoming more inclined now to suggest that you drop the stick and take a break from editing for a while. I'll also add that (in light of the simple fact we're discussing the same thing again and again on different pages), that this is starting to look like forum shopping... Once again, I can only hope that something beneficial comes out of it. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

ranger can you explain me why they have to read the discussion there to judge if beevors statement means Tactical victory. can you explain this please instead of dodging? I also await the diff of me where i talked about the sources and the outcome. Please give them or was it wrong what u claimed? please give diffs ....Blablaaa (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * but its cool to see how i searched for neutral people and more and more milhist people are joining to affect the other editors. The issue regarding beevor is so easy. It can be judged without any further informations. Did beevor say this? yes or no? Blablaaa (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blablaa, suggesting that I am lying or spamming this thread is exactly why I gave in trying to help you in the first place you actually lied. and then i asked you for diffs to proof what you said, but you failed to provide some. And iam not sure if in english its sounds so insulting when i say somebody lies. But in germany if somebody lies we say "hey look he lied". This is not insulting or anything else. you send something wrong to distract and affect neutral editors, i said you lie and that you should please bring proofs. And you did not.... Blablaaa (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If lying sounds to uncivil for somebody, then please substitude lying with "not saying the truth"Blablaaa (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * suggestion to all involved editors ( excluding the both neutral ones ) can we maybe stop making this a battleground here? I guess the issue is clear and already solved. Chaosdruid claimed he has many sources which justify tactical victory so he will add them to the box and everything is fine. If not, enigma will add partial victory ( or whatever is somewhere said by an historian ) to the box. I guess we finished here, i wish you a nice day and happy editing Blablaaa (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(4x EC)
 * Do not treat me like a noob Blaaa - This page is for neutral comments and for neutral opinions.
 * I understand about OR and SYN.
 * If my tactic to capture your army is to hold the front and my strategy is to pincer you and go round the back and I succeed in those aims then my tactics worked as well as my strategy. It does not matter how many men I lost. Strategy is the overall plan and tactics is how you achieve them. In a game of chess my strategy is to force a stalemate and my tactic could be any of these three: 1. to eliminate all our pieces, 2. to corner myself, 3. to force you into a "three moves the same" position.
 * You say "If you consider yourself as neutral or not, doesnt madder for me" - well it should as this is the neutral point of view board. Neutrality is not the same as facts, POV is when opinions on those facts or "facts" from different opinions (POVs) cannot be resolved.
 * "throw useless information in this thread" is a bit silly isn't it ? The point to this is that the article needs to be correctly sourced and statements made in the article have to be backed up by statements from reliable sources. If you had taken the reliable sources I gave you three weeks ago we would not be here as the sources would have been changed to show that the victory existed. Those sources still exist, as do the ones I have put on the CHarnwood talk page earlier today - a total of 6 so far.
 * "not able or willing to understand that enigma handled a source incorrect" I fully understood what you were saying in the first place, that is why I went to the trouble to give you another 4 sources whcih you responded to with those uncivil comments.
 * "You butt in an claim this disscussion evolved because i am upset because german lost tactical ?" I certainly did not "butt in" nor did I say that you were upset because Germans lost tactical anything. I said you are upset because you see it as "we" are claiming a tactical victory against the germans when they were (as you said) "not at full strength". It is that the "sources" are claiming this. Not the one enigma has used but the ones which I have given you also claimed this including the German one : "The enemy (Allied forces) had reached the majority of his attack objectives on the wings"..."In the central sector...abandoned by German decision"...However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses" which totally upheld the claim made in the statement which you originally contested. ("Capturing the Northern half of Caen together with the heavy german losses meant it was a tactical victory")
 * "Maybe chaosdruid you should considere your intentions" - No. My intentions are to factually and neutrally show the facts in every article I edit and read.
 * "Everything i can see points to the fact that you try to insult me..." nope - I have not insulted you but calling my comments bollocks is insulting my comments
 * "prolong a discussion which is already other over" No - I do not make 17,000 words of comments on one subject unecessarily nor do I forum shop.
 * "thousands of example which contradict this statement. omg" I think that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I am open to suggestion. My facts on tactical, operational and strategic come from the US Department of Defence dictionary of terms. I think you have to agree that is a reliable source ?
 * "D'est says the allied inflicted "heavy" losses on the german then this means actually the allied sustained far higher losses" so what are you saying ? that just because they lost more men means that the Germans won ? I tried to show you with those quotes which after you did not understand them I summarised here
 * "Totally irrelevant what sources could be find afterwards" That sort of sums up your attitude through the whole of this. Even though other sources were found you chose to ignore thme and concentrate on that one statement and your intent to show it is OR - even if other sources are found which back up the original statement.
 * As you seem to think I am not neutral it would be IMPOSSIBLE to think that you are so I advise you to try and find that neutral ground from deep within yourself. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

enigma misused a source and you responded with telling this people that i was insulting in other discussion also you downplay the misuse of source with claiming there are other sources which support these claims. Eventually you are not able to give me a quote for this after i asked two times. To be honest i see absolutly not what your point is. I came here to discuss the misuse of beevor and d'est. Two neutral editors stated that they think the usage of beevor was at least not good. you did nothing to provide facts against this.... This discussion is already over. And i must admit its the first time that i dont want to debunk all points given by an editor because i cant see any value. Even thoug iam able... Blablaaa (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe the most valuable want i can do regarding your posts is showing you how neutral you are:


 * 1) Blaaa is applying a "Table top gaming battle" outcome you come here and immediatly claim i dont understand what i talk about. Well, the opposite is prooven.
 * 2) Blaaa cannot accept that evidence which contradicts his belief should be accepted you neither understood what my point is nor did you provide any source which really contradicts me. You are simple claiming iam stubborn.
 * 3) is behaviour there was most uncivil you tell people which want to judge a case that iam uncivil go look ad hominem
 * 4) However I really do believe that Blaaa will not be happy until we have reduced the article to "it was a draw". you claim something i never said and try to imply iam a wehrmacht fan who wants to bias articles
 * 5) THe latest thing is that he claims that the divisions should not be called divisions simply because there were not enough men in them simple lie, never claimed this . i claim understrength divisions should not be used for comparison purpose
 * 6) Blaaa is obviously upset and perceives that because there is a "tactical success" label we are denegrating the Germans and saying that they were useless = "blabla is a german fanboy "
 * 7) Once again you have attacked the people who were trying to help you and once you realise they do not agree with you you attack. .....
 * 8) however Blaaaa has lost it many more times and attacks people who are neutral and trying to help him again...

so maybe now chaosdruid you start consider your intentions again. I want to highlight that no word of you talked about enigma who misused a source. You call yoursefl neutral? ^^ iam done with you... Sorry you only try to insult me. You follow me and if somebody has a similar opinion like mine u immediatly but in and start a rant against. Thats not helpful at all Blablaaa (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blaa - one minute you say "I can't see any value" then you do it anyway, can we try and stick to just improving the article as we are currently discussing on Talk:Operation Charnwood - Unfortunately I posted the numbered list after 4 edit conflicts and kept adding to it while I waited to save it and the two previous posts did not show up when I refreshed prior to saving - If they had I probably would not have posted it. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment perhaps now would be a good time for those who have already commented and responded extensively in this section to keep their thoughts to themselves for a while so that others can consider and offer an opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just want to jump in here and point out that, as a user without enough time to constantly chase up administrator action and/or more active users to help me edit a page, I've almost given up on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka because of Blablaa's edits. The problem there is that he is constantly citing a questionable source as the most reliable and furthermore, manipulating the data from that source. Each time I've edited this to represent the majority opinion on the talk page he has aggressively edited back and claimed he has the books, while ignoring the fact that the original mentions of the source he claims to represent all cite different figures. In the end, it seems to follow the same pattern for his edits across wikipedia and it my opinion that a user like this should be banned outright, because I am not the only one who has given up editing WW2 articles because of him. When I have more time I'll be chasing this up through the proper channels, but I thought I'd point this out here since this is about BlaBlaa being involved in another NPOV issue regarding a forum shopped and mis-quoted source.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * all numbers are correct, everything is fine. multiple source are supporting each other. Proof your accusations. Blablaaa (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From the talk page of the article you're controlling with aggressive edits; "Dr. Karl-Heinz Frieser . An historian who works together with the german military history ministeri. i can send u the articel if u can read german or u buy the book "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg" Paart 1-10 . so i will change the casualtie figures now. 17 tanks write off for II ss tank army and estimated 239 for 18th and 29th tanks corp at 12nd july !" This is the first person to introduce the source. Here is a summary of your edits for those unfamiliar; "3 tanks destroyed", citing Friesner and a study that cites Friesner.
 * Furthermore, when introduced by the user he stated, "is in my opinion one of the most reliable source available today." So in other words, a source is introduced on the strength of a single users opinion, you manipulate the figures AND forum shop to push your POV, while ignoring the reality that history is very clear on this point; The SS group involved in this battle suffered enough casualties in their tank spear head to cease the offensive. On that point, all historians agree, on casualties ONLY Friesner is claiming sub 60 tanks lost for the SS and YOU are changing his 17 to 3 and aggressively editing the page any time other editors try to correct your manipulation. Neutral POV would be citing someone like Glantz who sits roughly in the middle of available figures, between Friesner, who very strangely believes Nazi figures and the Soviet sources who have also been shown to manipulate reality. Its a simple solution, its NPOV and at no point did I even try to exclude Friesner from the info box, I simply switched him to "other sources" and presented the correct figure.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Frieser says a maximum of 17 write offs could have occured after 11 july ( until end of zitadelle !!! ) for the entire SS tank corps. He goes on and explains that he considres this battle to have happend at 12 july at LAH position, and than he gives the casualties for the battle of prokhorovka. Then you also have a fine picture with "casualties of prokhorovka", where you also can see that he says 3 tank losses. Again, everything is fine....Blablaaa (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you are ignoring my central points: A - you are claiming figures contrary to another editor and B - Frieser is the superior source only in a MINORITY of opinions. Glantz is clearly a safe middle ground and you continue to ignore him and unilaterally edit an article to quote what I can only assume is practically Nazi literature. Quoting official German sources for losses is as bad as quoting official Soviet sources for "kills" and thats about as effective as Friesner gets, and you have the audacity to lower even his figures. Either get neutral or refrain from editing articles you have an opinion on.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for neutral opinion regarding the outcome of Battle of Jutland
I think its a common point of view that this battle was a tactical victory. The english articles ( i think its the only wiki article doing this ) called it tactical inconclusive, without any citiations. I attempted to changes this but was reverted. To illustrate that its common view that this battle was tactical german victory i posted some books at the talk page. Other editors, which present their point of view, while they discuss why they consider this battle as inconclusive, failed to bring only one quote which supports "tactical inconclusive". For every neutral editor checking this bear in mind that tactical is a special condition of a victory which needs special citiations. There are multiple scales of warfare, they are losly connect. A tactical victory is something different then strategic victory. Thus we need exact claims for this. Please take a look here :[], i list sources there. You also can take a look at any non english article about this battle, you could also do a quick google search with "tacitcal victory" and jutland. Thanks for your timeBlablaaa (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in addition: facing the overwhelming amount of books which directly say " german tactical victory", i did no further reaserch regarding the credentials of the historians. So its high likly that some of the quoted books are not suitable for wikipedia. The section above my link is also worth a read. It should be noted that numerous people attepmted to change the outcome to german tactical victory, but all were reverted.Blablaaa (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glancing through some more books i saw i could easly add 50 more which say exactly "tactical german victory", i also could add 10+ in spanish or in itlian or what ever language you prefere. To behonest i guess there is a near infinte amount of books saying that...Blablaaa (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One user now showed that there are also some ( far far less ) books saying tactical inconclusive. That there are some sources out which claims this is not disputed. All of this books are english. To reduce a possible bias factor i checked for german books which call it "taktisches unentschieden". No single book claimed this directly, only overall "unentschieden". So summarize it: there are dozen of english books/webpages/museumwebsite/historywebsites which call it german tactical victory. Some english books call it tactical inconclusive, i also found 2 which call it british tactical victory which is out of question, which is even agreed by jutland talk. My research shows that nearly every germna book calls it tactical german victory. So the only books which call it tactical inconclusive are english books ( one of them the biogrphy of the british admiral ). Overall i would guess +90% of the books which give a tactical outcome, say german tactical victory. Blablaaa (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * iam not sure where the correct place for this is, so i copied it to "fringe Theories" as well Blablaaa (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Tali-Ihantala controversy
Hi

One user User:Tbma have such a strong feelings that this battle is a Hoax and never took place. He has nothing to support this claim, no scholars, no historians more than his own home made thoughts. Despite this he continue to put a NPOV and a Disputed tag on this article. He don't approve any sources Finnish, Russian, Swedish or Anglo-American.

I want the board to prove:

-A: Is this battle a hoax? (I ask despite the fact that my own grandfather fought in it)

-B: Are there anything to be criticise in the sources?

Posse72 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't say tha batle is not a hoax, I was not there. But tehr are plenty of RS that say it happend. I would also say that some (I have looked at enough to convinice myself the battle is supported by RS) of the sources are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you put the phrase "Battle of Tali-Ihantala" into Google and search for "Books", a whole lot of books come up that would count as reliable sources. eg 500 Days: The War in Eastern Europe, 1944-1945 - Page 184. If it is a hoax, a lot of respectable historians must have been taken in, but, regardless, our test is verifiability, not truth, and so I would say we should treat the battle as it is treated in the verifiable sources (ie not a hoax). Bluewave (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User Posse72 is putting words in my mouth. I was saying that there are a lot of other contradicting sources, that are portraying different picture of the event than it is said in the article. Since he and other anonymous users (maybe sock-puppets) are removing any references that say otherwise (and he is actually falsifying the numbers from the references) - I propose to put "Disputed" and "POV" tags on the article, as it was before. --Tbma (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After yeasterdays incident, I want the board to invastegate the sources for Tbma claim that there where only 60000 Soviet soldier in the battle.Posse72 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Syria
It is a sad sign that I have to waste my time, but here it goes. Syria is an overview article which covers the most basic facts about the country. There is one section on the Six-Day War. Several editors with long block histories and topic-bans in the Israel/Palestine area due to their partisan editing insist on having this section look like this:

"When Nasser closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Eilat-bound ships, the Baath government supported the Egyptian leader, amassed troops in the strategic Golan Heights to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis. The New York Times reported in 1997 that "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, a Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan…[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for their farmland."

The problem is that books about the history of Syria paint a different picture, definitely not the picture drawn here that Israel was the sole aggressor. The consensus of several books I consulted is the following: Syria and Israel exchanged fire over the Golan border, and there is no consensus which side started it. It usually followed an attack-retaliation pattern. There is also consensus that Syria directly supported military excursions by terrorist groups over the border. The quote by Moshe Dayan is in itself dubious. It is usually ignored in most history books, and the NYT article that was linked makes it clear that historians have doubts about the accuracy of Moshe Dayans quote. In particular they question they motives of Moshe Dayan in making this statement, and the clearly say that even if Moshe Dayans assessment is correct it is only a part and not the whole story. Books I checked: "Syria 1945-1986: politics and society" by Derek Hopwood and published by routledge and Syria: a country study (http://books.google.com/books?id=B9L9ZWtnYsgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=syria&hl=en&ei=EJ9GTJjBBJGUjAfN-Oj0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#), "Syria and Israel: from war to peacemaking" by Moshe Maʻoz.

Two questions (and keep in mind that this is an overview article):

1. Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel? 2. Should the Moshe Dayan quote be included, without a qualifier, given that most of the literature ignores the quote and given that historians doubt the accuracy?

Pantherskin (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A somewhat similar problem arises at Golan Heights, where one paragraph is quoting Moshe Dayan, again no qualifiers are given and the reader never learns that historians are sceptical of the historical accuracy of the quote. Pantherskin (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources that dispute what other reliable sources have said add them to the article. How can including what Moshe Dayan, at the time Israeli Defense Minister, said about an attack that he ordered and saying that this is what Mose Dayan said be a NPOV issue is not something I understand. We do not say that what Dayan said is true, we say that Dayan said that. This same quote is published in a number of sources, such as The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim, How Israel was won and The dark side of Zionism by Bayliss Thomas, Israel's wars: a history since 1947 by Ahron Bregman, Arab-Jewish relations: from conflict to resolution? edited by Elie Podeh, Asher Kaufman, and Moshe Maʻoz, and in a large number of scholarly journal articles.  nableezy  - 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Syria is a very general overview article that should cover only the most basic and established facts. And what is established is that there were tit-for-tat clashes between Israel and Syria and that Syria supported border excursions by militants. Compare that to what the article, and we have an alternative history of Syria. That is the question, does this need to be replaced with what mainstream sources have to say? Regarding the quote, it does not matter where it has been published because no one is doubting that Moshe Dayan said that. But what historians doubt is that this quote by Moshe Dayan is an accurate description of history. And what historians have to say is in the end what Wikipedia should be concerned with, in particular in overview articles that cannot discuss at length the background of a quote. Pantherskin (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskins misrepresents the situation above with his: "Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel?".. all the sources provided (and there are several: Robert G. Rabil (2003). Embattled neighbors: Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 15-16, and is also mentioned by a former UN observer in the documentary "The Six-Day War Deceptions") at the Syria and Golan articles show that Israel provoked Syria in the DMZ, so what dayan talks about which is published in the New York Times "General's Words Shed a New Light on the Golan" is also mentioned by several different sources. Several editors have repeatedly asked Pantherskin to show us information disputing this, but he has not provided anything and keeps on edit warring to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, now you are misreprensenting. I can only ask uninvolved editors to check sources for themselves to see that the claims made in the paragraph are completely contrary to the consensus of historians. And I provided some sources above. Pantherskin (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh really? "Books I checked".. without saying anything of where in those hundreds of pages. What page? Give me the quote from the page. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I made it clear above uninvolved editors should check sources and come to their own conclusions. Again it is clear that That you are pretending not to know that border-flare ups were instigated by both Israel and Syria (most sources actually blaming Syria and not Israel), and that Syria sponsored cross-border excursions by militants is disappointing. So stop playing your games. To show how wrong your claims are one only needs to look at a sources biased AGAINST Israel. [] Even Noam Chomsky has to concede that Syria shelled Israel, although he alleges that this was a reaction to Israeli provocations. More serious sources are for example "Syria and Israel: from war to peacemaking" published by Oxford University Press, see and subsequent pages which go into the background. And so on. Pantherskin (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Supreme Deliciousness had to acknowledge only after he was caught red-handed that he used a fake source to push his POV, see and. Pantherskin (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the Dayan quote or the sources I talked about above about Israel provoking Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply note: What does any of that have to do with the well sourced inclusion of the quote by Dayan?  nableezy  - 20:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it has something to do with Dayan. But evidently it has something to do with both of you wanting to include "According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis", by using a fake source. And apparently now Supreme Deliciousness wants to use youtube video as a source.... Pantherskin (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I re added it because it looked well sourced and you did not say there was something wrong with that specific source, you said there was something wrong with the dayan quote - which there wasn't. When I looked at the source about the Jerusalem UN office I removed it myself. I don't use "Youtube as a source" I use a documentary where a former UN observer speaks about what he witnessed, and the documentary happens to be located at youtube. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not "want to include" this sentence, this is the second time you have repeated this falsehood. You removed this with a the Dayan quote without saying one word about this specific material. If you had I would have checked it myself and removed it. But you did not. You can try to play gotcha but it wont work. The reason I have reverted your edits is because you have consistently removed well-sourced relevant material. You opened this section about the Dayan quote, I suggest you keep your focus on that.  nableezy  - 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, please learn to read. See just above, quote "1. Should we make claims that are not supported by the majority of the literature, i.e. troops build-up to defend itself against Israeli shellings and virtually all border-flare ups initiated by Israel?" - this is directly related to the fake source you used. Pantherskin (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to get into that level of detail in a general overview article (which seems dubious), why not mention that in May 1967 the Soviet Union deliberately and maliciously lied to the Arabs about supposed Israeli plans to "invade Syria"? AnonMoos (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice sought on possibly "puff" term
It's no big deal, but an expert opinion would be appreciated. In the article on the recently deposed Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, an editor is keen to retain the word "stratospheric" as well as "unprecedented" in this sentence:
 * "Rudd Labor enjoyed an unprecedented period of stratospheric popularity in the polls from opposition through until mid-2009,[10] ..." (Diff).

I have suggested that unlike "unprecedented", which is provable by statistics (and is true), "stratospheric" is a subjective term, without a clear boundary between what is stratospheric and what is not. It appears unnecessary to the sense of the wording, and I'm concerned that it risks accusations of puffery. Ref 10 is to an opinion piece by a journalist, who cites the opinion of a pollster:
 * "It's not a disaster for Labor, it's just that its support has fallen from the stratospheric to the realistic," remarks the Herald pollster, Nielsen's John Stirton.

I don't think this changes the matter. Tony  (talk)  09:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless he was actually in the upper atmosphere, there's no reason for the metaphor.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Stratospheric" would at least need inline citation, and should only be included at all if editors can agree that the comment is either particularly notable or a good representation of the view of most sources. I think "unprecendented" should not be used because it is unclear. Does it mean unprecedented for Rudd? Unprecedented for a Labor politician? Unprecendented for an Australin Prime Minister? Unprecedented in Australian politics? Unprecedented in world politics? --FormerIP (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Kenny G
As clearly evident from this, the article lacks an entire section. Repeatedly removed without sufficient support, this section should represent a fairly large view of Kenny's music, which is backed up by a vast share of reliable sources, including the infamous interview with Pat Metheny (who would "smash his new guitar over Kenny's head"). As indicated at the end of that discussion section, the article is clearly being patrolled by Kenny G fans; this is anything but neutral. I initially wanted to add that section, but after stumbling upon the discussion I realized it would drag me into a meaningless edit war. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can add the section with plenty WP:RS sourcing (and criticism of him is notable), I'd be happy to help make sure it is included in the article. BE——Critical __Talk 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page violates NPOV policy of Wikipedia - Requested for warning tag on top of page
The criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page has a very strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias at the present time. While a page on criticism of another's religion should carry both pro and con viewpoints, and outline the history and reasons for criticism, the current article, which was largely put together by an editor who is openly opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, leaves one with a very negative viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than a NPOV, as required by Wikipedia. There are a number of specific points that have been posted on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because there is something of an edit war on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, and because one editor repeatedly deletes attempts to make reasonable revisions to clarify wording on that page, and it has been very time-consuming, I am requesting that a warning tag be placed on the top of the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page.

The article does more than reporting or informing the reader of the criticisms that have been made against Jehovah's Witnesses. The article itself is strongly biased in favor of criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, even advancing it's own criticisms. The opening paragraph strongly presents criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, with a short rebuttal that Jehovah's Witnesses deny these claims. This in itself is enough to open up a bias in the reader's mind. Included are accustations of mishandling sexual abuse cases, which took place close to 10 years ago. It creates a first impression of negativity to Jehovah's Witnesses, and largely cites the work of Ray Franz, who has his own page on Wikipedia, and other former Jehovah's Witnesses, who have been disfellowshipped, and afterwards wrote book against Jehovah's Witnesses.

It has been suggested that these books themselves, although published, are biased, and were written in attempts for self-justification. If one quotes largely from biased sources, and rejects attempts to present material which presents the opposite viewpoint, the result is a strongly biased article. This is the case, and the specific unanswered points are listed on the Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page. Wikipedia editor BlackCab, who is the main developer of anti-Jehovah's Witness information on Wikipedia at the present time, edits only Jehovah's Witnesses pages.

I don't know the full Wikipedia procedure to request a tag on the page, so if someone can direct me if there is another method, it would be appreciated. Natural (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * The article in question may benefit from an entirely impartial review by editors uninvolved with JWs or JW-related Wikipedia articles.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Natural, if you are going to claim at the Neutrality Noticeboard that BlackCab, an editor with whom you're involved in a dispute, is not neutral, you should also declare your own bias as a member of the religion.-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article existed long before I began editing it. Like all Wikipedia articles, it is a work in progress and I agree it does lack rebuttals, if such can be made, on many points. Editors should, however, be prepared to contribute to the article and write those rebuttals, based on reliable published sources, where they are available, rather than simply yelling "Bias!" User:Naturalpsychology claims that I consistently revert his pro-Witness "reasonable revisions"; most are reverted because they are poorly written and based on his opinion and observations rather than reliable sources.
 * User:Naturalpsychology, for the record, recently labeled me a "traitor", "Judas" and "apostate" for having left his religion and adding to JW articles criticisms written by other authors. Such comments indicate the level of antipathy he feels towards seeing any criticism of his religion on an encyclopedia. Bottom line: I agree the article can be improved. Let's work together towards doing so. BlackCab (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the claim of POV would be quite correct if this were the main Jehovah's Witnesses article, but Natural seems to be confused as to how we would present a criticism page. BE——Critical __Talk 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question re: Freemasonry articles when OR and NPOV seem to conflict
I've been giving an item some thought, and would like feedback from those a little more experienced and knowledgeable. On the Freemasonry articles in general, we refer to two main branches of Freemasonry: "regular" and "irregular". The regular one is those lodges that follow a belief in a Supreme Being (like the United Grand Lodge of England, and the irregular is those that don't (Grand Orient de France). Now, while those two bodies do not make the rules for regularity (it's up to each Grand Lodge as sovereign body in its own jurisdiction), they are the most often-cited examples of their type.

Now, the majority of Masonic research available in English comes from UGLE-branch Lodge members. Therefore, the terms are defined in relation to UGLE-branch lodges (and thus inherently POV). The UGLE-based branch is "Anglo-American" or "regular", and the GOdF branch is "Continental", "liberal", and probably a few others. In the rare instances where research or statements come from GOdF branch lodges, they tend to call themselves "adogmatic" and the UGLE ones "dogmatic". However, each branch is regular unto itself, and each branch is not confined to the geographic terms used (there are UGLE - and GOdF-type lodges all over the world). I would like to use "UGLE branch" and "GOdF branch" lodges as a term, but those neutral terms are not used in research papers (so it would be OR). However, I feel that their use encourage a conclusion from the reader (which violates NPOV).

So my question boils down to: what wins when policies conflict? OR or NPOV? MSJapan (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that "regular" and "irregular" are POV ("irregularity" in Masonry is sort of like "heresy" in religion... always applied externally.  "My" denomination is never heretical... "your's" might be.)  However, I disagree with using "UGLE branch" and "GOdF" branch... this terminology makes it look as if these two bodies are the leaders of a faction when they are not (they may be a good example of a Grand Lodge within each faction... but they do not lead the faction).
 * The sources indicate that "Mainstream" (for the faction that requires a belief in God) and "Continental" (for the faction that does not) are common terms for these factions. While "Mainstream" is somewhat POV, it is supported by shear numbers (this faction is significantly larger than the other) and by usage in sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Irving Moskowitz
This is a minor problem so far, but there is one anon who is pushing an unsourced POV. I am running out of reverts. What am I supposed to do with this? Mhym (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to watch it, for one. Don't revert again.  I warned the user. BE——Critical __Talk 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses - Doctrinal Criticisms section
The section in the main article Jehovah's Witnesses under Doctrinal Criticisms, violates, I feel Wikipedia's NPOV policy for several reasons and isn't accurately placed. 1. Accusing JW of being a false prophet isn't really a doctrinal criticism. If someone critices JW position on the Trinity or hellfire, that would be a doctrinal criticism.


 * 2. These sources 296-299, are used to claim that JW claim to be a prophet. This sets the basis for the argument that Wikipedia develops, not other sources. These sources are taken out of context from Jehovah's Witness' publications and do not support the claim made bgy Wikipedia editors. The two sources which refer to JW as a "prophet" are antiquated, 1959, and 1972, and refer to them as such only in the context of preaching the good news, not in the sense that Wikipedia currently claims, of making advanced predictions. [296] [297]. The other two references from JW literature do not say anything about JW being a "prophet". [298] [299]


 * 3. There is synthesis between the thoughts expressed in this sentence from JW literature, that the Wikpedia editor puts together, rather than any referenced source.


 * Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare God's will[296][297][298][299] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[300]


 * These two thoughts, [296] [297] [298] [299] and that of [300], express a synthesis of two ideas in JW literature, that the Wikipedia editor makes, and that JW literature, nor outside sources, make.


 * The one outside reference in this section that is up to Wikipedia standards, from Robert Compton, does the book not refer to JW anywhere in his book as a "false prophet," but does refer to Bible passages with the word "false prophet" in it, but not using the words "false prophet" with reference to JW.[301]


 * The following paragraph, then should be removed, it is, in my opinion, original research, a synthesis of ideas from JW literature, from a Wikipedia editor rather than reliable outside sources, to lead one to the conclusion that the Wikipedia editor is trying to make, rather than that of going to referenced third party neutral sources. Sources on the Internet that refer to JW as a "false prophet" are generally from antagonist clergymen or JW apostates, rather than from any reputable source.


 * This paragraph, then, should be removed -


 * Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare God's will[296][297][298][299] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[300] Jehovah's Witnesses' publications have made many predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible.[297][301] Failure of such predictions has led to the alteration or abandonment of some doctrines.[302]


 * If this paragraph is removed and the sentences following are given some attention, then a neutral point of view can be maintained.


 * There are other areas in the article where I feel that the editors of Wikipedia, one of whom openly states in his page that he has a animosity to JW, being a former JW himself. This is the main protaganist of this doctrine on the Wikipedia page, along with another editor who seems also to have a bias against JW, although willing to yield and present both viewpoints on certain points.Natural (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural


 * Do all the denominations have doctrinal criticism sections, or are just certain ones being singled out? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Several points to make here:

1. The section is part of a summary of a spinout article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is fair, factual, written in an editorially neutral tone, based on reliable sources and contains a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society.

2. The opening statement that the Watch Tower Society claims God uses the JWs as his prophet and has "equipped them with advance knowledge of future world events" is based on articles in Watch Tower publications. One of the cited articles, "They Shall Know That a Prophet Was Among Them", (The Watchtower, April 1, 1972) contains a discussion about the role of Old Testament prophets and asks the question, "Does Jehovah have a prophet to ... warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? ... These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ... Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses." A 1959 Watchtower article cited notes the role of JWs as God's "prophet to the nations", the "modern Jeremiah" and the apparent success of a prophecy that the League of Nations would fall apart. The article also notes the JW prediction that the United Nations is "also doomed to join the League of Nations". User:Naturalpsychology arbitrarily dismisses those sources as "antiquated", but both articles are among a library of Watch Tower publications dating back to 1950 contained on a CDRom that all Witnesses are encouraged to own and use for research. He also makes the false claim that that articles do not use the word "prophet" in the context of making future predictions. In fact the 1972 one refers to JWs as a "modern day Ezekiel", a group that gives warning of what they believe God will do in the future. Other WT articles cited in the article include a 1997 magazine in which JWs again are compared with Old Testament prophets to whom God "revealed" warnings "of what was to come" and described as "God's messenger".

3. Two books are cited, by Crompton and Beverley, that contain the explicit claim that JWs are a false prophet because of specific predictions made in the past about events that did not take place. Crompton writes of the JWs' "failed predictions"; Beverley spends several pages detailing false predictions. Watch Tower Society publications themselves have dealt with accusations of being a false prophet, thus acknowleding the claim exists.

4. It is certainly a doctrinal issue that a religious organisation describes itself as a "prophet", directly and specifically chosen by God as his sole representative on earth to give warning of a future calamity, and that the religion has an intricate chronological system in which it calculates when various parts of God's destruction will take place. The issue is therefore appropriately located in the article.

5. Naturalpsychology refers to me in his final, slighting reference to a former JW with an animosity to the religion. He fails to note that he is a current member of the religion. Any intrinsic "bias" he implies on my part will be mirrored by his own. Neither is terribly important. What matters is that the material presented in the article is fair, balanced and editorially neutral. It is.

6. The spinout Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article is one of a number of articles dealing with criticism of religions. Others include Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Mormonism and Scientology controversy. BlackCab (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a Criticism of Roman Catholicism or Criticism of Presbyterianism, for example? Apparently not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a Criticism of the Catholic Church article. But I don't know what relevance you are placing on that comment. The complaint lodged here is not with the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article, but a sentence of the Jehovah's Witnesses article. It has been made by a Jehovah's Witness who has embarked on a one-man campaign to remove all criticism of his religion from the article, probably so it ends up as a promotional vehicle. His complaint here is on the grounds of bias, or a lack of neutrality. I have detailed reasons above why his grounds for complaint are baseless. BlackCab (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are the only two religions which have a criticisms section on their main page. If there is a criticisms page for other religion it is always on a seperate page. I had put forth that thought, but User BlackCab who is a former JW and openly against JW, would not permit the criticisms section to be removed from the front page, it was only edited down slightly. There is a large Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page, which BlackCab has worked on, which is larger than the main Jehovah's Witness page itself. Much of the Criticisms section in the main Jehovah's Witness page was carbon copied from the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witness page. I personally feel that Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are singled out for criticism on Wikipedia. While the Catholic Church has had as much criticism, as any religion and the Latter Day Saints also, there is no Criticism section on their main pages. 69.115.172.182 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural


 * Also, my goal has not been to remove all criticism, but the Wikipedia article was extremely biased against Jehovah's Witnesses, it was essentially an apostate article that still has ideas biased against Jehovah's Witnesses, which do not give both sides of the issue. My goal was, that if the Wikipedia editors chose to use the Wikipedia article as a basis to present criticisms against Jehovah's Witnesses, that both sides of each issue be presented, so that a NPOV could be maintained. The goal of BlackCab has always been to suppress anything positive about JW and to present apostate views, from former JW, and from any negative statement that is made about JW. To keep off of the Wikipedia main page, any counterpoints to the criticisms that he has personally interjected into the article. This has been going on for a year. The article now is a little more balanced than it was six months ago, but it still has an anti-Jehovah's Witness bias. Natural (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural


 * I felt that if there was to be a Criticisms subheading against Jehovah's Witnesses, that it should be one paragraph, with a link to the Criticisms page, which is larger than the Jehovah's Witness page itself, where more details could be elaborated on. I still feel that for Wikipedia, that that is a more balanced approach, especially in view of the type of detailed and controversial subjects that editors are bringing up on the main page. Natural (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Natural


 * That is a blatant lie. I have written and rewritten articles connected with the Witnesses that have included much positive and neutral information. This discussion is outside the scope of this noticeboard, but it indicates the mindset of Naturalpsychology in repeatedly labeling those who have left the religion, including authors of academic studies on it, with the pejorative term "apostate". His complaint is clearly less about bias than his discomfort with seeing criticism of his religion on Wikipedia, and his wheedling complaints about the length of the criticisms article (also outside the scope of this complaint) are proof of that. BlackCab (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BlackCab formerly LTSally, edits with a strong bias. These are his motives, clearly stated in his page on Wikipedia. How can someone who openly states his bias edit without a bias. Almost all of his edits are strongly biased, and because he knows the Wikipedia system better than others of us, he uses that to bully his ideas onto the Wikipedia page, in my opinion. How someone with such a strong bias can be an editor on a Wikipedia encyclopedia subject, which he openly states he has an "anger" towards, Wikipedia stating that it's pages must be of Neutral Point of View, this is beyond me.

These are BlackCab's statements concerning Jehovah's Witnesses - ·	Over the years I became increasingly disenchanted with the regimentation of Witnesses and the imposition of rules, the denial of personal choice in many areas, the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses. ·	I was told it was the truth. I was told it was from God himself. So much of it I now realise was arrant nonsense. ·	And so, after enduring much unhappiness, frustration and silent anger as a Jehovah’s Witness — for one cannot voice these criticisms, even to one’s closest friends, for fear they will report you to elders as an apostate and a murmurer — I chose to cease associating with the Witnesses. ·	Even though I no longer think of myself as a Witness, I have no intention of resigning, or formally disassociating myself from the organization, because I know that this will automatically result in an announcement at my local congregation, with the result that all those Witnesses who know me will be required to shun me. Any who disobey this injunction are liable to be disfellowshipped themselves. ·	But such is the power of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. ·	I love to read and I love to accumulate information and share it, particularly information to which the Watch Tower Society would prefer Witnesses not be exposed.


 * If that is his point of view that is fine, but Wikipedia isn't a blog, it's not a place to vent one's own opinions or frustrations with one's religion. If BlackCab wants to blog, he can do that on his own blog page, rather than a Wikipedia page.


 * His comments on Jehovah's Witnesses and false prophet are his own research, or research he has obtained from other sources, but the source he quotes Crompton, I checked the book, does not in any place refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as a false prophet. It does discuss failed predictions, but "false prophet" is a term that is interjected through synthesis by BlackCab.
 * If the Crompton source is wrong, remove it. However, the cited JW literature does indeed refer to their organization as a "prophet" that has had "advance knowledge", and the article provides specific references to those sources before indicating that critics have had issues with it; and the sentence about JW references to being a 'prophet' do not claim that they receive direct revelations from god. The article also cites JW literature (Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 137) which explicitly indicates that the JW organization is aware of the criticism that it is a 'false prophet'. The article does not say that the criticism is true or false, or indeed even&mdash;quite rightly&mdash;whether there is any such thing as (true) 'prophecy'. There is no 'synthesis' involved.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The term is not used in any Jehovah's Witnesses sources tha the quotes from in this section. And the term prophet, is clearly explained in the 1972 and 1959 articles as being in reference to the "preaching" of "the good news of God's kingdom" and not in making predictions. BlackCab creates a synthesis which brings the term "prophet" to the next level, to use the Wikipedia page to create his own private argument, which he may have obtained from various sources.


 * If there is to be a criticism section on the main page of Jehovah's Witnesses, it is not the place to voice private critisms, but to explain who, why and what reliable sources are criticizing JW for in a Neutral manner, giving both sides of the issue.


 * Who are criticizing Jehovah's Witnesses? 1. Religious oppossers 2. Ray Franz, disfellowshipped former member of the Governing Body of JW, who continues to write books against JW. 3. Penton, a former JW in Canada, now a retired professor. 4. Some other former JW who have written books against JW


 * These are the main critics against JW.


 * Doctrinal Criticisms has nothing to do with the accusation Wikipedia makes against JW of being a "false prophet". Doctrinal Criticisms has to do with subjects such as The Trinity, Hellfire, the Immortal Soul. Calling JW a "false prophet" is a propaganda tool known as "name calling". It serves to damage the reputation of JW, and to raise doubts in the mind of the reader.

Natural (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * In what manner are criticisms about JW eschatological prophecies/predictions not doctrinal??-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no "private criticisms" voiced on the article, and BlackCab is one of several editors who has previously removed other criticism that was not properly sourced. As Naturalpsychology specifically notes above, the criticism comes from specific published sources that are cited in the article. I do not always agree with BlackCab's approach, however the charges made by Naturalpsychology about neutrality are unfounded.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, BlackCab has added personal research, making statements from Watchtower articles concerning "bloodguilt" that are not referenced in third party sources. This personal research. Natural (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Natural


 * An absurd claim answered here. BlackCab (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These two references do not state or imply that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet". They can't be used in this spot to support BlackCab's personal viewpoint and that of some other religious opposers. The word prophet is not to be found in the Jehovah's Witnesses - Proaclaimers of God's Kingdom referenced here. ^ "Messengers of Godly Peace Pronounced Happy", The Watchtower, May 1, 1997, page 21 ^ Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, Watch Tower Society, 1993, page 708.

The only two references that are cited which have bearing are from 1972 and 1959. There are no one of the Governing Body of JEhovah's Witnesses alive today who were on the Governing Body in 1959, and possibly one out of the eight who was alive in 1972. Jehovah's Witnesses have not referred to themselves and do not refer to themselves as a "prophet". The Governing Body do not refer to themselves as a "prophet" and the term is not to be found in JW literature since 1972. If a historical criticisms section is created somewhere, this can be used. HOwever, it is not current, and if these two references are to be used, then the dates of the criticisms should be clearly noted in the argument. (That is of the 1972 and the 1959 references.

Additionally these two articles draw a comparison with Jehovah's Witnesses and Ezekiel as a prophet with regard to their preaching of the good news of the kingdom, and do not state that Jehovah's Witnesses are a "prophet" in the sense of making predictions.

Wikipedia synthesizes two ideas. 1. Jehovah's Witnesses stated (in 1959 and 1972) that they are a prophet. 2. That Jehovah's Witness literature in other places has said that God has given them advanced knowledge based on Bible prophecy (not based on their own private ideas, as do Latter Day Saints). Jehovah's Witnesses believe all prophecy ended since the Bible was written, and that they sometimes have discernment with regards to the fulfillment of prophecies already made in the Bible. Wikipedia is giving an entirely different viewpoint here, and attempts to clarify the position of Jehovah's Witnesses are swiftly removed from the current editor. Natural (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * I do not object to removing those specific references, which only imply that god uses JWs as a 'prophet'. However, Natural claims above that "Jehovah's Witnesses have not referred to themselves and do not refer to themselves as a "prophet"", but then also acknowledges that "the term is not to be found in JW literature since 1972". The article in question states that "Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a "prophet" to declare his will"&mdash;not that they still do so&mdash;and the references used (other than the two mentioned above, regarding which I do not object to the proposed removal) are consistent with that statement.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentences have been rewritten to more explicitly link statements and sources. The sentence that notes the JW claim to be God's modern day prophet is now more directly sourced with WTS statements saying exactly that. BlackCab (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sythesis and Original Research Policy - It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

BlackCab uses Synthesis to advance his argument of JW being a false prophet. He quotes refers to a number of JW publications, which do not refer to JW as a false prophet, to make his own argument on the main Wikipedia page that JW are a false prophet. In other sentences he makes references which talk about failed predictions of JW but do not refer to JW as a "false prophet". They talk about failed predictions, but don't use the word "false prophet". The Reasoning on the Scriptures of JW does use the term with a defense, but that is not quoted here, and if it were quoted, it would need to be quoted in the context with which Reasoning on the Scriptures uses the term, and not in the way that an editor who is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses wants to us it, in his own Synthesis of an argument, syntesized and created on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page, but not anywhere else. See: WP:No Original ResearchNatural (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Natural
 * It is not synthesis to cite JW publications that acknowledge (and rebut) claims that they are a false prophet (as found in the Reasoning book and in other JW literature) as evidence that it is a notable criticism.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations‎
This article has a systematic bias that advocates the views of one party, Israel, to the near exclusion of the other listed parties - the United Nations and Palestine. That problem has been discussed here, here and here

Attempts to add historical material representing significant opposing viewpoints from reliable sources are routinely reverted, e.g. and  Several editors have complained that this article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE. The POV and Globalize templates are being removed without discussing or correcting the problem. harlan (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A minority opinion being presented as fact is a problem Harlan. There are hundreds, if not thousands of books on this topic and we must be careful in selecting narratives. Simply because you as an editor think the article is slanted in favor of Israel (a reflection of your own personal POV) does not mean we should attempt to balance it with bogus material. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikifan12345, I'm dying to hear you cite a source for the so-called majority legal opinion, because I don't think you are familiar with the subject. The diffs above show that the opinions in my edits are attributed to their sources directly in the text of the article itself, i.e. Profs. James Crawford, William Thomas Mallison, and Li-ann Thio. Those are secondary sources, but they are discussing the official policy statements of the League of Nations, the United Nations, and Palestine. The Wikipedia:ARBPIA general sanctions require that the published views of all the interested parties be fairly represented. Palestine and the United Nations are interested parties too.


 * James Crawford served as Special Rapporteur to the UN International Law Commission and is Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge and Chair of the Faculty of Law. He was formerly Director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at Cambridge. He was a legal advocate for Palestine in the 2004 ICJ Wall case. His analysis of the UN partition plan and the establishment of the states of Israel and Palestine appears in both the Goodwin and Talmon volume, and his own volume on "The Creation of States in International Law", 2nd Edition. Crawford's book has been considered the classic international law textbook on the subject since it was first published in 1979..
 * Prof W.T. Mallison was director of the George Washington University International and Comparative Law program and the Stockton Chair of International Law at the US Naval War College. He performed an international law analysis of the major United Nations resolutions concerning the Palestine Question at the request of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, co-authored "The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order", and "Settlements and the Law, A Juridical Analysis of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories". The latter discusses his testimony about the status of the territory before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (e.g. see the text and footnotes 49, 70, & etc).
 * Prof. Li-ann Thio's "Managing Babel: The International Legal Protection of Minorities in the Twentieth Century" is an international law textbook from Martinus Nijhoff.


 * Mallison's and Thio's customary law claims that the grant of sovereignty over territory was conditioned on constitutional guarantees regarding minority rights is backed-up by the resolutions of the LoN Permanent Mandates Commission and the Council of the League of Nations on the general criteria for the termination of the LoN Mandate regimes (contained in the Official Journal of the League of Nations, November 1931, pages 2046-2059). Those resolutions are discussed in "The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, (American Society of International Law) Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, . Other sources include the study concerning the post-war minority rights treaties performed by the Secretary-General, E/CN.4/367, 7 April 1950, CHAPTER III THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER AND THE TREATIES CONCLUDED AFTER THE WAR, Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, "The Future Government of Palestine", pages 22-23; "Self-determination and National Minorities", Thomas D. Musgrave, Oxford Monographs in International Law, Oxford University Press, 1997, ISBN 0198298986, Table of Treaties, UN GA Resolution 181(II), Page xxxviii; and Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law, Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark, pages 119-122. Sources on the origin of the practice are Defending the Rights of Others, Carole Fink, page 37; The Jews and Minority Rights, (1898-1919), OSCAR I. JANOWSKY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1933, page 342; Sovereignty, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 069100711X, page 92-93. harlan (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing the quality of the sources but your inference that there is a pro-Israel spin in the article. Like I said, there are thousands of legal opinions and the article is already bloated enough. Your original edit presented in a non-neutral manner. And yes, it is a minority opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is bloated you spin-off content, but you don't violate general sanctions and delete material about customary international law because you personally think it represents a minority opinion. The resolutions of the League of Nations were adopted on the basis of unanimity, so they represent the majority viewpoint.


 * The requirement that Israel constitutionally guarantee equal rights for minorities and protect their property rights was adopted by a two-thirds majority of the UN General Assembly. Those rights were placed under permanent UN guarantee. The United Nations also adopted resolution 194(III) which called on Israel to allow the three quarters of a million Palestinians that had been displaced to return to their homes. Israel declared a state of martial law which lasted for twenty years and adopted legislation which prevented internally displaced Arab citizens from returning to their homes. That is the source of the original and on-going dispute between the UN and Israel. So, it is very relevant that it be mentioned in the article. For information on the regime of martial law and legislation see Anis F. Kassim, C. Mansour (eds), "The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 2000-2001, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002, ISBN: 9041118179, page 5, footnote 13 and Quigley, John 2 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 221 (1991-1992) Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel  For information on Israel's failure to fulfill its initial legal obligation to enact fundamental laws and constitutional protections of equal rights for its religious and minority communities. See Yvonne Schmidt, "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories", GRIN Verlag, 2008, ISBN: 3638944506, page 98 . Those are not my personal opinions. harlan (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The resolution you cite is non-binding and has zero weight as far as international law is concerned. You entered the article with a complaint that it was obscenely pro-Israel, even placing a charged tag at the introduction. As I said before, there are thousands of books and authors on the Arab-Israel/Palestine/UN issue. We must be careful when entering minority opinions as fact. The books you cite such as "Apartheid Outside of Africa: The Case of Israel" borders on fringe. There are ways to balance an article for neutrality purposes, but pushing sensitive information in this way leads to nowhere. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You still haven't cited any published sources to support your legal claims, or explained why the views of the UN and Palestine on this subject are being deleted from the article. The principles of customary international law don't become non-binding when they are mentioned in a UN GA resolution. You are obviously filibustering. I've posted here and at I/P Coll.
 * P.S. "Apartheid Outside of Africa: The Case of Israel" discusses the well-documented imposition of martial law on Palestinian Israelis. It is a peer-reviewed university law journal article. Israeli Apartheid week is observed on mainstream campuses by groups that have been discussed in the mainstream media. harlan (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * UNGA resolutions are non-binding, this is general knowledge. The views of "Palestine" and the UN are well documented in the article, you're trying to insert a fringe philosophy that more than likely belongs in Israel and the apartheid analogy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources above explain that UN GA 181(II) contained a minority rights treaty. It is generally known that conventions, declarations, and other legal instruments are routinely found in General Assembly Resolutions. Many of them, like the minority treaties, reflect binding customary international law. P.S. The sources I'm citing, which say that grants or cessions of territory are conditioned on minority rights guarantees, are either official sources on public international law or mainstream secondary sources - including University presses and international law textbooks. ARBCOM guidance is pretty clear that topics which have been discussed in the mainstream media by the mainstream are not WP:FRINGE harlan (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply because a philosophy is discussed does not mean it isn't a minority opinion or border on fringe. The book you cite is not comprehensive and is more political than anything else. The Israeli-apartheid movement belongs in the Israel apartheid analogy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikifan12345, you can't even name a published source which discusses the documented customary law connection between minority rights guarantees and the conditions for terminating a League of Nations Mandate. I've listed about a dozen, including Cambridge University Press and Martinus Nijhoff textbooks; the ASIL Law Journal; the Official Journals of the League of Nations and the US Senate Judiciary Committee; and a published study on minority treaties conducted by the UN Secretariat. If you think they represent minority opinions, all you have to do is supply a published source which makes that claim. There is a mandatory mediation cabal case going on right now regarding the Israel apartheid analogy article. Wikipedia can have more than one article on the topic of Israel and apartheid. harlan (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's rather audacious of User:Harlan wilkerson to have started this thread here, since Harlan_wilkerson's idiosyncratic and decidedly non-mainstream views of United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 (the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine) have been the source of much of the tension on this article (and a number of other articles as well). It is solidly established and very well accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable academic scholars that in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan -- yet Harlan_wilkerson is prepared to go through endless contorted twisting of purported "sources" and any amount of convoluted personal abstract metaphysical philosophizing in order to try to deny this very simple and basic fact of history. Of course, he then goes on to develop his own further personal idiosyncratic hypothetical speculative interpretations based on his historical denialism -- so that according to Harlan_wilkerson, even though the Arabs vehemently denounced UNGA resolution 181 with vituperative contumely during late 1947 and early 1948, and never followed through on any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as respect for Jewish holy sites and borders freely open to trade), nevertheless all of the provisions of UNGA 181 which would have benefited the Arabs (if, counterfactually, they had agreed to it) somehow supposedly now have full legal force.

Harlan_wilkerson is quite intelligent and very knowledgable in some areas, but I frankly doubt whether he will ever be able to do anything very positive to improve 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia until and unless he will finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. If he continues to give his elaborate personal theories priority over the basic accepted facts of history, then I really think that it's time for him to withdraw from editing all 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been saying all along that Harlan's sources belong to the minority opinion category. He claims the article is excessively pro-Israel, but in reality the article reflects the mainstream and consensus among real experts in scholars. the israel apartheid movement is relatively recent phenomenon and barely registers outside of the fringe leftist organizations. the way Harlan osited non-mainstream sources to counter generally-accepted interpretations of UNGA 181 blatantly violated NPOV. We can't look at the article in terms of pro-israel anti-israel. This zero sum mentality is precisely why the conflict will never be resolved. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos and Wikifan12345, my views can't be too far out of the mainstream. After all, I am included in the sidebar list of contributors to the Palestine article at Encyclopedia Brittanica


 * Mainstream sources routinely discuss issues related to Israeli apartheid. For example, Ha'aretz raised the period of martial law in an article about apartheid, and said that Israel's military administration over its Arab citizens, which was lifted in 1966, is today considered a dark period in the country's history. The Christain Science Monitor has carried articles about the Israeli Supreme Court opening an 'apartheid' road to Palestinians   The Managing Editor of The Nation magazine has authored articles and a book on the subject "The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid"  Those are all mainstream sources.


 * Maybe you two should stop commenting on other editors and cite some published sources which say that the views represented in the published sources I've supplied above are out of the mainstream. harlan (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whateve; -- I cited Encyclopaedia Britannica long ago as one easily accessible source (among many) for the simple fact of history that in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan -- yet of course you didn't accept what it said, and instead went on to parse its authorship etc. in abstract metaphysical speculative hypothetical philosophical minute scholastic detail, in order to try to make it mean something other than what it clearly and plainly stated (though your efforts were undermined by a certain confusion between Rashid Khalidi and Walid Khalidi). You're sometimes very quick to try to cite acronymic Wikipedia policies, but I'm afraid that your historical denialism is the very definition of WP:FRINGE.  Frankly, unless and until you are finally ready to fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation to the basic historical fact that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan, then it's really time for you to withdraw from editing all 20th-century middle-eastern history articles on Wikipedia, to save everybody a lot of pointless wasted effort all around... AnonMoos (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos, the only thing you ever cited was Britannica. Nobody writes articles on the basis of your ad hoc musings about mainstream history or international law. You've stalked me to several other talk page discussions and delivered that very same (WP:OR) canned speech about disrupting the UN Partition Plan article. Your thesis is contradicted by the official declarations supplied by the Government of Israel and the published analysis of a number of mainstream authors. I'll let the uninvolved administrators or ARBCOM decide when adding material to articles sourced from Oxford, Cambridge, Pearson/Longman and Macmillan/McGraw-Hill textbooks is "a pointless wasted effort all around".


 * The text of the partition plan explained that minority rights were under United Nations guarantee. That aspect of the minority protection plan was based upon customary international law and the resolution of the Council of the LoN regarding the criteria that had to be fulfilled before a mandate could be terminated. It wasn't a matter that was subject to debate. During the UN hearings on Israel's membership, Abba Eban acknowledged that the minority rights provisions regarding the constitutional protection of the Arab inhabitants and their property was an obligation that was capable of acceptance by Israel alone, and was not at all affected by the attempt of the Arab States to alter that resolution by force. See page 7


 * That testimony and his declaration were analyzed in detail by Dr. Henry Cattan in "The Palestine Question", Croom Helm 1988/Saqi 2000; ISBN 0863569323, pages 86-87. Israel's failure to live up to that obligation has been analyzed by countless others, including Dr Mallison's analysis for the UN, Dr. O'Connell's analysis for Cambridge University's "The Law of State Succession", Dr Crawford's analysis for Oxford University's "The Creation of States in International Law", and Yvonne Schmidt's analysis for GRIN Verlag's "Foundations of Civil and Political Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories". As a minimum the ARBPIA sanctions require that the views of all the interested parties (i.e. Israel, Palestine, and the UN) be included.


 * The vintage 2002 Britannica DVD that you cited is no longer being manufactured or offered for sale. I have always cited the current versions of the Britannica Palestine article which is readily available to the public. Those articles list Walid Ahmed Khalidi, Ian J. Bickerton, and Rashid Ismail Khalidi as the main contributors to the "Civil War in Palestine" subsection. e.g. You are the only person who has ever been confused about that. Each of the three have written books and journal articles that contradict the elements of your unpublished thesis regarding "double-dipping", "international law", "Jewish acceptance", and "Palestinian rejection" of the partition plan. We've already been over that on the article talk page and at I/P Coll. I'm finished discussing it until you are ready to name your mainstream sources. harlan (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I really really do not care in the slightest degree one iota whether the 2002 Britannica DVD-ROM is in stock, out of stock, back-ordered, remaindered, or anything else in that vein, since -- as I have always said -- the EB was only one source of very many that could have been used, and that edition was merely one which happened to be immediately accessible to me.  What I actually  DO  care about is that so far hundreds of thousands of bytes of mostly rather pointless discussions have been generated on the talk page and talk page archives of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article over your historical revisionism and personal innovative fringe theories.  We don't need any more of your personal abstract hypothetical metaphysical legal-philosophical speculations or tortuous contortions of alleged "sources"[sic] -- we need you stop denying the basic accepted facts of history, because until and unless you finally fully and unequivocally admit and agree without reservation that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan, then it's extremely doubtful (to say the least) whether you will be able to contribute to editing Wikipedia articles on 20th-century middle-eastern history in any productive or constructive collaborative manner... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos the final decision in ARBPIA requires editors to utilize reliable sources for their contentious or disputed assertions. Even if the 2002 DVD was in stock it never contained any material that supported your WP:OR/WP:Synth diatribe. harlan (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever, dude -- you should look up the Psychological "projection" article, because it sure is getting a little tiresome or tedious by now, you constantly accusing others of acronymic Wikipedia policy sins which you're flagrantly and blatantly guilty of yourself. The Britannica article section (authored by Ian J. Bickerton and Walid Ahmed Khalidi, NOT Rashid Khalidi, though you seem to be perpetually confused on this point) very clearly stated "All the Islamic Asian countries voted against partition... As in 1937, the Arabs fiercely opposed partition... Great Britain was unwilling to implement a policy that was not acceptable to both sides... on March 16 the UN Palestine Commission reported its inability, because of Arab resistance, to implement partition." etc., which sure does sound like support for the basic accepted consensus view of mainstream historical scholarship that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan.  I really don't know why you're fixating on it being the 2002 edition anyway, since it's not like there have been major new document discoveries found in Dead Sea caves during the last 8 years with respect to the events of 1947-1948.  If the most recent Britannica edition is significantly different from what's quoted above, then the burden is really on you to bring the fact forward; otherwise, there's really absolutely nothing wrong with citing a 2002 Encyclopedia edition (editions a lot older than that are cited on many thousands of Wikipedia articles). AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not waste your breath on single statements in that article while the sourcing of the article is APPALLING (I don't often shout). Either this article is rewritten entirely from appropriate secondary sources, i.e. academic books (with perhaps the occasional news report, UN policy document or other mainstream fact-checked source, per WP:PSTS) or someone will stub it right down. Blogs!!!! On a article about one of the most prominent international relations issues of our time. Shocking. Check the sources out on RSN, asking specific questions, as often as you need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why can't the article rely more on reputable news reports than on academic papers and official UN documents? Wouldn't official UN documents tend to have their own bias? AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's a history article. We use news reports for recent events which have not been written up by historians. I mention UN documents because 99% of the time we regard them as top-quality, unbiased, mainstream sources, representing the international consensus. In this particular article they are, arguably, primary. They probably need to be discussed one-by-one on the talk page and/or RSN. Even if primary, they are probably still worth referring to alongside the secondary sources on which the article as a whole must be based. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The pre-1975 stuff is fairly safely historical, but everything after the major turning point of UNGA Resolution 3379 of 1975 forms a fairly continuous narrative which shades by insensible gradations down to the present situation, so that I really don't see why we have to treat the last 35 years the same as we would Charlemagne's coronation ceremony. Furthermore, the United Nations might not be most reliable source concerning allegations of bias by the United Nations itself -- especially since the UN system has a way of finding people to write such reports who were apparently chosen almost solely in order to provoke and annoy the Israeli government and population (such as Cornelio Sommaruga and Richard A. Falk). AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, the date after which history merges into current events, and the way in which to present objectively the UN position are reasonable subjects for debate. Please do not use this page for discussion of the substantive issues of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You maintained that UN reports are 99% magnificently wonderful, and I gave specific reasons why a lot of people might not be of the opinion that UN reports are 99% magnificently wonderful. I don't even know whether Cornelio Sommaruga and Richard A. Falk are mentioned on the article -- my role with respect to the article has been mainly confined to providing support (on the article talk page and here) to those who are opposed to User:Harlan_wilkerson stinking up the article with his own particular unique brand of "innovative" theories... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The minutes of the 1948 Zionist Executive/Peoples Council meetings were declassified fifteen years ago in 1995. They revealed that the Jewish leadership did not accept the proposed UN boundaries, the internationalization of Jerusalem, & etc. AnonMoos has been deleting analysis of those "revisionist" sources, despite the fact that, these days, they are included in the standard university textbooks on the Middle East. harlan (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but absolutely 100% irrelevant -- you're certainly always searching for material to slander and smear Ben Gurion etc., but nothing in your comment offers the slightest tiniest contradiction to the accepted historical fact of the consensus of mainstream historical scholarship that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, here (s)he has accepted that pre-1975 events are to be sourced as history. I suggest you list on the talk page some sources you think deal with the period best. Start with those published by the top academic presses, as it should be easy to get consensus about them. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos won't let editors cite those college level textbooks on the Middle East, because they discuss the declassified 1947-49 documents from the US, UK, and Israeli State Archives that he doesn't want mentioned in Wikipedia articles. That problem has already been addressed at I/P Coll. It resulted in similar rants there, but no results (so far). I had already listed the academic sources on the article talk page and discussed them there with AnonMoos before bringing up the matter here. harlan (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm posting this on behalf on another editor. "This should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard. The priority for the discussion there is the books: they should be judged on the quality of the publisher, the status of the author, and the reviews received. The date of publication may also be relevant if you are correct about analysis of documents declassified in the 1990s. Keep it simple at WP:RSN: just one source (or group of related sources), a link to the article, and ask for several views."
 * TFOWR 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Harlan, don't say I'm against sources when I'm in fact against your tortuous contorted manipulation of "sources" in the service of historical revisionism. As long as you continue to try to deny the simple fact, clearly accepted by the consensus of mainstream historical scholarship, that In their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Jewish leadership of the British Palestine mandate offered to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan (UNGA 181), while in their relevant public statements in 1947 and early 1948, the recognized Arab leadership of the British Palestine mandate, supported by official public statements of the then-independent Arab states, refused to accept the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan, then your professed respect for "sources" will continue to ring rather hollow... AnonMoos (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Since my major rewrite of this article in Sept 2007, I have followed several disputes. The current storm whipped by Harlan is just another one. There is a very healthy discussion in the talk page of the article, edits have successfully been made to the text. I say we do not need this noticeboard. Emmanuelm (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I was contacted by email by an editor with an interest in this discussion. The editor felt strongly that there were issues with sourcing, and recommended raising this issue at WP:RSN. I took a quick look at the article's sources last night, and wasn't able to form an opinion either way, but it does seem to me to be good advice: if the "reliable sources" issue is resolved, it's likely that any "neutral POV" issue will also be resolved, or, at least, reduced. I'd suggest following the editor's advice in my post above, rather than continuing here. TFOWR 09:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has three subjects: Israel, the United Nations, and Palestine. It has a State of Israel sidebar and is written from the POV that Palestine and the United Nations are treating the State of Israel unfairly. That has nothing to do with the RSN. There are no separate articles (i.e. spin-outs or content forks) that fairly represent the views of Palestine or the United Nations. Discussing compliance with NPOV policy on this noticeboard is completely appropriate. harlan (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's really a rather shallow and superficially mechanistic view of the subject, to assume that there are exactly and only three such "positions" relevant to the article. In any case, it can be proven objectively with statistics and valid numbers that several branches of the UN system have a disproportionate focus on Israel (whether such disproportionate focus is fair or unfair is of course a separate matter). AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Amway, Amway Global
These articles have multiple issues. Neutral point view, COI, etc. I wonder how these type of scams can still exist in wikipedia, and survive from scrutiny. Perhaps, it is because nobody here in wikipedia has any idea about it. I recommend those who wish to preserve wikipedia's principles to view the website prepared by a former Amway IBO. None of the facts stated in this website are mentioned in these articles;

http://www.amquix.info/amway.html

78.185.248.54 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know where you are seeing problems. Please propose the changes you think would improve Amway and Amway Global. See WP:DIFF for instructions on one way to do this, or just talk it through.  Be bold in describing how you think things should be and you will get feedback here.  Blue Rasberry  13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to use a USgovtPOV tag?
About a year or so ago I started to notice the USgovtPOV tag being applied to a lot of articles. I have questions about this tag.

I'd like to know why this tag was considered necessary.

I'd like to know when those who created this tag considered it appropriate.

Surely it is possible, in principle, to base wikipedia articles on US Government references, while complying with WP:NPOV? When a US Government source makes an assertion, doesn't compliance with [|Attributing and specifying biased statements] merely require making clear the assertion is not a "fact", but is merely a position taken by a US government official?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really sure this is the best venue to discuss that template. Personally, I'd say it should be MfD'ed, but it might be worth bringing up on th Village Pump. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism
Messianic Jews believe that it is possible for someone to be both Jewish and Christian simultaneously. Most conventional Jews disagree. Sociologists and unbiased religious scholars tend to describe what each group believes, not what the scholars themselves believe to be true. Some users insist on putting into the lead of Messianic Judaism a statement that flat-out says that Messianic Judaism is a "Christian religious movement." See, e.g., this diff. It seems to me that this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV &mdash; the article should not be taking one or the other side in this controversy, especially not in the lead sentence. User:Bus stop has refused to provide any sources for his preferred version. *** Crotalus *** 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus' disciples in the first century, if they existed, were both Jewish and Christian.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However, early "Jewish Christianity" went into strong relative decline with respect to "Gentile Christianity" in the late 1st century A.D., and the Rabbis went on to doctrinally define Judaism in a more rigorous way than in earlier times (see Split of early Christianity and Judaism). So it's not too directly relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was intended somewhat tongue-in-cheek. In the case of Messianic Judaism, I would lean towards saying they are Christian and not Judaism (beyond semantics). However, I have no strong opinion, and if I did, it would be irrelevant anyway.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom
Hi. Back in 2008, a British Conservative politician stated that her party planned to ban the use of khat in the UK, citing supposedly negative effects amongst the Somali community there, with whom its use is associated. Since the Conservatives are now in power, I thought this worthy of mention at Somalis in the United Kingdom. My addition was reverted on the grounds that the source was just the opinion of a politician. In light of this, I reintroduced the material but with much more context, including a study on the use of khat by Somalis in the UK and a newspaper article contesting some of the politician's claims, along with an article about Somalis campaigning for a khat ban. Again, this has been reverted. The reverting editor explains why here. They seem to be arguing that it is POV to include the politician's opinions, even though I have balanced them with those of other commentators. I don't see the problem provided that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed (which I think I have done). Regardless of whether the politician's views about the Somali community's khat use are based on solid evidence or not, it seems important to me to mention them given that they seem to be informing government policy on this issue. If a ban is introduced, it will presumably have a big impact on the Somali community in the UK. Third-party opinions would be welcome, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by one politician on this really are not notable enough for inclusion, especially as she is now just conservative chairman so has no role in community cohesion or introducing legislation relating to this sort of issue. If there is enough sources to suggest this use of "Khat" thing is a serious problem within this community then a paragraph seems justified but the opinions on one politician and one newspaper aint enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that relying on the views of one politician is not satisfactory. That's why my second attempt included a Home Office study, mention of Somalis campaigning for a ban on khat, and a newspaper article. Further sources are available, such as this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is an article in an academic journal on the matter. These sources could all be incorporated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And another. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say taht you could say that Baroness Warsi (for example) wants it banned, but I can find no statemtn that this ius offical Conservative party po0licy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The community relations section of their website states that a Conservative government would "Tackle unacceptable cultural practices by classifying Khat, closing Polygamy loopholes, tackling forced marriages, and ensuring religious courts act in accordance with the Arbitration Act". But this isn't only about their policies. What about the wider point on khat usage? Is it something that should be mentioned in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that that is a good source, yes it should be mentioned. But choose wording carefully it would be fair to say that "the conservatives have expressed a desire to classify Khat". But not to say "the Conservative party have said tehy will outlaw Khat". Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, particularly since nothing seems to have been said on this since the election. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How about the following as a draft?

Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:

In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture.

One newspaper estimate from 2003 suggests that 90 per cent of Somali men in the UK chew khat. In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny".

In 2008, Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi suggested that use of khat by Somalis was partly responsible for their low employment rates and poor educational achievement, and stated that a future Conservative government would ban khat. The Conservative Party website states that a Conservative government would "Tackle unacceptable cultural practices by", amongst other measures, "classifying Khat". Brian Whitaker, a journalist for The Guardian specialising in the Middle East, criticised Warsi for making statements not supported by scientific research. Previously, in 2005, Labour MP Stephen Pound claimed that khat was responsible for relationship problems amongst Somalis. The authors of a book on khat write that: "Khat use has certainly become a factor in family relationships and in community identity, but to regard it as the 'corrosive, visious, and pernicious' driver of family breakdown in the Somali community, to quote MP Stephen Pound, is an absurd and potentially very damaging generalization". The argue that these generalisations have gained weight because they were supported by anti-khat campaigning by members of the Somali community.

I think that's balanced and reflects the debate about the impact of khat amongst the Somali community. If others are happy with it, I'll add it to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Might be a touch Undue, could you tighten it up a bit?Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean it's too long? The problem is that there are many different views on the issue so it's hard to summarise them briefly. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you gentleman for weighing in. There are a few key bits of information that have not yet been mentioned which I would like to share. For starters, this is not the first, but the second time that the user above is attempting to gain support for a variation of the material in question. He first tried obtaining it on the WP:BLP noticeboard, but ran into something of a wall there. So here he is again on yet another board; at some point, one has to start wondering if WP:FORUMSHOPPING hasn't yet come into play. The fact is, the user has been attempting to add some pretty contentious opinions from one politician who claims that khat, a legal substance in the UK that is sold in cafes, restaurants, etc., is partly responsible for, among other things, what she claims is the very high unemployment rate in the community. However, her claims are not only not based on any actual study or scientific evidence (as other opinion pieces, ironically enough, have pointed out ), they are also factually inaccurate. She writes that the unemployment rate (not the employment rate) in the Somali community is quite high: "Unemployment rates among the Somali community are far above the national average. Academic achievement rates are far below the national average. And khat is in part responsible." However, this is not true, since most Somalis in the UK that are not employed are economically inactive, not unemployed. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the unemployment rate in the community is actually only 10%, nor is there any study that attributes this inactivity mainly to khat use. In fact, an actual study on khat use among Somalis in the UK states that there is no link between unemployment in the Somali community and khat use. The paper also indicates that only 38% of the overall Somali sample "identified themselves as having ever chewed khat", that the most common health "symptoms that respondents associated with khat use were: sleeping difficulties; loss of appetite; and an urge to chew more khat", and concludes that "the overall picture was that most of the interviewees who were using khat were using it in a moderate way, in terms of amount used and the frequency and length of chewing sessions and that it was usually a social activity. However, there were a small number of people who said they were using khat every day or for very long periods and some felt that their use of khat was out of control. These groups of people may need some help and support in moderating their khat use." So basically, it's not just an opinion piece citing unsubstantiated, contentious claims about a living third party (which is against WP:QS); it is also factually inaccurate and has been explicitly identified as such too. Since khat use in the community in question is analogous to alcohol use in many other communities, the only thing that makes it even notable in the article is if it is in some way abused. However, as I've pointed out, the actual studies on its usage in the community do not support this at all. The user above now links to a site indicating that the Conservatives are considering banning the substance -- a site that doesn't even mention Somalis in the UK, let alone any so-called link between unemployment in that immigrant community and khat use -- as well as a closed-access paper (whose contents are unverifiable) on perceptions in the Somali community on khat. But none of these are any more reliable sources (or even relevant, in the former's case) than the politician's unsubstantiated opinions; perceptions do not a social issue make. In fact, this is what the study on khat use that I cited above indicates:

"'The social problems which respondents most commonly attributed to khat use concerned discord or breakdown within marital or familial units.... However, a number of other factors may have also had an impact upon these social tensions, including: the experience of being a minority group within the UK; being isolated from an extended family network; differences in expectations about gender relations within western society; and the experience of socio-economic difficulties. It is not possible within this study to establish where causation lies between all these factors.'"

Many people (wives and mothers, especially) would also like to see alcohol banned and perceive it as being bad, but one doesn't see this being mentioned in any ethnic group articles. Double standards notwithstanding, this article is no exception. Middayexpress (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Middayexpress, I am not forum shopping. I raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard because you suggested it was a BLP issue on the article's talk page! People's responses there were that it wasn't since Somalis as a large group are not covered collectively by BLP. People rightly raised the issue of the selective use of sources, so I brought the issue here. I've also considerably developed the text that I intend to add since I raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard.


 * Again, Middayexpress, you seem to be suggesting that I am trying to use Warsi's comments as a statement of fact. I'm not. If you read my suggested text abaove, you'll see that I include criticisms that have been made of her, plus the study you mention. Please don't quote material back at my that I myself am suggesting we add, as if it were evidence against me.


 * I would really appreciate third-party comments on this because a one-to-one debate between myself and Middayexpress isn't going anywhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Cordless, you were not guilty of forum shopping when you first posted to that other noticeboard (nor did anyone suggest you were). It is when you didn't get the response you were looking for there -- i.e. that is is ok to use the opinions of some random person presented as though they are facts to make contentious claims about entire ethnic groups -- and posted essentially the same rant here that that policy became relevant. You might "intend to add" the material, but you have never even come close to obtaining consensus for it, neither there nor here. And not once have you attempted to explain how citing such opinions is not in any way a violation of WP:QS for one. Good luck with that. Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here because it was clear it was a NPOV issue, not a BLP one. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, your comments about Somalis' unemployment rate being low are incorrect - please see this National Statistics source. But that's not the point since I'm including Warsi's views as her opinion, not a statement of fact. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid my comments indicating that the unemployment rate amongst Somalis being nowhere near what Warsi claims is correct (as this study shows). That study you link to above has also been quite thoroughly exposed by me on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The study that you "expose" is by the UK's national statistics authority, whereas the one you want to use to prove your point is by a think tank using a different definition of the unemployment rate. Again though, I'm not saying Warsi's right, I'm reporting her opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The IPPR study (which most certainly does use the UK's national authority's statistics in its paper) does not include students -- people officially defined as economically inactive -- in its figures whereas the other study does, exactly as the quotes I have presented on the article's talk page (and can easily present here) show. On the relevant Table 1 & Table 2 of the ONS paper (which cite the employment and unemployment & inactivity rates, respectively), the captions both read that "Countries are ordered according to the 2008 working age household population as presented in Table 3." The paper also defines the working age household population as including (not excluding) students. And as the IPPR itself clearly indicates, including student data necessarily skews the results. The results are still skewed and only serve to artificially inflate the unemployment rate and deflate the economic inactivity rate. There's no getting around this basic fact. And or the millionth time, it also does not matter whether or not you agree with Warsi; what matters is that her opinions cannot be used to source contentious material on sourced parties:
 * "'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.'"
 * I invite you to find a single policy that argues otherwise. Middayexpress (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is discussed here, where I make clear that you're wrong about students being counted as unemployed by the ONS. Let's not start a parallel discussion here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, note that WP:SOURCEACCESS makes clear that just because a source is not open-access, doesn't mean it can't be verified. I am happy to share the contents of the "closed-access paper" Middayexpress mentions with anyone who asks for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed-access sources by definition cannot be verified unless one has open access to them. So how's about Middayexpress for starters? Unless, of course, you have something to hide? Middayexpress (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you would like access to it? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The thought has come to mind. Middayexpress (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look into how I can give you access now and post a notice on your talk page when I'm done. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Middayexpress, what would you say if I suggested adding a section on khat use, without the Warsi comments, as a starting point? We can then continue to discuss her contribution to the debate with a view to including it (or not) at a later date, when consensus is reached either way. We could add the following, for instance:

Concerns have been expressed about the use of khat by Somalis in the UK. Some claim that khat use has negative social and health impacts. However, the impact of khat use is the subject of significant debate. One academic has written that:

In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat. Many maintain that it lies at the root of the social and medical problems that trouble a signicant proportion of the community. To others it is an innocent stimulant and an important aspect of their culture.

In 2005, the Home Office issued a report on research into khat use by Somalis in Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield. The research found that 38 per cent of the sample group had used khat, with 58 per cent of men and 16 per cent of women reporting having used it. The figures for usage in the month preceeding the study were 34 per cent of the total sample, of 51 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women. Three quarters of participants who had used khat reported having suffered health effects, although these were mostly mild in nature. Some reported family tensions arising from their khat use. Only a small minority of the study participants' khat use was judged to be excessive. 49 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of banning khat, with 35 opposed, but the report suggested that this would not be effective. Some Somali community organisations have campaigned for khat to be banned. In 2009, the Home Office commissioned two new studies in the effects of khat use and in June 2010, a Home Office spokesperson stated: The Government is committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue of khat use under close scrutiny".

Cordless Larry (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That suggestion looks reasonable, the two full paragraph example before was too much for this specific subject in the article but the one above being just 1 paragraph and the balanced quote from the academic/first sentence seems helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that most certainly won't do. As I've already indicated in my very first post here, quoting verbatim the actual conclusions of that same Home Office study from 2005 that you selectively cite portions from above, the paper makes it clear that khat abuse is not at all an issue in the Somali immigrant community in the UK. That last reference to two studies the Home Office later commissioned also in itself has nothing to do with Somalis. Per WP:VER, sources must directly support statements made, otherwise linking them to advance an argument is synthesis. Middayexpress (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So the fact that an academic expert on khat states that "In the Somali community in the UK, few issues are as contentious as the status of khat" doesn't make it worthy of mention? The last sentence about the Home Office could be removed if you wished. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That would seem best.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained above, certain members (not all) of a community believing that there is a problem isn't the same thing as there actually being a problem. As the actual study on khat use I quote from above indicates, only a small fraction of khat users in the community use it abusively, and:
 * "The social problems which respondents most commonly attributed to khat use concerned discord or breakdown within marital or familial units.... However, a number of other factors may have also had an impact upon these social tensions, including: the experience of being a minority group within the UK; being isolated from an extended family network; differences in expectations about gender relations within western society; and the experience of socio-economic difficulties. It is not possible within this study to establish where causation lies between all these factors."
 * Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not using the sources to say that there is a problem, only that some people think there is. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the source also says that ...In addition, some respondents felt that their children were affected by their partner’s khat use, and reported that they had experienced their khat-using partner’s mood swings or temper. Khat use could also be a drain on financial resources, and was also blamed for khat users being absent from the family home for extended periods....Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an editor of the article. Middayexpress, you have been misrepresenting Cordless Larry's position, misunderstanding and misusing policy, and making baseless accusations. You claim repeatedly that Cordless Larry is using someone's (Warsi) opinion to cite contentious claims about khat use among Somalis (see corresponding BLP noticeboard, above messages, and the article's talkpage). This is not what he is doing and you are misrepresenting him by claiming so. His position is that Warsi made those statements. You claim he is in violation of WP:QS with regards to this and challenges him to prove why he is not, wishing him "Good luck with that". Well I will do just that. He is not in violation of QS because he is not using a statement/opinion by Warsi to support claims about khat use among Somalis; what he is actually doing is using this Guardian article to support his addition that Warsi made statements about khat use about Somalis ("Sayeeda Warsi suggested in 2008 that use of khat by Somalis" and same here), so adhering to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, where he attributes a statement or opinion by a person to that person. You claim that the Warsi comments fall under BLP so could not be included; editors at the BLP noticeboard disagreed, as the comments were about a generic group and not specific individuals.

You claim he is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, that he tried to get consensus about khat use at the BLP board but failed, so is trying again here. Again you are misrepresenting him, as his aim at the BLP board was not to get consensus for the khat use material but to clarify whether the issue fell under the BLP policy. He did this in response to your claim that it did. At the BLP board, editors basically agreed with him, contrary to your assertion that he hit a "wall" there. He did note that they said that there may be better sources on the khat issue. So in response he added more information. You again disputed these additions, claiming that material relating to khat use are undue weight. Since he could get nowhere by arguing with you, he decided to raise the issue here, which is where we are at now. Far from Cordless Larry's post being a "rant", that label seems more appropriate for your extended opinions on how khat use isn't an issue. So, far from forum shopping, it seems that he has gone out of his way to address any issues you bring up.

You mention alcohol in ethnic group articles when this is largely irrelevant to this article. You say the closed-access sources are unverifiable, when WP:SOURCEACCESS says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". You said to Cordless Larry ":I don't particularly care what your intentions were", a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You seem particularly keen to argue that khat use among Somalis is not an issue, when our job is not to decide this but to report what others say (as long as it complies with policies). In short, you have misrepresented the positions of others, misused policies, and made unfounded accusations, among other things.

Since the topic of khat use among Somalis has been documented in several reliable sources (academic, government, media), I generally agree with the proposals put forth by Cordless Larry. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments. Note that I've been trying to give Middayexpress access to quotes from an article on his or her talk page. Not satisfied, they are now asking for screenshots of the whole article, which I believe would involve me breaching copyright. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, since there seems to now be general agreement about this, I've added the material. I made a few changes compared with the text above, to include more references and mention of a recent review of studies about the mental health impacts of khat use by, amongst others, Somalis in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Courage to Heal
This article is biased and pushes the unsubstantiated point of view that the book promotes false memories. It is watched over by editors who revert all edits that go against this general thrust. No positive statement about the book is permitted to stand.

The article also fails to give an accurate idea of the book's contents. Someone reading the article is likely to take away the impression that the book is all about repressed memories and satanic ritual abuse, when in fact these issues constitute a small fraction of a very large book.

The article bears the scars of multiple edit wars and is, as a result, repetitive and badly written. It is a mess and cries out to be restarted from scratch, if not deleted altogether.

Here are some of the reverts made in defense of the bias:

   

I have tried discussing this and got nowhere:



I'm afraid I haven't got the time/inclination to tussle with problem editors and go through the whole dispute mediation business, so I'm hoping someone else will be willing to take this on. Thanks.Feeline (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to look into this fully, but in this edit that you made and was reverted, you seem to have added a quote from the book's own blurb, and mistaken it for a third-party review. I also don't see the problem with this revert, which you list above and which removed lots of unreferenced support for the book. Is the problem that statements supportive of the book have been added to the article without sources to back them up? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was getting frustrated at that point and perhaps a little sloppy in my struggle to find something that WLU would not revert. He reverted every edit I made, including when I corrected a reference to a nonexistent chapter in the 20th anniversary edition. Only after much discussion did he accept his error and put that reference back. He had a policy of, revert first, ask questions later. So it was rough. It was like a war zone.
 * But do you not see anything wrong with the page? When you read it, does it look neutral and fair to you? This is the point I am trying to make. The page doesn't even tell you anything about the book, really. There are a lot of facts about the book I could add, but why bother when everything will just get reverted?
 * Hey, maybe I am delusional and this is a completely fair and balanced, not to mention excellently written, article. If you find that to be the case, do tell me so and I'll move on.Feeline (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I would have to say whilst its no 'excellently written' it dies not seem unduly biase for or against the book. Nor does exclusion of material from the book pose a problom. the Reception section needs work (it should be merged reading ti with Criticisms really) but appart fro9m that seem OK. Needs work but then what artciel dose not?Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands
User:AndeanThunder has been adding POV laden edits to this article and others for some time, this afternoon edit warring to add an edit that included a racist term. I had highlighted this at WP:ANI earlier but the thread was accidentally removed by User:Toddst1‎. As noted in this diff he has added another one. Edit fails WP:NPOV and relies on WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm tiring of reverting POV edits, then being threatened with a block for edit warring by admins who don't look at the edits properly. Please could someone look and take the necessary action to deal with this disruptive editor. Justin talk 23:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly some troubling POV edits there by AndeanThunder. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What was more troubling to me was the justification of a racist epithet with the comment that the Falklanders are white so it can't be racsism. Since removed from my talk page.  Although blocked for edit warring now, his appeal indicates he intends to continue.  Justin talk 17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The plot thickens, the guy advertised on the Spanish language wikipedia and asked for help, which an editor that responded to him did. He reverted my edit :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That edit you highlight is a bare statement of fact: the FCO did make that comment, and the source interprets it in the way that AndeanThunder states. No OR. But it doesn't belong in a timeline. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are talking about an index in the FCO archives, not a document itself which, according to the reference, is under embargo until 2016. Moreover such documents are WP:PRIMARY and as such should not be used in Wikipedia without an authoritative interpretation. Martinvl (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Though I'd add that the book concerned pretty clearly takes a side in the dispute.  Simply repeating its claims - noting that in some cases the "facts" it reports are inaccurate - would be POV. Pfainuk talk 08:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a different edit. The actual edit that Justin refers to is this.  This has the following concerns:
 * It uses the epithet "kelper", which is considered racist in the Falklands.
 * "Chile orders a ban on flights to the Falklands..." is false based on sources. The Chilean government did not enact any form of ban: they merely requested that their airlines cease flying to the Falklands.
 * "...thus cutting off contacts between the islands and the rest of the world" is again false based on sources. Chilean airliners were the only commercial flights to the islands.  RAF airbridge flights to Ascension Island and RAF Brize Norton remained in operation through the period in question.  Further, not all contact relies on air travel: telephone and internet connections were not cut and ships (both civilian and military) continued to call at the Falkland Islands.
 * Uruguay and Brazil refuse to authorise air links to the islands from their territories, forcing the [islanders] to enter negociations with Argentina is entirely unsourced - and probably too much detail for a single point in a timeline. The current version is shorter and rather more to the point. Pfainuk talk 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Intervention/Invasion of Cyprus
The matter is a pretty heavy issue. Cyprus is an ongoing dispute and any discussion can very quickly dissolve into a heated dispute and edit warring is common.

Most commonly the articles on Cyprus receive little support from the Turkish Cypriot side and the majority of editors are either Greek (and not Cypriot) or Greek Cypriot. The problem of the dispute is that the ongoing dispute between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is not likely to result in consensus in this matter, as can be seen from the first sets of comments and replies in the RfC.

Mediation is likely to be difficult - I have already attempted to point out that I am neutral and must remain so and have started the RfC as it seems to me that there is good reason for the editor to question the neutrality of the article title. I beleive that the Greek side will always claim "Invasion" and the Turkish side "Intervention"

The fact is that the treaty signed by Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain gave the parties the right to intervene if either party felt its protected persons were suffering at the hands of another involved in that treaty. No limit was put on any side which would ban the use of military forces to resolve any issue which may have arisen.

The RfC is here RfC

The article title is disputed as being POV. The evidence is given from UN documents which state it as "Intervention".

There have been several Greek or Greek Cypriot editors (as evidenced by the Greek flags or statements on their user pages) who have commented and say that the term "Invasion" is correct.

Google searches seem to support that the more common usage of the term is "Intervention".

The question - "Is the term Invasion POV and should the term Intervention be used instead to remain neutral on the matter?"

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on 2012 phenomenon
(From Village_pump_(policy)): Firstly, please don't misinterpret my word. The dispute is not escalated, however, I am unable to stay in what I feel is my boundaries to meet on neutral grounds with some other involved editors, and I believe it is the same thing on both sides. I am not edit warring, but I feel that there is likely to be a misunderstanding on one or both sides. Please kindly visit this link to view the discussion over there. If you need me to summarize, I proposed this revision to state the important key facts on the subject, which are backed by evidence and reliable references, yet my proposal is still being criticized for being incompliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly neutral point of view. All in all, it looks to me like one of those borderline cases, where it is more difficult than average to find neutral grounds where we can all meet. Please kindly reply for any advice or assistance, and please make any criticism (for any party) constructive and polite in order to help prevent things from escalating. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well for a start blogs arnt RS unless writen by an aknowledged expert, and your ref for hoax is a response to an expert, no way of knowing who the reponder is, so thats not rally RS. Some of your otehr soures do decsribe it as a hoax. and perhaps you sholod re-write the line about scientist in the lead to say that that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Most astronomers and other scientists have rejected the apocalyptic forecasts on the grounds that the anticipated events are precluded by astronomical observations or are unsubstantiated by the predictions that have been generated from these findings.[7] NASA has compared fears about 2012 to those about the Y2K bug in the late 1990s, suggesting that an adequate analysis should preclude fears of disaster. Others have said that it is a hoax (then put your sources)".Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict. Regarding your first comment, if you are referring to this reference, then that's not a blog. It is an educational website, which is considered to be reliable. Please let me know if you think otherwise. Now regarding your second comment, I tried to word it as well as possible, and keep it as in-line as possible, with the references. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. -- IRP ☎ 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict (2). Regarding your third comment, I was going to state it as a hoax in a more factual manner, rather than in the "reader decides for him/herself" form, since the reliable sources stated it directly as a hoax, but according to the dispute, I was willing to go with this revision, as it states the rejection by scientists, and the fact that it is often hoaxed, but the other editors said that it cannot be considered a hoax because many people genuinely believe what they are saying. I argued that it is technically considered a hoax, because that is where it all starts. I was then presented with an argument that I was giving too much credit to the initial hoaxer. Feel free to see the discussion at the associated talk page for the entire dispute. I just found it hard to reach an agreement, and perhaps somebody else will find a neutral ground for all editors, which is what I hope for. I would appreciate polite feedback from anyone. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 19:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have been looking at an earlier version of the page (diffs would have been helpful to actually see what differences there were from your version of the article and the current one). It was the NASA source you do not seem to be usingnow.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I used one reliable source which points to other sources, which are obviously considered reliable, otherwise, the first source wouldn't point to them. If you would like to search throughout the discussion, you can find all of my proposed revisions. Please let me know if I should just use one, convincing source, or pack it with a large number of them. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouold sugest using just three, but make sure they are top notch. Also use the vesion of the lead paragraph about scientific reaction above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff.

You seem to be asking for general comments without having a specific problem, so here are my first thoughts.

Please see WP:LEDE - one problem which already existed and which you are perpetuating is the existence of citations in the lede. What you are doing would be much less controversial if you put it in its own section heading within the article. The lede is the part of the article which gives general readers an overview of the article, and there is no need to go deeply here. The fact that a WP:SPS is hosted in a .edu domain does make it a WP:RS. This link is not a RS because the author is not identified and it seems to be an individual's personal space and does not include citations for all claims. What sources are cited there may themselves be WP:RS, though.

Also as a general rule, if you are doing anything which could be construed as controversial then considering making changes one at a time. Sometimes when you introduce multiple changes and only one of them is objectionable, the entire edit gets reverted and communication becomes difficult. It is hard for me to determine what exactly the problem is, but it seems that you still have reasonably good communication on the article talk page so I would advice just separating your proposals and talking it through.

Please be more specific with your future questions if you continue to have difficulty.  Blue Rasberry  19:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that being hosted in an .edu domain makes something a RS. First, there are student papers hosted in such domains, clearly not RS. And secondly, academic freedom conventions have resulted in sheer crackpottery being hosted on some edu domains. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, I will list all of the references that I used for the statements I have made, and I politely ask for somebody to pick out the ones compliant with the reliable sources guidelines:


 * Blog - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; 2012 - A Scientific Reality Check
 * Astronomy Beat
 * Resources for Understanding and Debunking the 2012 Apocalypse Hoax (some have said that this is not reliable, but have said that sources that the page itself points to, may in fact comply with the guidelines. So again, polite feedback is appreciated.)
 * Ann M. Martin
 * Brian A. Kell
 * NASA - The Great 2012 Doomsday Scare
 * NASA -2012: Beginning of the End or Why the World Won't End?

Again, please give polite feedback. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 20:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't evaluate these sources in a vacuum like this. Most of these sources are quite good for citing expert opinion about a topic with WP:PARITY in mind. Likely, the issue is one of style rather than direct content. I'm not convinced that the 2012 paranoia is entirely based on hoaxes from these citations. Rather, I think it more likely that there are a number of people who are genuinely paranoid, a number of people who are trying to make money off the paranoia, and some people who may be somewhere in between. What's clear is that the claims themselves are totally bogus, but I think we do a good job explaining that. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I was previously given that argument. That's why I have then proposed this revision, which explains the fact that it is bogus (with more details below), and then mentions the fact (as you said) that there are people trying to make money off of the fear (or intentionally hoaxing it, as, by definition, it qualifies as a hoax [in a way] because the people who are profiting from it are promoting it, knowing that it is false). If you have any suggestions, please politely give them. -- IRP ☎ 21:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

POV complaints about Monty Hall problem
There is a dispute concerning the structure of the article Monty Hall problem. The article is a featured article that has been through two featured article reviews. This dispute is part of a larger dispute that has led to formal mediation (which is currently on hold pending the assignment of a mediator).

The specific change is which moves the "Aids to understanding" section to immediately follow the "Simple solutions" section, thereby moving the "Conditional probability solution" section (which contains material that may be construed as critical of the "Simple solutions") so neither the other (conditional) form of solution or the criticism of the simple solutions contained within this section are immediately adjacent to the "Simple solutions" section. The question we're asking for input on here is whether this change creates a structural POV favoring the simple solutions.

Some background on this dispute might be helpful.

Several editors have been unhappy with the article for some time, essentially complaining that it takes the POV of those sources which criticize a certain (simple) style of solution presented by other sources. These editors want the criticism and the alternate style of solution to ideally be completely removed or if not that then put far, far away from the sections of the article describing the solutions that are criticized (possibly in an "academic considerations" section), which would in the opinion of other editors make the article take the opposite POV.

At least one editor insists the article should present the simple solutions (the ones that are criticized) first, followed with several sections of "Aids to understanding" - with no mention that this style of solution is criticized by numerous reliable sources or that another style of solution even exists - and only then present the other style of solution. The rationale for this structure is to fully explain the "simple" solutions before moving on to the more complicated conditional solution, in the interests of making the article more accessible to non-expert readers. Both styles of solution are presented by numerous reliable sources, although "popular" sources nearly exclusively present the simple style (which is also presented by numerous academic sources) while the other (conditional) style is presented nearly exclusively by academic mathematical sources. The sources that criticize the simple style (far less common than sources presenting either simple or conditional styles of solutions) are peer reviewed academic math papers or textbooks.

This change has been discussed multiple times on the talk page, most recently at (link to a specific version of the talk page since it is auto-archived). Note the discussion continues in the next section of the talk page.

A note of caution - the topic here, the Monty Hall problem, is notorious for causing arguments (even among mathematicians). I don't think the question being asked here necessarily requires any particular mathematical background, particularly if this is viewed strictly as a POV issue.

The request here is specifically concerning the structure. Is presenting the simple solutions and several sections worth of "Aids to understanding" before mentioning another style of solution exists or that numerous reliable sources criticize the simple solutions creating a structural POV?

Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While Rick Block and Martin Hogbin agreed Sunday to bring this item to this page, there are many other POV disputes being discussed and edit warring has been taking place about many of them. The article is currently protected for 14 days. I'm not sure that addressing this one NPOV dispute in a vacuum is the best approach. Glkanter (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment about Chiropractic
There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seer stone (Latter Day Saints)
Here's the intro:

In early Latter Day Saint history, seer stones were stones used, primarily (but not exclusively) by Joseph Smith, Jr., to receive revelations from God. Smith owned at least two seer stones, which he had earlier employed for treasure seeking before he founded the church.[1] Other early Mormons such as Hiram Page, David Whitmer, and Jacob Whitmer also owned seer stones.

This needs a major NPOV review it seems to me. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:3px 8px 5px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 18:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific on a general noticeboard. Exactly what is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

English Defence League
Hi! A couple of issues have arisen at this article, mostly around the WP:LEAD description of the English Defence League (EDL) as a "far right" organisation.

There's a minor and good natured dispute, possibly now resolved, over whether the term "political organisation" is appropriate.

More seriously, a new editor (who identifies as a member of the EDL) objects to the term "far right". This term is sourced, but careful examination of the sources, by uninvolved editors, certainly wouldn't go amiss. I think it's fair to say that regular editors at EDL are, by and large, not supporters of the EDL (and by that I mean: they tend to oppose the EDL). Input at Talk:English Defence League from non-involved editors would be very welcome: both to clarify whether the current lead is neutral, and to provide assistance to the new editor who - not unreasonably - isn't happy with advice given to them by regular editors who they perceive as partisan.

<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As an involved edd I would point out that the EDL deny that they are far right, but that Media and political commentators say they are. So the question is as much about can an organisation be called something that they deny they are or should we caveat the term to make it clear they dent what is in effect an un-proven accusation made largely (in fact exclusively) by people and groups who have expressed opposition to them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And its being used in part as a proxy debate over a similar issue that comes up from time to time at British National Party -- Snowded TALK  13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It does create an interesting debate on when you can call something far-right, though. The Tea Party movement is admittedly much more retarded right-wing and racist than the EDL, but we don't have any description of them as far-right, even though the sources exist. And I question the neutrality of some of the sources; we wouldn't allow HuffPo or the Daily Kos as sources to describe the Tea Party as far-right, so I don't think we can use Searchlight either. Mainstream sources are okay, but you still have to be careful with publications such as the Grauniad and the Indy which are admittedly left-wing themselves (in the same way you'd need to be careful with the Heil or Sexpress with left-wing topics).
 * However, beyond this philosophical point: sources 60-64 appear, by and large, to be okay. The Times is a centre-right paper, Sky News is a centre-right news source, and I class local papers as centrist unless I can see evidence to the contrary. I would recommend, however, excising the Indy source, as it creates the problem of what I call "oversourcing a fact", may be biased against the EDL as a result of its left-wing beliefs, and doesn't add anything than what The Times or Sky adds. Sceptre (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are unanimous on calling them "far right". The term has a clear meaning in the literature, unlike terms such as "center-right", and is described in such books as the Routledge companion to fascism and the far right.  TFD (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront denies that they are a racist organization, but they obviously are, and many reliable sources label them as such. I'd say a similar situation applies here: they may deny being right-wing, but opinion is against them. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A new issue has arrose over alledged links to the BNP. Initlay it was decide that the material shouold be removed [] now an attmept is being made to re-insert it even thoguh it is the saem material, and none of the issuses raised last time have been addressed [].Slatersteven (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Request third party input on "Art Student Scam" article Split
Request third party input on the consensus to split Article about Spying Allegations into two articles

Editors both support and oppose an article split. The argument is that Allegations of Israelis posed as "art students" spying on the United States should have its own article and should not be filed under the title "Art Student Scam."

It is necessary that you thoroughly go through most or all of the sources as some of them directly contradict each other.


 * http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html    Salon...        Provides the most in depth coverage (6 pgs.)

Link to the Wikipedia Article "Art Student Scam"
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1387069/US-arrests-200-young-Israelis-in-spying-investigation.html The Telegraph
 * http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220 Sunday Herald —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/  Insight
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html    Janes Intelligence
 * http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
 * http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
 * http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 Washington Post
 * http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
 * http://www.zeit.de/2002/41/Tuer_an_Tuer_mit_Mohammed_Atta -note: this article is in german, from die zeit, its easy to translate with google or yahoo
 * 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States
 * http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies Democracy Now

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

Link to Relevant Talk Page discussion on Split http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Split.3F

Thanks.

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article hardly survived a deletion request. It was closed as "no consensus " "has been rewritten intensely during this AfD. There are no facts about anybody spying only allegations that are denied by officials. This article should not be split.--Broccoli (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Broccoli is not an objective third party user as he has already commented on the article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please thoroughly read through the sources as there is indeed an abundance of evidence supporting the allegations. Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FORUMSHOP. It is also not appropriate to request a neutral perspective with a nonneuteral request.Cptnono (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I highly encourage the neutral reviewer to thoroughly read through all of the sources. That is the best way to gain an understanding of the issue.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono is also not an objective third party user as she has already commented on the article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim to be. But you are not objective which is obvious with your posting here which is what I was pointing out. Also, I did support propose the split. Maybe you were too busy filibustering to realize it.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that in the past you have edited the article should be brought up so that no one mistakes you as the neutral admin.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. And I need to be not neuteral to agree with you? Weird.Cptnono (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That article is a bunch of allegations mostly from sensation seeking salon magazine. It should have probably never been written at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a site for yesterday's unconfirmed gossips.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you're also ignoring The Guardian article "Israeli student 'spy ring' revealed." The Guardian has the second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about allegations of spying that easily meet the notability qualifications.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Back at Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam many solemn protestations were made that if the article wasn't deleted that it would be greatly cleaned up, but now it seems to be a conduit for the same old conspiracy-theory garbage... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I requested a third party objective reviewer who will read through the sources. Not a user who is frequently involved in disputes related to Israel.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonmoos, you were also previously involved and voted on this article which disqualifies you as a third party user.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I'm perfectly competent to point out that the aspirations expressed at Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam have not been lived up to... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have voted before, the line you drew makes could be misleading in that it might appear that you are a third party.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, an AFD is not really a "vote" as such, and this discussion is not a direct continuation of the AFD -- and because I expressed an opinion five months ago, it doesn't mean that I can't point out that the things we were told five months ago about how the article would be improved have not fully occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know an Afd is not a vote. This afd was treated like a vote as numerous users stopped by, left one or two sentence misinformed delete comments and moved on. Thus changing an article about Israeli spying allegations into an article about a local tourist trap in china.


 * This is the diff link before I began editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250


 * The portion about spying allegations was pushed to the bottom of the page and the discussion of those allegations clearly didn't represent the way that the allegations were covered in the sources as a whole. All of the sources pointed toward the inconclusiveness of the allegations with the exception of the washington post. The Guardian article, written on the same day as the post article, didn't even express doubt that the allegations were true. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I got $5 on this not receiving any "independent" input based on the wording and length of the original request along with the continued pushing and pushing and pushing. Consider amending your tactics PA. Cptnono (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm involved in editing too; this kind of thread never gets outside opinions! I am concerned by this persistence in attempting to label the articles that covered this alleged spying incident as "gossip" and "conspiracy-theory garbage". This is not a fair characterisation, and looks very like POV pushing. Stop using your own opinions of the sources. The spying incident is notable, and if it is decided that it does not fit with the rest of the material at Art student scam, then it must be spun out into its own article or to a substantial section in an article about Israeli spying in the US (an article that is currently missing from Wikipedia). Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I could see more value in an article on the general topic of Israeli spying in the US tan in one picking on a subject where there is just speculation with different articles and sources coming to different points of view. My main fear about such an article is that it will be seen as picking out just one subject country. If this generates several good X spying in Y articles all the better. If it just generates the type of farce that went on with the "Allegations of Apartheid in X" business then that would be a problem.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. If you do not know who to blame, then blame Israel, and get away with it,that very same Israel that one needs to use a magnifying glass to see her at the world map! preciseaccuracy, you are really making me sick by your never ending trying to smear Israel. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mbz1, please save the phony drama. On Jimbo's talk page you have referred to this article as "getting dirtier and dirtier" whereas any reasonable person would view it as having greatly improved in its reflection of the sources. An article originally about spying allegations in the U.S. had been ridiculously twisted into focusing on a Chinese tourist trap. You repeatedly stated that the article was fine as it was.


 * You refer to the guardian as "gossip" in your recent minor edit on this page. You deride reliable sources as conspiracy theories. You ignore all reliable sources except for one. You have a history of teaming up with your friends to harrass other editors. In at least one case, involving this very same article, it appears to have happened to such an extent that an editor ended up leaving wikipedia. Your block log goes way off the page, and then some. Your sole purpose on this website seems to be baiting editors into becoming angry so that you and your friends can get them blocked. You live in a fantasy world where you believe Israel is perfect, it isn't and neither is any other country. Your constant labeling of the allegations as conspiracy theory and constant twisting of source content along with some of the other editors is nothing less than propaganda.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This posting could use review by persons who have not been previously involved.  Blue Rasberry  23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just spent a bunch of time perusing the sources given as well as the various discussions mentioned above. I was completely unfamiliar with this topic until reading this here. So I'm probably a reasonable source for a neutral opinon, but not necessarily well-informed.
 * If the allegation is true as can be documented by WP:RS and WP:V then it's really something separate from the Art Student Scam - it's not a scam in that sense at all, but a spy ring.
 * However having read the sources, I'm not convinced it's anything other than an urban legend. Yes, I realize sources such as the Guardian are generally reliable, but the overwhelming body of evidence when I did some searching on my own seems to point to it as a scam in and of itself. This would NOT qualify it for it's own article, unless someone found enough good sources to write "Israeli Art Student Spy Ring Myth" etc.
 * In summary, I think it should be a minor part of the art student article if mentioned at all. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to see what you refer to as an "overwhelming body of evidence." It must be pretty overwhelming to nullify a 60 pg. DEA report, an ncix bulletin, reports in the guardian, the telegraph, the sunday herald, the forward, haaretz ect. You are saying that all these reports fall under the category "urban myth" along with reptiles in sewers?


 * The 60 pg. dea report documented encounters across the country and included names, driver's license numbers, passport numbers and in some cases the Israeli military id numbers of the 'students'. "many of the students, the DEA report noted, had backgrounds in Israeli military intelligence and/or electronics surveillance; one was the son of a two-star Israeli general, and another had served as a bodyguard to the head of the Israeli army."


 * Please provide links.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you wanted a third opinion only if it agreed with you? Anyways, Articles for deletion/Art student scam.Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources on a simple google search seem to say that the supposed DEA report in question is in and of itself not real - it was produced by a disgruntled DEA employee who planted the story. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "To someone not familiar with the 60-page DEA memo, or to reporters who didn't bother to obtain it, the fact that a disgruntled employee leaked a memo he wrote himself might seem like decisive proof that the whole "art student" tale was a canard. In reality, the nature of the memo makes its authorship irrelevant. The memo is a compilation of field reports by dozens of named agents and officials from DEA offices across America. It contains the names, passport numbers, addresses, and in some cases the military ID numbers of the Israelis who were questioned by federal authorities. Pointing a finger at the author is like blaming a bank robbery on the desk sergeant who took down the names of the robbers.


 * Of course, the agent (or agents) who wrote the memo could also have fabricated or embellished the field reports. That does not seem to have been the case. Salon contacted more than a half-dozen agents identified in the memo. One agent said she had been visited six times at her home by "art students." None of the agents wished to be named, and very few were willing to speak at length, but all confirmed the veracity of the information."

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to see the links to what he describes as an "overwhelming body of evidence" that he claims refute these allegations to such an extent that he believes they should be labeled "urban myth." The majority of sources treat these allegations as inconclusive.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the links that can be found that purport to substantiate this topic are obvious conspiracy sites. Not all, but an overwhelming number. This topic will be very difficult to cover in wikipedia and still follow WP:RS and WP:V and WP:UNDUE but it probably could be done with careful effort. It would need to include the sources that debunk the report as well, and there is still the question of how much space of the overall "art student" article this sub-topic should consume. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The forward, haaretz, Insight, the sunday herald, salon.com, democracy now, Janes intelligence digest are not conspiracy websites


 * Where are the reliable sources that came after these sources that dismiss this as an urban myth. Your whole argument rests on one 12 sentence Washington post article. The majority of sources early and later treat the spying as at least inconclusive.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to reiterate my analysis again - it's there above for any other editor to read. If you can read the salon article and not come away with the impression that you're reading a conspiracy theory, then we're unlikely to achieve any common ground. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your ignoring all of the other sources. Anyway, the Forward refers to salon as


 * " As late as last year, the respected Internet magazine Salon.com revived the spy ring allegations in a lengthy and detailed report recounting the charges and suggesting that the group may have been operating in as many as 40 American cities."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring them - I'm merely using the salon one as an example of the systemic problem with the information. Even Forward points out the prevalence of conspiracy theory on this issue: "It has for three years now been a hotly debated topic among amateur spy watchers and on conspiracy theory Web sites." AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. you are ignoring most of the sources. you claim that the numerous reliable sources aren't good enough and that "This would NOT qualify it for it's own article."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because conspiracy theorists are said to debate things on wingnut websites, that doesn't mean the contents of a majority of reliable sources both early and later should be ignored.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think one of the things that isn't helping here is the discussion not following WP:INDENT norms. Simple visual aspects like this put people off. Preciseaccuracy, please could you follow WP:INDENT. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War
In the Gaza War article there had been text in the lead saying the conflict had been known as the "Gaza Massacre" in the Arab world pretty much since the beginning of the article sourced to a variety of sources. The three sources that had been in the article up until today are as follows, with quotes from the source: The text and the source on the Arab name for the event has now been completely excised from the article. My question for you all is should this alternative name be included in the article and should it be in the lead as a relevant foreign name? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Codenamed Operation Cast Lead, the invasion began on December 27, 2008, and ended on January 18, 2009. In the Arab world the Israeli-Gaza conflict is referred to as the Gaza Massacre.
 * Cohen, Lauren. Achmat weighs in on Israeli 'war architect' Sunday Times. July 26, 2009.: Starting next weekend, he is scheduled to address Limmud - a charity organisation focused on Jewish culture and education - at conferences in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg about Israeli policies on Gaza and "Operation Cast Lead". Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year.
 * May, Jackie. Seeking the brutal truth Sunday Times. September 1, 2009: In December last year, Israel invaded Gaza in response to daily rocket attacks and with the aim of stopping arms smuggling into the area. More than a thousand Palestinians were killed while 13 Israelis died in what the Arab world has called "the Gaza massacre".
 * And a few months ago consensus started swinging towards removing it but this was disregarded by Nableezy. It has again continued to be against him but he refuses to budge. The issue is much more complex than he describes. It is clear from searching the web that Gaza Massacre is a title provided by many non RS (blogs and activist sites) but so far we only have one newspaper in South Africa saying it and one paper that may not be very neutral (hard to gauge from the abstract and the one line Nableezy has presented) in nature by someone who specializes in a completely unrelated field even if it is by an academic. Another thing that is clear is that "massacre" was used as a descriptive term. For most of the time it has been bolded in the leadwithout the current sources but others using it as a descriptive term. "Victory" was also a term Hamas used which is not the same thing as "massacre".

"Massacre" was not an official title or sole description from Hamas. Al Jazeera, the biggest source in the region, titled their special coverage "War on Gaza" and used the title most frequently (and is verified from a third party source). Searches of their site along with multiple other sites based in the region do not show "Massacre" being a predominant title or description. They should know more than one newspaper in South Africa. Maybe they have an axe to grind, maybe it was a circular reference, maybe they are not correct. I don't know but it is not a strong enough source. I've even tried emailing them t see if they would clarify their source! It is simply an extraordinary claim without extraordinary sources backing it up and even other sources contradicting it in some way. Even the Arabic Wikipedia had bickering over this which raises even more eyebrows. So there have been several solutions on how to handle this"
 * Don't bold it as a title which therefore reduces its prominence and might increase the article's accuracy. Keep it in the lead but say "It was described as a massacre." Offered as a solution months ago but rejected by Nableezy.
 * List every single other title used more often along with "massacre". We did something like this until today's reverting and I am fine with it although it is wordy. Not only Google news search hits (not at all acceptable as a source but we should be able to recognize at least some value there) show that other titles were used thousands of times more, but secondary coverage also supports the other titles. And the secondary coverage for those has not been disputed.
 * Kill all the titles and handle this stuff in the body. Why label it when it is so contentious and so many conversations have had to go over the same ground on something that isn't nearly as important as the meat of what went on? Describe why it was a massacre with some good attributed quotes while other editors can describe the tactics behind the operation. This has gained some recent support. I am warming up to it.
 * There are options that would address the WEIGHT concerns but Nableezy has been pushing for only saying Israel's operational name and "massacre". I don't think anyone is saying it wasn't a conflict that impacted civilians or even that it wasn't massacre. The ratio of casualties between the belligerents and the destruction in Gaza were staggering. However, it is reasonable for us to not accept that it was the title used so other methods of including the information should be considered.Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy has not been "pushing" for many of things that you attribute to him. Please focus on the content issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of this terminology has been objected to since first introduced. That fact Nableezy and his buddies have been able to effectively edit war it into the article doesn't mean there was consensus to include it and pretending the fact it's been there for a while means there was such a consensus is dishonest.
 * Al-Jazeera, a major news source in the Arab world does not use this term.
 * Of the sources we have now, one is an op-ed piece by Jackie May and one seems to be a paper on psychology that mentions this name in passing (and probably found it on wikipedia).
 * Policy wise, WP:LEAD is very specific in saying that alternative names require consensus to include and that it is not mandatory to include them. Nableezy insists this information belongs in the lead despite multiple editors offering multiple suggestions for other places these alternative names can go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of the South Africa Times articles are "op-eds" and repeating that mantra does not magically make it true. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jackie May piece is written in the first person. That's usually a good clue it's an op-ed. She talks about "my concern", etc. Also, if you read up about the lady, you'll find out she's an editor, not a reporter. No magic is required to make it an opinion piece, but do feel free to continue pretending it isn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jackie May piece is based on an interview she conducted with Richard Goldstone. And there are two Sunday Times articles linked. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information. I'm not sure where you're going with it though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Policy wise, WP:LEAD is very specific in saying that alternative names require consensus to include and that it is not mandatory to include them. Nableezy insists this information belongs in the lead despite multiple editors offering multiple suggestions for other places these alternative names can go in the article." Enough said right there? If consensus is to remove all of the alternative names at the ongoing RfC then we have an easy (albeit not my originally preferred) solution. Time to move on to improving the body. "Massacre" was mentioned only once in the body until very recently.Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean "agreement of all the editors", see WP:CONSENSUS which says The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. There need to be quality reasons for opposing, just saying "no!" is not that. But I really am not looking to argue this here with the same people on the talk page, the point of this noticeboard is to get uninvolved editors and see what they think. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And there have been reasonable arguments from multiple angles so painting those against yours otherwise is not appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both the numerical consensus and the quality of the arguments is strongest IMHO in regard to the position set forth by nono.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a cadre of editors don't like one of the alternative names for the event and are taking turns removing it to circumvent the 1RR restriction on the article. This noticeboard is where, hopefully, uninvolved editors can look at this from a policy perspective. So far it's involved editors. RomaC TALK 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Circumvent 1rr huh? I reinstated all alternative names 5 days ago. How many reverts have you made regarding "massacre" since the 1rr? How about since this and the RfC were opened 5 days ago? How about Nableezy? Watch where you are throwing those stones.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So why are people removing this name and only this name while all these things are going on? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism: Left and especially right POV pushing
While there are more than enough WP:RS showing that libertarianism is used by antiproperty "leftists" and proproperty "rightists" (and that the latter are better known worldwide), there are always left and right people who want to come along and kick out the other grouping. I've worked on the article for several years and it was manageable and compromises were found in the past. But in the last six months POV pushers, especially from the right who want to eliminate rightwing anarch0-capitalists as well as all left wingers from the article. There are problems of POV pushers, AnonIPs (now blocked from editing), AnonIPs who now have registered (perhaps more than once), and identified sock puppets, engaging in constant WP:SOAPBOX and personal attacks on the talk page. And there are bouts of actual edit warring in the article itself. It's gotten ridiculous and just too discouraging to more NPOV editors who want to include all views with proper balance. Even though I have come up with some good ideas and WP:RS to resolve the issues, I've given up on the article for the time being myself because of the nonsense. Any help appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you gather diffs, and seek semi protection. Nothing will be done short of a showing reflecting what you suggest is the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some examples are below. It's already protected from Anon IPs. The problem has been the constant ranting on talk from one main editor and other drop by editors of dubious nature being discouraging to constructive editing. Now they are getting more aggressive with editing the article, which at least makes it easier to complain to go back to WP:edit warring and/or WP:ANI.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, we're trying mediation, so I guess this can be archived as resolved. Knock wood. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent censorship of material on prominent anti-capitalist viewpoint
There are two editors that seem to be pushing a heavy pro-capitalist POV, by suppressing any information about the anti-capitalist tendencies of certain libertarian factions in the article on libertarianism. The most recent diff to engage in this suppression is here: . There is little question that the material is verifiable -- the initial editing removed four or more sources which were not contested. At the related talk page section (Talk:Libertarianism), the editor states that he has objections of WP:UNDUE.

IMO, the attempt to POV push is rather blatant since the initial editor concedes that left-libertarianism should remain, due to its notability, but that he deletes any information about the anti-capitalist viewpoint that is prominent within left-libertarian philosophy, in the sense of Noam Chomsky who has in a book that"a consistent libertarian 'must oppose private ownership of the means of production' [A.K.A. 'capitalism']... Chomsky, Noam; Peregrín Otero, Carlos (Sep 2003). 'Introduction to Chomskys Social Theory by Carlos Peregrin Otero'. Radical priorities. AK Press"

I believe that a variety of reliable sources show libertarianism to have many prominent viewpoints and that both right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are clearly regarded as forms of libertarianism. I believe left-libertarianism is notable, especially outside of the US (as touched upon on page 130 of the Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines which mentions "the 'family' of left-libertarian movements in...France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland."Klandermans, Bert, and Conny Roggeband. Handbook of Social Movements Across Disciplines. New York: Springer, 2009. page 130).

Given all of the above, I think the previous version is far more NPOV, and should be preferred to the current censored version. Opinions welcome! BigK HeX (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism (redux)
There's an RfC starting on the Messianic Judaism page, here. The dispute basically boils down to applications of NPOV policy, and a few uninvolved opinions would be welcome, so I'm adverting it here. -- Ludwigs 2 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Metapedia
This article has the kind of issues one would expect. I'm tired of dealing with it and taking the article off my watchlist; posting here in the hope that someone else will feel like making it their responsibility.Prezbo (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, that metapedia is pretty disturbing. Just had a read through their Hitler article lol :| BritishWatcher (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added to my watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I advice people not to look at the actual website. The Hitler article doesn't mention the Holocaust, and the Holocaust article is just sick. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've nominated Metapedia for deletion. Wikipedia is not a catalog of every non-notable website. Jehochman Talk 11:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That site is a twisted and bullshit abomination that utterly lacks verifiable and neutral sources. Unofrtunately the Wiki article about the site contains quite a few news links about its horridness which is more than enough to give it notability status. Mabuska (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some of its supporters have noticed it. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Subprime mortgage crisis - Article title violates NPOV
Whatever is being described in this article is as much caused by various other activities that took place in the US financial industry, as by the underlying subprime mortgages. To label this the Subprime mortgage crisis is incorrect, and violates NPOV.

I posted this on July 18. Since the there has been one response, which did not agree with me. I only became aware of this page in the last few days. Glkanter (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The term is in exceedingly common usage in US and UK newspapers.  POV concerns can be dealt with in the article proper. Collect (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed thats what RS prety much call it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree as well. See WP:UCN.Griswaldo (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What is RS? Yes, the term *was* used early on. Since then it has become evident that the sub-prime mortgages were less responsible for the financial crisis and bailouts than many other actions of the Wall Street & Hedge Fund crowd. Making the title what it is precludes, minimizes, and biases any discussion in the article that there could be any other equal or greater causes. It serves to pre-judge. Glkanter (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the notion that "subprime crisis" has fallen out of favor, with "financial crisis" being more prominent nowadays. BigK HeX (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If in fact there is a new common name for this content then please just show that on the talk page. However, the issue here is not a WP:NPOV problem but a WP:UCN problem in that case.  I see no neutrality issues here at all, since clearly everyone concedes that at least initially this was called the subprime mortgage crisis.  Take it back to the article talk page please.Griswaldo (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a novice to this page. How should I respond to:
 * ""...since clearly everyone concedes that at least initially this was called the subprime mortgage crisis. Take it back to the article talk page please." Griswaldo (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)"
 * I don't see WP:UCN as supporting that conclusion and command at all. Glkanter (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Griswaldo is not aware that in the present day US, 'Subprime mortgages' is a euphemism for 'minorities and the poor caused it'. Glkanter (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Glkanter I live in the United States and I don't agree with your claim in the least. If they are a euphemism for anything its the greed that links Wall Street, mortgage lending institutions, and the real estate industry.  Subprime refers to a lending practice and not to the naivete of the poor people who were taken advantage of by being offered these loans.  Is "mortgage backed security" also a euphemism for how "minorities and the poor caused it"?  These phrases clearly link the fiasco to various industries and not to poor people.  Twist it around all you want but it's clearly lenders that are made to look bad with this terminology and not poor people.  I agree that the mortgage industry is clearly not to blame for all of this, but once again the issue is simple.  It is about what the common name is.  If it is not what we are currently using then once again please go to the entry talk page and get consensus for another common name.  I suggest doing so by way of providing evidence that another name is indeed more common.Griswaldo (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Subprime mortgage crisis" was a mythical beast. Once the facts were gathered, it was evident it did not exist. There *is* a foreclosure and vacancy crises, but that is quite different, and not the title of this article. I will not argue the semantics of words like 'subprime mortgage' vs 'mortgage backed security'. It is a false equivalency which I reject. Glkanter (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this very discussion, regardless of who is right or wrong, indicates that the title, unfortunately, suggests a POV. Maybe different people see that POV differently, as you describe, but it is a POV, nonetheless. Which is what this page is all about, isn't it? Glkanter (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all. You are manufacturing a controversy and claiming that this controversy shows a difference in POV.  That's not how we do it here.  We need reliable sources to prove that there is a significant and notable POV difference here and that one name is not neutral because it supports one POV over others.  Please provide these sources, or as I've suggested three times now, provide some sources to show what the common name for the crisis is.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a pointless exercise. No matter how many times you ask. I can demonstrate that there was no such thing as a 'Subprime mortgage crisis' as per The Wall Street Journal. You're denying that 'Subprime mortgage crisis' is out-of-date. And you're denying that it doesn't infer the demonization of 'poor people and minorities who only got loans via faulty government policy'. To deny that last statement is to deny the last three years of US politics and finance. Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, Barney Frank and others are all 'blamed' for insisting on forced lending to unqualified people, under the banner of 'Subprime lending'. So the title phrase is outdated, it describes something that never actually existed in the first place, and is prejudicial. Glkanter (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not denying that it is outdated, I'm simply saying that if you want the name to change you need to produce sources that show it is outdated (this relates to WP:UCN. If you really believe it is POV, then you need to provide sources showing this as well.  Not just your own interpretation or opinion on the matter.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also see that someone pointed out to you on the webpage that the larger financial crisis has its own entry Financial crisis of 2007–2010. Regarding your interpretation of "subprime mortgage" as a euphemism I maintain once again that you are wrong. "Subprime" refers to the practice of lending and not to the cause of this practice.  Do conservatives argue that liberal government policies forced banks to make these loans?  Yes.  But liberals argue that greed is the cause of most of these loans.  See this and other pieces that point out that over 90% of these loans were outside the reach of the CRA.  I personally tend to buy the greed explanation, but that is immaterial.  The name of the lending practice does not imply what caused it.  I'm sorry but it simply doesn't.Griswaldo (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 'It' never existed. It's a Unicorn. There was no such thing as a 'Subprime Mortgage crisis'. Glkanter (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to demonstrate the phrase is outdated, I guess the lack of recent references would have to suffice. Here's my google search which shows nothing in the last 2 or 3 years. Except for this 'insightful' opinion column from Ann Coulter, which supports the bias claim. Glkanter (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of news hits from the last 2-3 years, though there are more in the year that this all came to a head. People are more focussed on the larger financial crisis now.  Here is a more accurate Google News search.  I also see little to no usages of this term in the manner you claim, and have illustrated through conservative wingnut Ann Coulter.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that this is nothing more than another case of an 'experienced admin' being argumentative rather than working in collaboration. Coulter is not a reliable source? So, the bias I point out is provided by a person who is unreliable, "conservative wingnut Ann Coulter" to quote you, because of her bias? Heaven help me. And Wikipedia. I have no desire for another of these pointless, protracted arguments where the admin is prima facie correct. Unless someone else cares to help me here, you win. Again. Our score to date: Admins - Infinity. Truth - 0. Glkanter (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, I'm just someone who's trying desperately to point you in the right direction. Our own argument about what this term means to people is immaterial in the end.  That's the real point.  The real point is that you need to make a good argument for changing the title and you need to base it on reliable sources.  You should also make this argument at the talk page preferably.  If no one is responsive you can try a number of ways to get more input.  I can request a move WP:RM, or you can request comment WP:RFC.  Both of these will bring in the input of the larger community on the matter.  Either way people are going to look for more than simply an Ann Coulter piece as evidence here. I hope that helps.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If this isn't the right forum, and Ann Coulter's column doesn't demonstrate my point, there's nothing more for me to do. Thank you for your responses. I regret referring to you as an 'admin', as that was erroneous. Glkanter (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)