Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 17

Genital integrity
I noticed that Christopher Hitchens was categorized as belonging to Category:Genital integrity activists. Looking at the category, I noticed that genital integrity was a redirect to Circumcision controversies. I naively changed the redirect to point to Female_genital_cutting, which seemed to me to be a more likely target. Soon after, User:Jakew left a message on my talk page pointing out that the term was more commonly used by opponents of male circumcision, so I have undone my change.

I have no issue with the use of the term "genital integrity" -- awkward though it is -- to suggest opposition to genital mutilation, but I believe there is a problem when it is applied solely to male circumcision. It is clear from Articles for deletion/Genital Integrity and Articles for deletion/Intact Day that there is a history of POV-pushing with regard to male circumcision.

Adding to the problem, the members of Category:Genital integrity activists are a mixed bag of opponents to Female genital mutilation (Molly Melching), Circumcision (Tim Hammond (activist)), or both (Hitchens). Some of these can likely get deleted for lack of notability, and some can be removed since they hardly qualify as "activists" even if they are opposed to a practice, but there seems to be no one article which should serve as a redirect for Genital integrity. Perhaps the category is just badly misnamed?

As I am not terribly familiar with this particular issue, I may be misinterpreting things and would appreciate some other opinions on how to proceed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What appears to be wrong here is that the article "circumcision controversies" exclusively deals with controversies to do with male circumcision. In common, I've just noticed, with the article titled "circumcision". Have I accidentally logged into the 19th century edition of Wikipedia? --FormerIP (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the fundamental problem here is that we have one category for, in effect, people who have expressed two viewpoints: opposition to circumcision, and opposition to female genital cutting. While some individuals oppose both, that's far from universal, so the result is that viewpoints are misrepresented.  As I've already said on Delicious Carbuncle's talk page, I believe that an obvious solution is to split the category into "anti-circumcision activists" and "anti-FGC activists" (perhaps "opponents" might be a better word) based upon views actually expressed by these individuals.  That solution would avoid the term "genital integrity", and hence avoid any potential NPOV issues with that term.  Jakew (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When Hitchens speaks of being opposed to "genital mutilation," he is discussing males and females. A dispute arises because editors disagree on whether we can describe Hitchens' view at all, without decomposing it and separating his view (i.e., the opposition to genital mutilation of males and females) into two views, thus separating the concept as desired by those favouring the cutting of one gender's genitals but not the other.  Another dispute surrounds whether we can do it using Hitchens' and others' own words ("genital mutilation") or must adopt terminology for the view preferred by those who oppose Hitchens' view.  Information stating that Hitchens considers male circumcision to be genital mutilation seems glaringly lacking (I am surprised to find that his view on male and female circumcision is not mentioned at all in his biography, despite other seemingly more obscure views being discussed).
 * I agree with FormerIP that the term "circumcision" used across Wikipedia as synonymous with "male circumcision" is a source of confusion. I would go further and say that it's an NPOV issue -- however both views are long disputed with no apparent consensus arising, as evidenced by recent and older Requested Move discussions at circumcision.
 * I disagree with Delicious carbuncle that there is a problem applying the phrase "genital integrity" to males. That is how it is phrased in the sources, and it is a neutral phrase describing no more and no less than exactly what it says.  Is it non-neutral to suggest that a circumcised male does not have every part of the penis he was born with?  I believe so.  It would be non-neutral for us to imply that genital integrity is desirable or preferable.  We attempt to avoid such stances, stated or implied.  It would be especially non-neutral for us to imply that genital integrity is a right of one gender but not the other.  I believe that unfortunately many editors of the English Wikipedia take the latter view for granted, and make Wikipedia support that POV through its organization (article titles and categories), and edit accordingly, not realizing or agreeing that it's not WP:NPOV.  Blackworm (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Genital Integrity (or Genital Autonomy) ought to be the name of the article that covers the opposition to the genital cutting of male, female and intersex children, as 'Circumcision controversies' clearly does not cover this adequately, and has an inherent POV in the title (that something is in some way 'controversial'). Autonomy is preferable, as integrity is not what is argued for, but autonomy - the right for people to not have their genitals cut without their consent.  Nobody is saying adults be prevented from having their genitals cut in ways they want, only that children be left intact until they can make their own choices.  However, this screwing persists throughout the (male) circumcision articles, with 'activists' being presented as being irrationally opposed to genital cutting without qualification, when what they not - they pursue a human rights campaign that seeks genital autonomy for minors of any sex (including children who are intersex). -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 08:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there would be NPOV issues associated with covering only opposition to something, Mish. For NPOV treatment we should cover all significant viewpoints, from opposition to promotion, as well as those in between. Jakew (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, if I understand correctly you're arguing that Hitchens should not be presented as a member of the category "opponents of female genital cutting" (or similar name) because his opposition is indivisible. I think that's a rather extreme interpretation, but even if we accept it it isn't an unsolvable problem.  The solution would be to present three categories: opponents of FGC, opponents of circumcision, and opponents of genital cutting.  An alternative solution would be to delete the current category.  Jakew (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you Jakew. The article on Genital integrity/autonomy should present the arguments of those in favour of genital autonomy as well as those opposed to it - just as in the case of (male) circumcision, we present the arguments in favour of infant circumcision and those against it. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what we have already: the article circumcision controversies is actually the result of a merge of articles on pro- and anti-circumcision (or "genital integrity" as the latter sometimes label themselves) viewpoints. Jakew (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, what you have is an article about male circumcision controversies, called 'circumcision controversies'. Genital autonomy is about genital autonomy, not male circumcision, and male circumcision is only one issue that is addressed under genital autonomy.  It may be the most trivial form of intervention (when compared to other types), but it tends to be the one that dominates articles that have circumcision in the title, and lending them a male bias.  The title 'circumcision controversies' obviously would be useless as a title on genital autonomy, when that covers female and intersex genital cutting as well - and as you and others have so lucidly pointed out, articles about male circumcision do not have to be qualified by 'male' in the title, so that for this encyclopedia any reference to circumcision means 'male circumcision' unless qualified by the word 'female'.  You cannot have it both ways, you cannot argue for a blanket use of circumcision to apply to consensual and non-consensual male interventions, and then suggest that an article on circumcision applies to all forms of non-consensual intervention, including those not normally considered as circumcision (hypospadias repair, vaginoplasty, labioplasty, phalloplasty, clitorodectomy, infibulation, orchidopexy, orchidectomy, hysterectomy, etc., etc.). -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand, Mish. I'm not suggesting that other issues should be incorporated into the circumcision controversies article.  I absolutely agree that it would be inappropriate to discuss interventions other than circumcision in that article, and I see no reason why another article (or articles) could not be created to discuss other issues.  However, I think that the existing issue covers circumcision adequately, and it would be inappropriate to duplicate that material.  As a general rule I oppose structuring such articles in terms of "general autonomy", because to do so would be to frame the issue in terms of an argument made by those on one side of an issue; instead I prefer a more neutral "ethics of X" or "X controversies" framework, as this does not inherently favour one point of view.  (Obviously the views of those arguing for "genital autonomy" could and should be documented within such a structure.) Jakew (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial inclination was to redirect to Genital mutilation rather than circumcision controversies, but that is a redirect to Genital modification and mutilation which seems to be a hopelessly entwined grab bag of voluntary and involuntary modifications in both adult and child genitalia. I'm not sure that creating yet another article is the way to solve this problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, see Christopher Hitchens's political views where Hitchen's view on this issue are incorporated into the section on abortion. Don't ask me why they are there or why a separate article is necessary at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Genital mutilation is non-neutral, and better to have an article about genitals that are not modified in childhood, and the ethics of keeping them that way, using terms that describe that. Obviously, Circumcision controversy is about circumcision, and genital modification (or mutilation) is not about genitals that have not been modified or mutilated, or even circumcised.  So, I am unclear why an article about the lack of these things needs to be referred to by the things that do not apply. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a lot of sense to have articles about events that don't occur, Mish. The absence of events tends to mean that they aren't very interesting, so few sources are available about non-events.  Jakew (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution
Okay, here is my proposed solution:

I believe this addresses the most important problems. Namely:
 * It avoids creating the impression that a person is opposed to something that they may not have stated opposition to, and
 * It provides reasonable link targets for each category, without requiring the creation of new, possibly controversial articles

Comments? Jakew (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks very confusing - "Genital integrity" short circuits all this, and all these loaded titles could simply link to the one article, which covers all this. I don't agree that only the controversial is worth focusing on - we have lots of articles on locomotives, and most of them are extremely interesting (e.g., the original configuration of the Pacific Class 4-6-2 was developed for New Zealand...), it all depends on your POV. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, "Genital integrity" would suffer from the first problem I outlined: many people have stated opposition to FGC, but are not necessarily opposed to circumcision, but if we classify them as a "genital integrity activist" we're essentially claiming that they're opposed to both. Jakew (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed as best solution given existing situation. It may be confusing to readers whether people such as Hitchens are opposed to genital cutting or opposed genital piercing, but, hey, you get what you pay for, right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ignoring precision issues with "opposition to any genital modification" -- remember, we are talking about modifications to minors or children, and shouldn't exclude those who support an adult's right to modify their own genitals -- I think that's a reasonable categorization, with the ones in the third category also included in the other two, of course. Blackworm (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, thinking on it further, that imprecision is too great to call the category that. It would be better to call it "Opponents of genital cutting of minors or infants."  Also for disambiguity, the other category should also read "Opponents of male circumcision."  In countries where female circumcision is already illegal, opposition to circumcision de facto often takes the form of opposition to male circumcision, since the female circumcision question is considered moot, but that is not what the category is categorizing.  By naming it "opponents of circumcision", and excluding those who oppose female circumcision, we also non-neutrally imply that female circumcision is not really circumcision, in contradiction to sources.  Blackworm (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "imprecision" is illusory, as was the clear consensus in this move discussion. In common usage "circumcision" means "circumcision of the penis". Please don't attempt to get by the back door what you couldn't get at the front. Jayjg (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please strike out your statement that there was a clear consensus in that discussion. The only thing factually established is that there was no consensus to move.  The closing admin did not find any consensus, or they would have noted it.  Further, I'm not attempting anything other than being consistent and accurate, and pointing out how this is part of a wider dispute.  Blackworm (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, this is the best solution given the existing situation. Jayjg (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree for reasons stated above. Blackworm (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the naming changes suggested by Blackworm. In the meantime, I have redirected Genital integrity to Genital modification and mutilation, which is less than ideal but at least isn't restricting the use of the term to any one of several meanings. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to "Opponents of genital cutting of minors or infants", with some reservations, but I can't agree to "Opponents of male circumcision" (see Jayjg's arguments). Jakew (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the term "female circumcision" exists, I don't think it hurts to specify that this is male circumcision, but if there are issues with that I'm fine with just "circumcision" (although I admit that I don't really see why the clarification should be an issue). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's because the resulting implication is that circumcision only properly refers to male circumcision, a position supporters (of replacing "male circumcision" with "circumcision" and removing the word "circumcision" from discussion of female circumcision across Wikipedia) apparently wish to have Wikipedia reflect, instead of present along with other prevalent views. Blackworm (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, I'm sure there is more to this disagreement than is obvious, but your statements don't hold up to scrutiny. Circumcision literally starts with the words "Male circumcision" in bold. It has a hat note that says "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting.". Male circumcision is a redirect to Circumcision. Likewise, Female circumcision is a redirect to Female genital cutting. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you went to the [rape] article, and it had a hatnote that said "For rape of males, see Sexual Assault of Males." Then the article began, "Rape of females is a crime involving..." and then only discussed female victims throughout, wouldn't it imply to you that men never really get raped, and that it's incorrect to refer to rape of males as rape?  That's the issue.  If the article were entitled "Male Circumcision" with a redirect from "Circumcision," there would be significantly less opposition (none, probably, since the POV implication would be eliminated).  Blackworm (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly making the same arguments, again and again, does not make it any more likely that the community will accept them. Jakew (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blackworm's hypothetical analogy to rape is flawed. If there were a hat note with an explicit statement about 'rape of males', then no, such an article would not at all imply that men never 'really' get raped. I am not suggesting or endorsing any change to the article about rape. Per WP:COMMON, the article circumcision discusses male circumcision because it is the most common usage of the term. In general usage, the unqualified term 'circumcision' is usually (probably always) in reference to male circumcision.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * $\infty$ Pompous rhetorical distinctions can't change the fact that a neutral view of "circumcision" would be from the newborn infant's point of view. $\infty$

POV Detective (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of material pertaining to an alleged bullying episode at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey

 * 1) The article is Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.
 * 2) Here are some example diffs of the material being added: 1, 2, 3.
 * 3) I have no connection or COI with Stockton College, but I am a member of WikiProject Universities. My instincts tell me that a scandalous issue like this one should be supported by more than just the word of one source from an Australian website. I'm not lobbying to prevent the alleged bullying episode from having mention in the article, but I am arguing that we need to give more time to let the story develop first and that Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs.
 * 4) I have been documenting everything I do- and why I've done it- on the article's talk page. I've also alerted several involved editors (see My Contributions) and I've asked for input on the WikiProject Universities talk page. Unfortunately, no one has yet joined the discussion, leading to edit-warring.

The bottom line is that I've hit my 3-revert limit, so I'm looking for some outside voices to either corroborate my understanding of our policies or else to provide a good justification for immediate inclusion of the relevant material. I'm still a fairly new editor myself (~3000 edits), but all of the people forcing the bullying issue into the article are IP editors or single-purpose accounts, and I'm simply outnumbered. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: The material has been reinstated by one of the IP editors. I am not allowed to revert it due to WP:3RR. I have again- for I think the fourth time- invited them to discuss the issue on the article talk page. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an unconfirmed story posted in one article. Shouldn't go in. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Irisulip
User:Irisulip has been adding original research and POV at the Greta Berlin article. User:Truegreta was already banned months ago for COI and neutrality at Free Gaza Movement. Edits of concern: The user has continued despite a warning and a more meaningful warning from an administrator might help.Cptnono (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "During the Freedom Flotilla massacre on May 31, 2010, Greta, along with Mary Hughes Thompson, Hedy Epstein and Audrey Bomse ran the media office in Cyprus, disseminating the stories to the media during the hours that Israel attacked the convoy, murdered nine men on board the Mavi Marmara, then kidnapped the passengers and held them incommunicado for three days. " Words such as "murdered", "kidnapped", and "massacre" are not appropriate especially when that is disputed.
 * "She was the major spokesperson for the Freedom Flotilla when it was attacked on May 31, 2010..." this was used as a source
 * There have been other instances of inappropriate sources. These have been Copyright violating YouTube and overusing primary sources.
 * There has also been neutrality concerns at Free Gaza Movement with the blanking of valid material. or using a weasel word here.
 * I left a note about neutrality for them. But unless I'm missing something, their last two edits don't look that problematic, and before that they didn't make any edits for a month. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a chance I am over analyzing it but "of Gaza, 'allegedly' controlled by Israel." smacks of POV. Removing content in the other looks bad to me but if there were not other concerns I wouldn't have even mentioned it since it isn't terrible.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now. "Illegal" blockade is not NPOV. Not so sure about "attack" vs "seized" for the Mavi Mamara ("seize" is a bit of a euphemism), but I'm not going to debate it. The bit about media coaching is hardly a massive breach of policy, but I can't verify it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The media coaching bit is more of a concern since it was added inside of a quote when it wasn't like that in the source. That is more of a COI concern. I originally assumed it was Berlin from her past dealings here but the user signed a talk page post with another name. I still believe that it is someone within the organization. If a COI is leading to neutrality, MoS, and OR concerns then we have a problem. I posted here instead of COI since the bigger concern is the advocacy and the other stuff should be easy to address without a block. Next time I will make it clearer and go to COI seeking such action.Cptnono (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
I would appreciate some outside advice about what I perceive as a neutrality problem at the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I context of a recent high profile supreme court case, a group of editors there who all favor one significant point of view on the 2A topic have decided that the other significant point of view seen in reliable sourcing needs to be removed from the article. Personally, I am reading the WP:NPOV policy and I think it says that when determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. These editors are claiming that the significant point of view they personally don't like (and which 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices voted against) is now a 'fringe' point of view and must be removed. Is that how the policy works around here? Just asking. Thanks... SaltyBoatr get wet 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What they are saying is that the source was always controversial, his opinions suspect, and now go against settled law. As such, they no longer have any bearing in an encyclopedic article on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  If you want to create an article on the "History of the 2nd Amendment...", he would probably be a good source.  That is how policy works around here. Rapier (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As per usual in his long term, overwhelming, Wiki-savvy edit war, Salty has misstated here what has been said in the discussion section. This would take an hour to recap here, a CLOSE, CAREFUL reading of the talk page would be useful to anyone wishing to form an accurate impression. If I sound a bit beleagured, it's because I am; the guy is relentless and overwhelming in that article, with clever daily accusations against a lot of conscientious editors for everything that they do.  Rapier summarized today's chapter pretty accurately, except that he did not note that there is there is a general consensus to keep (not remove) that opinion, but to place it in the above context. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto what Rapier and North8000 have said. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here. When coming to this noticeboard, it would probably be more useful if you folks spelled out exactly what you're talking about, so that outside reviewers have a shot at contributing helpfully. Which is the disputed source? Is the issue really one of the reliability of a specific source, or is it one of recentism vs. history? What exactly is the neutrality issue here? Be specific ... about the issue, not about how much you dislike one another as people.

For what it's worth, I distrust the suggestion that a Wikipedia article about a point of constitutional law should only cover the most recent decisions or views about it. Legal history is how the common law is shaped; the law cannot be understood without reference to that history. For instance our First Amendment article deals with a whole lot of laws, precedents, legal tests (such as "clear and present danger"), and arguments which have since been stricken down or found unconstitutional.

An encyclopedia has history as one of its primary functions, especially in a matter as fundamentally history-based as the common law is. Historical facts, outdated views, and overturned precedents therefore must not be confined merely to "History of ..." articles. --FOo (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I "second" that opinion. Colincbn (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Foo. On your question on what the specific issue for this notice is, only Salty can answer that, he put it up.  I don't think that there is any specific dispute going regarding content, just straw dog tactics per below. In the article talk page, Salty has been creating straw dogs of mis-representing what people said and then debating his own misrepresentations, in other words, debating non-disputes. That's why I said that a CLOSE, CAREFUL read of the talk page is needed to get a right vs. wrong impression. He puts up stuff that seem designed to mislead a superficial reader rather than to get to the specific core of any debate,   and then tries to enlist other  wiki-venues in his wiki-savvy long term edit war.  So, if Salty would give the specific content issue that this is supposedly about, the discussion can begin.


 * On your second two paragraphs, I think that all of the editors agree and that that is the current practice in the article with nobody talking about changing it. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive war
Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

General advisory
Rachel Shabi and Jemima Kiss of The Guardian report that two Israeli schools are being set up for the specific purpose of editing Wikipedia to correct what the schools' promoters consider to be unfair editing of topics related to Zionism and Israel, such as the status of Jerusalem and names for the West Bank/Cisjordan/Judaea & Samaria. The story quotes the school's leaders to the effect that they don't want to push a point of view onto Wikipedia and that they'll train their students to avoid the kind of disruptive or hostile behaviour that can lead to administrative sanctions.

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

I'm merely posting this to advise of possible waves of organized or mass editing in the future from a particular point of view on heavily-contested disputes. Whether the newly-trained editors merely correct existing biases, provide a helpful contrasting view, or contaminate articles, talk pages and noticeboards with partisan POV's that obliterate objective assessments and alternate views, is something that of course can't be foreseen without making biased assumptions of one's own. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed also here. I agree that new users should be welcomed and believed to act in good intent, but "the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy" as WP:MEAT succintly states. These courses are therefore a policy violation and the attempt to change consensus by organizing them is wrong and shouldn't be allowed to succeed. As to what actions would be appropriate, I guess good ideas would be welcome. I've added a mention of this in the Israeli settlement article (these are Israeli settlers) but that only goes so far. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Derry
There is an ongoing debate on the talk page of the Derry article about the introduction there. Another editor and myself are concerned that some editors there do not seem to understand the introduction is presently deeply flawed so it would be helpful to get some feedback from some neutral admins, as at present i think the article introduction fails to meet a neutral point of view.

There is a compromise on wikipedia to call the city Derry and the County Londonderry in titles and throughout wikipedia. I accept this compromise although i do have concerns about it. The problem is, because wikipedia chooses to use the name Derry, we need to be very clear the status of the name Londonderry regarding the city. At present the introduction simply says "Derry or Londonderry.... " There is no mention at all in the introduction that the legal and official name of this city is Londonderry (something backed up by sources and covered in the name section on the article itself and the Derry/Londonderry name dispute article. The fact Derry is used throughout wikipedia and has the article title could easily mislead people into presuming Derry is the more official name if they do not read the rest of the article or the dispute article. So what i would like to know is.

1) Are we right to be concerned with the present introduction, and does leaving off the fact Londonderry is the legal/official name of the city there mean the introduction is not neutral by avoiding to mention important information simply to avoid upsetting one side of the community that oppose the term Londonderry.

2) Is it reasonable to want the first sentence of the article to clearly state this matter, in the same way many articles will say a name and then in brackets (Officially: *****) or something like that? The proposal which one editor has suggested about including a paragraph on the naming issue would certainly improve the introduction and make it more neutral, but i can not see any reasons other than to avoid offending one community not to state clearly in the lead sentence something like..


 * "Derry (officially Londonderry) is a...." or "Derry (legally Londonderry) is a...."

Any feedback would be very helpful thanks, there are other suggestions contained on the article talkpage itself. The main reason for bringing this matter here is just to make clear to certain editors there is a problem with the present introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional feedback would be welcome. Editors should note (i) the Derry/Londonderry  naming compromise and its use is one of the few stable areas in articles relating to Ireland and Britain, this is potentially a contentious item.  (ii) the elected council of the city has renamed it Derry- see all web sites etc.  and is currently seeking to change its legal name. What is or is not an official name is thus an interesting question  (iii) a proposal is being discussed for a second sentence which would include the history of name.  (iv) While which name you use can indicate which side of the Republican/Unionist divide you sit, there is cited evidence on the page to show that Derry is in use in the Protestant as well as the Catholic communities (v) One of the issues with the use of "official" on line one is that it privileges one name over another (see 1 above) -- Snowded  TALK  09:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixing the introduction of this article would have no negative impact on the stability of the "compromise". Whilst i have concerns about it i support it. If the introduction of this article clearly informed the reader that Londonderry is the legal name of the city then it should help reduce controversy about the issue as the status of Londonderry is not being undermined by ignoring it. I was not around when "the compromise" was agreed but i do not know if it went into the details of how to word the introduction of the article, rather than just "what names to use".


 * The elected council of the city has renamed the council Derry, the court has clearly stated they do not have the authority to change the city name themselves. Recent attempts to push for the petition to the Privy Council (the only authority that can authorise a change) was rejected by both unionists and moderate nationalists. So for the time being this is the "official and legal" name of the city clearly backed up by sources, obviously if the council do petition the privy council and the name is officially changed to Derry then the introduction should reflect that.


 * Snowded your final point highlights my concern about neutrality. "One of the issues with the use of "official" on line one is that it privileges one name over another" This is the reason people oppose stating clearly in the first sentence it is the official name of the city, incase it bothers one part of the community.. but wikipedia should not be hiding fact for such reasons should it? The truth of the matter is we do bias one term over the other at present, that is Derry. It is used throughout wikipedia, it has the article name space and it comes before Londonderry in the introduction. To hide the fact the other term has legal/official status seems wrong. Derry may be the common name for this city, but the official name is Londonderry and just because some people do not like this fact, doesnt mean it is not fact. I am not fussed what term is used be it "legally" or "officially" or something along those lines, but the status of the term Londonderry should be stated. France for example says.. "France officially the French Republic", it provides the reader with the common name (used throughout wikipedia) but informs them of the official name clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I spent some time editing this article a while back but haven't contributed recently, so excuse me if I'm a bit behind. I seem to remember that I helped find a reference for the claim that many protestants call the city Derry in everyday life. I've always thought that the name compromise was strange since the Derry/County Londonderry article names are compliant with WP:COMMONNAME, hence removing any need for a compromise. Or am I wrong on that? Anyway, I support the aim of clarifying the name issue in the introduction. I think the "(Offically...)" option sounds fine. If there is legitimate concern about what "officially" means in this context, then "legally" sounds like a good alternative. While the council is trying to change the legal name, it hasn't managed to do so yet. If that changes, we can obviously change the introduction. I'm interested in Snowed's comment that "a proposal is being discussed for a second sentence which would include the history of name". Can we hear more about this? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Declaration: I have had no involvement on this article. Why anyone would want to stir this particular hornets' nest is beyond me. It is one of the very few successful compromises on Wikipedia relating to Northern Ireland. There is nothing wrong with the current introduction stating "Derry or Londonderry.... ". It is perfectly accurate and, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Daicaregos (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)It's on the talk page, but I will repeat it here (in what I think is a good version): "The name Derry is an Anglicisation of the word Doire, the original name of the city in Irish. In 1613, the city was granted a Royal Charter by King James I and the "London" prefix was added, changing the official name of the city to Londonderry. While the common name today is Derry, Londonderry remains the legal name". That places the whole thing in context, avoids the questionable use of "official" and in the second sentence of the first paragraph makes things very clear.   Why BW thinks that would be hiding things I have no idea.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I support something along those lines and think a paragraph is justified considering there is real life controversy over the names. Whilst that would improve the introduction, i still see no reason not to state in the first sentence the legal/official status of one of the terms. The only reasons against so far i have seen is that the current wording should stay because its a stable compromise (but the compromise relates to use on wikipedia, not the introduction of the article) and the other is what you mentioned before, editors trying to avoid stating one term has legal status because it "privileges one name over another". But that is the reality of the situation. One name is considered the common name and there for gets the title, gets mentioned first and is used throughout wikipedia. The other is the legal name of the city, and there is no reason not to explain this in the first sentence. Australia is another example.. Australia officially the Commonwealth of Australia. As i said before, ive no problem with using a different word to official if that is problematic, but the status of the term should be stated in the same way these other articles do. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BW, this is WP:LAME, there is no controversy over Australia or France while there is here, as you can see from the hornets nest opened up in the comment below from Mabuska.  This is and has problematic so the use of any label requires explanation.  The second sentence proposed does exactly that, and its all in the first paragraph of the lede.   -- Snowded  TALK  11:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But we do not avoid stating fact simply because there is a controversy. There is nothing inaccurate or wrong about saying Derry (legally Londonderry) . I agree that the paragraph on the naming issue helps clear up the matter (something several editors seem to think there is no need to do at all), but it does not mean we should not and can not state the legal status in the first sentence. If it had said that in the article clearly then i would not be raising this matter, which may reopen old debates on the compromise. I think the cause is the article, not me raising concerns about the article. I have no interest in changing the compromise, which whilst not perfect does make sense considering the county name. But it is very important that as we use derry throughout wikipedia, we are absolutely clear in the introduction (and yes i think in the first sentence) that the legal name of the city is Londonderry. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about, as a first step, we add the passage on the history of the name? I think it's a good addition and there seems to be consensus for it. We can then continue to discuss the legal/official issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Trouble is getting agreement on the paragraph is also going to be problematic as several editors appear not to see there is any problem with the introduction as it stands and there for dont want any change. The wording itself is also problematic, for example the current proposal links to the WP policy on commonname, that would seem odd to be included in the intro, but what to replace it with is also questionable and controversial. Getting agreement on the basic first sentence seemed more simple (either its yes or no) rather than a long debate on wording for a paragraph. If people are concerned about "official" i have no problem with legally but getting agreement on that seems to me to be the primary issue and would ensure the introduction is balanced. Leaving off the fact it is the legal name (and not following methods used on other articles like Australia and France) makes the article introduction biased as far as im concerned, considering we already give Derry the article spot, the first mention in the intro and use it throughout wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very happy with "legally" but it needs to be explained. A simple label does not do that.  The second sentence does.   I really don't understand why it is necessary in the first sentence as it will be (in context) in the first paragraph.  If there is no intention to priviledge one name over another this should be an acceptable compromise. -- Snowded  TALK  13:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the fact one term has legal status and the other does not is important and should be noted in the first sentence, not to privileges Derry which has no legal status, but gets the primary article spot, used throughout wikipedia and mentioned first in the intro . I accept it needs to be clearly explained in the introduction with the second paragraph, but if that is done i do not see any reason not to say Derry (legally Londonderry) or along those lines BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely unnecessary, a contextual explanation in the second sentence is more than enough, unless of course you are trying to make a political point. Maybe better just to leave it as it is, this is just petty minded.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I too wasn't about or in the know when the "compomise" was agreed. Times change as does concensus. There appears to be more editors who feel this compromise is wrong and caters only to the nationalists. There is also nothing to back up the usage of Derry.
 * Some nationalist inclinced editors have always said Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability. You provide verifiable evidence where Derry is the official name of the city within the the country it belongs to, i.e. the UK, and there you have it. Otherwise why shouldn't we go the verifiable route in regards to its proper name? Oh yeah thats right it blows Derry out of the water.
 * Its bad enough you can't even back its usage up with history seeing as the present Londonderry and ancient Derry are technically two different settlements.
 * To quote Snowded:

the elected council of the city has renamed it Derry- see all web sites etc. and is currently seeking to change its legal name. What is or is not an official name is thus an interesting question
 * Well isn't that a lie, how can the city council rename the city when city council doesn't have the ability to change the city's name? It can only be changed by royal consent - i have yet to see any royal consent? On the city council's name - it doesn't affect the city's actual name as Derry City Council's website makes clear back in 2007: . Trying to use that as a reasonable excuse for the usage of Derry is lame - it only provides backup for usage as part of the phrase of Derry City Council. Aren't all the road signs in the Derry City Council area still saying Londonderry??? If the council could change the name of the city how come the signs all still state Londonderry?
 * If you want to say the majority of people in Londonderry are in favour of it then how were 3 motions voted down by Derry City Council in regards to moving the issue forward this year? And the result of an equality assement provided the following:

More than 9,000 people said they were broadly against the proposal; this was three times the number of people who said they were broadly in support of a move to change the city's name to 'Derry'.
 * This issue is nowhere similar to the Danzig/Gdansk problem. Its easy to sort; Danzig for historical references when that was its official name prior to its granting to Poland, and Gdansk for the present official city name since it became part of Poland. This situation is different from that one because after partition, Londonderry remained as part of the UK - unlike Gdansk it never changed hands.
 * Whilst the "compromise" is coming to the end of its shelf-life in the next year or two, i think the issue should be resolved now as there is nothing to back up the usage of Derry as the city's name on Wikipedia - only die-hard nationalists who find mention of anything British offensive - after all its all the same editors who oppose the term British Isles. Then again its the same editors who vehementally oppose stating "Republic of Ireland" preferring to use just "Ireland" because they know it infers the whole island - when even the RoI government makes use of the term. Its either their way or noway it appears - lets all have Guinness cake and eat it too. Mabuska (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mabuska, you are of course free to disagree with a point I made, but please don't call me a liar.  If you want to raise the wider issue of the established and stable compromise then you should do it at WP:IMOS where the original agreement was made.  If you choose to do so then I suggest more temperate language and fewer personal attacks.  -- Snowded  TALK  12:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One statement declaring a lie is hardly a personal attack as what you said wasn't true, and i showed how. Mabuska (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You could have used "incorrect". Not everything that is false is a lie. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll know better for next time, thank you. More to the topic i would be happy enough to agree with BritishWatchers proposal in his first post of using in the lede: "Derry (officially Londonderry)" as that helps declare that Derry is not the official name. Mabuska (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fair enough to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One other problem though is how we deal with the description of the name Derry. At the moment the article reads..

"Derry or Londonderry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood ofColm Cille") is a... "

This is clearly problematic because it is giving the name definition after Londonderry but only talking about Derry (if i am following the original meaning correctly). Where this info would be included if we do just say (officially Londonderry) after Derry i am not too sure.

"Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood ofColm Cille") officially Londonderry' is a...

Seems to make the most sense to me but if all the information in that description is needed i am not sure as it takes up quite a bit of space and there may need to be one for Londonderry. If the paragraph explaining the names details what the meaning is, then it could be cut down and just say something like...

"Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille) officially Londonderry is a.."

Then more details about the meaning of the name and Londonderry can be explained in the new second paragraph on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As a part-time webpage layout advisers I would like to state why having 'Derry officially Londonderry' is the best possible layout. Having the first sentence on any webpage explaining the in such great detail why the two names exist would prove very unsuccessfully in terms of keen readers coming on to the page. Someone who is not familiar with the situation on why some people in Northern Ireland leave out London in the cities name, will be approached by this title Derry, and will wonder why this page is being called Derry, they may even think they are on the wrong page as they will have never heard of this term maybe. Therefore it is crucial that this page straight away indentifies that the official naming of this city whatever it may be, be displayed as soon as possible. A source close to my organisation carried out research on web users behaviours, they concluded that on average a reader that ends up on a sudden webpage (let’s remember it is going to be a shock for the research having being landed on Derry in front of them) will read the first 10 words of the home page before exiting the page. Therefore I advice all editors that the ‘Derry’ page be worded as the following. First of all I advice that the first word be Londonderry and not Derry as by seeing Derry in the title (which will be the first word that is viewed) will produce a level of panic for web readers and there first action will be to look for the single word Londonderry. But the current way the names are doesn’t seem to be a problem with editors here. My second point is in response to what a few editors said above about the explanation of the royal character and Derry naming explanation etc. I would also like to confirm that this to would not prove to be an appropriate decision. This is because as I stated already the first 10 words are the most important and therefore it is not wise to prompt such history in an introduction as interesting as it may be. If this history/naming info is of such importance to people they should respect this paragraph and accept that it should be placed in the most appropriate section of the webpage which I believe there is already a section about the naming history. Lastly I would like to explain why I believe that just officially or legally (But the word official has more of a public known meaning) is the best word to be placed before Londonderry. When readers come on to the site and read Derry officially Londonderry followed by relevant information about Londonderry, (information that people actually want to know about, information that shouldn't be replaced with information regarding the name it's self) they will be able to see that there must be a clear dispute between the name of the city and therefore if they have an interest in knowing further information about why it is called Derry and vice versa they will be able to scroll down and read the section that gives these details. But I would like to point out that the majority of readers coming on to a site like this, the naming disagreement will not be their top concern and will want to know information like, is the second biggest city etc which is already in place. NOTE’’ this is only the views of an independent organisation and I have further views on a personally level of the naming. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbowsie 92.21.54.23 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Break
The point of bring the discussion here was to get a Neutral point of view. That isn't going to happen this looks like a continuation of the discussion at Talk:Derry. Can the involved editors wait 48 hours, and lets see if some uninvolved editors have an opinion. In the meantime, the discussion can freely return to the Derry Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed - we were approaching an agreement there, best to return to the talk page -- Snowded TALK  12:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this debate should take place here to help get neutral eyes on it. We have waited a few days for comments, there have been none. The introduction of the Derry article at present clearly violates WP:NPOV by purposely hiding the fact Londonderry is the official name of the city. What makes this situation worse is the agreement that Derry is considered the commonname of the city, is used throughout wikipedia, has the article title space and is said before Londonderry in the introduction. It is not hard to see how people could be misled about the status of each term, unless they bother to read the section on it or the specific article on the naming dispute.
 * I fail to see any reason why the introductions first sentence should not clearly state. Londonderry is the official (or legal) name of the city. I suggest we try to create a list of reasons for each sides position and then we can go through in great detail each point in both lists. I will make a list of the reasons below, so far though i only have seen one reason not to include it in the first sentence, which was about trying not to give one term more status over the other. Clearly such a position is a bias, ignoring fact in order to treat the terms as equal when they are clearly not.    BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion
In my uninvolved opinion in this debate. I would be tempted go with the officially one as it does still have the compromised common name but it also says what the name according to official mentions  is while neither taking away credibility from one or the other. Allthough on the other hand, the courts have said the name is legally Londonderry  so there is a case as well for legally. If I were to go out on a limb, I would go for the official one as it is used by government mentions of it. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Anyone else?  --HighKing (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * C of E have you never been involved with this naming issue? Also comment on your User page would show that you are far from neutral on this issue. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't make assumptions about people Mo ainm just by their username or userpages whther you may be correct or not. It wouldn't be hard to make assumptions about you or HighKings lack of neutrality on the issue going by previous discussions or edit history but we should steer clear from that and let other editors decide what to make of another editors comments without others trying to decide for them. Funny how those who argue against using the official legal name for Londonderry favour using the official legal name of Ireland for the Republic of Ireland... what makes one more special than the other? Mabuska (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not making any assumptions, C of E has stated on his page his feelings about this issue and I am not claiming to be neutral and either is HK. Also funny how people who argue against the official name of Ireland argue for the official name of Derry. Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of Mo ainm or HighKing saying they have an "uninvolved opinion", which is clearly not the case with The C of E. This, this, this, this, this and The C of E's userpage show that far from having an "uninvolved opinion", he has been involved in the naming dispute previously and has an opinion that strong he feels the need to soapbox about it on his userpage, still it makes a change from his homophobic userpage I guess. O Fenian (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Mo - lol and good point on the reversal however when the official name of the state is being abused by some to cover all of Ireland, such as with the article title Flag of Ireland - a distinction needs to be made. However thats away from the topic. Topic wise it should be declared almost immediately in the lede of the Derry article that Londonderry is the official name to clear up any misunderstandings over what term is actually the official one whether or not its "common usage" or not. Mabuska (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I said was "univolved opinion in this debate" if you'll look through the TP, I have not been involved in the discussion on the opening words. The C of E.           God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sophistry is irrelevant, you were attempting to present your opinion in a wholly misleading way. You are not some neutral bystander with an uninvolved opinion. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem
Could someone please explain to me why we should not inform the readers in the first sentence of the introduction that the city is officially called Londonderry? Why must we hide this fact from the reader and not follow standard practice as shown on things like France and Australia where the official name is clearly stated? I still have yet to understand how people can defend the status quo.

Perhaps we should seek more input from certain Wikiprojects, like WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Northern Ireland and UK Wikipedians' notice board?

The present introduction clearly lacks neutrality. It must be changed. Nowhere in the introduction does it inform the reader the city is officially called Londonderry. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else
This page was taken here for uninvolved input but seems to have the same editors, so anyone feel free to include your say! I'll repeat the issue as there's a lot of comments to read to get to this^.

"There is an ongoing debate as to include ‘officially’ before the word Londonderry in the introduction on the 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry' page. The disagreement is some editors believe officially is not necessary while other editors myself included believe that officially is quite appropriate for an introduction to inform the reader of the official status. Whether you agree or not with this word being in place add your opinion, the more the better so that a full and fair decision can proceed.Cbowsie (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - seeing as we already have a "concensus" that goes against the legal and official name of the city, we should at least declare straight after the non-legal and non-official name what the official name is. That would preserve neutrality and allow for Derry to be continually used as the "common name". Mabuska (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record - there is general agreement that Londonderry is the legal name, but "official" is less clear, especially given the Council's use.. I have attempted to put together a compromise with situates the legal name in its historical context here. -- Snowded TALK  01:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Some reasons for the change
These are some of the reasons why i feel the introductions first sentence should be changed.


 * Sources back up that Londonderry is the official (or legal) name of the city.
 * At present the following factors contribute to misleading the reader about the name of the city.
 * The introduction makes no mention of each terms status.
 * Derry comes before Londonderry (it simply says "or Londonderry").
 * Derry is used throughout wikipedia when talking about the city.
 * Derry is the article title.
 * The introduction is meant to sum up the article subject, there is a section about names in the article itself and there is a whole article on the naming issue, but some believe the introduction does not need changing at all.
 * Stating the official name of the city would be in line with articles such as France and Spain. I could produce a huge list of other articles which do the same thing.
 * No justifiable reason has yet been given about why the first sentence should not inform the reader of the status of Londonderry.
 * One reason against inclusion in the first sentence was this statement: "One of the issues with the use of "official" on line one is that it privileges one name over another" This sentence sums up the problem. Editors are trying to prevent fact being stated in the first sentence of the introduction because one community does not like the term.
 * The claim that by stating fact privileges one name over the other fails to take note of the previous points i raised above about why Derry currently has the privileged position and there for could mislead people into thinking it is the proper name.

The current introduction is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV and it needs to be changed. If those opposing a change to the first sentence could provide a similar list it would be helpful to all. We can then go through each point in both our lists. Thankyou BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I will now also be adding a POV tag to the Derry article. That tag should not be removed until this dispute is resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has removed the dispute tag i added. I would rather not revert incase it is considered as part of "the troubles" which has a 1RR imposed on all matters relating to it. But the template was justified to war the reader about potential problems with article, until it is resolved here. If it can not be re added then i need to raise this matter else where because i think there is justification for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the one proposing change to a long standing consensus version. A compromise has been proposed which you have rejected.  You do not have a consensus for your change as yet and adding a POV tag after all this discussion just doesn't make sense.   Your summary above introduces no new arguments so I reference you to discussions above.  -- Snowded  TALK  00:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Harris
An editor is completely cherry picking and misrepresenting content to push a negative POV of the subject of this article. Additional help is needed. Spanish language background would be helpful.  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  18:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Made a few edits... the article needs to be improved to contain more on his life and work, and you were right that there was POV pushing in the scandal section. BE——Critical __Talk 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter Glotz wasn't expelled and the word "Expulsion" is POV, see also Wilhelm von Gottberg

 * 1) The fate of Peter Glotz's family is known - his father administered a Jewish business during the war, so he preferred to run away to Germany after the war. The Czech wife and Peter followed the father. There are no proves that  the family ever wanted to return to Czechoslovakia or Czech Republic. User:HerkusMonte claims that "His family was expelled from Czechoslovakia in September 1945", which is totally false - the father run away already in May.
 * 2) I find the word "refugees" correct, rather than emotionally and politically biased "expelled". The word "expulsion" is a mechanical translation of German "Vertreibung", and shouldn't be used in neutral texts .Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide full quotes to back up your assertion that the family left Sudetenland voluntarily and had no wish to return? Glotz is referred to by many sources as a "German expellee", and he himself wrote histories of the Germans who were expelled from Sudetenland. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the relevant excerpt: "[Glotz said]:„Der Vater, Versicherungskaufmann, gänzlich unpolitisch, aber doch Mitglied der Partei jener Zeit im Sudetengau, war schon im Mai geflohen.“ [Comment:] An welches Eigentum mag Peter Glotz wohl denken, wenn er an das verlorene „unser Eigentum“ erinnert?". You can add this as the opinion of Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, but not as "fact". That Polish article is irrelevant, it doesn't mention Glotz.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "German expelee" is frequently an opinion or propaganda, not an information. A description of Glotz family "Expulsion" would be "an information". But it doesn't exist.
 * The same millions run away from Communist countries and non-Germans aren't called "expellees". So we have German POV here.
 * The word "Expulsion" is POV and the Polish article explains why, so yes, it's relevant.
 * Millions of non-Germans lost their "Eigentum" during and after the war. Does it make them "expellees"? Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilhelm von Gottberg run away and this flight impressed him. User:Schrandit replaces precize informations by politically and emotionally loaded "expelled".Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.
There has been a neutrality tag on a section of the Rangers article since June and some uninvolved feedback on its neutrality would be helpful. The section in question is Old Firm and sectarianism, which lists many examples of incidents of problems involving some fans. I believe it gives WP:UNDUE weight and lacks neutrality, especially when you compare it to the same section on the Celtic article which simply has a two paragraph summary. Considering there is a whole article dealing with Sectarianism in Glasgow, a summary like found on the Celtic page seems more reasonable than the long list found on the Rangers page. Is there justification for the section to be trimmed? or what else should be done? thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Each article will inevitably have its own way of treating its subject which should represent a fair summary of what reliable sources say. From that perspective there is no reason to suppose that the articles on these organisations should read the same way. Is the current treatment in the Rangers article giving undue weight to sectarianism? There have been, within recent years, some events which received extensive coverage and which cannot be whitewashed out of the article. The section might be trimmed somewhat without any great loss of balance, but it would certainly be an error to move all coverage to the Sectarianism in Glasgow article since sectarian sentiment in regard to the Old Firm extends far outwith the city. I don't think there's anything dreadfully wrong with things as they stand, but there's plenty of room for improvement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there needs to be a section, but it seems strange to me the way the Rangers article has a huge section which looks like a time line of events whilst the Celtic one just gives a summary and for example does not mention problems Celtic have had in recent years, like in 2009 some Celtic fans singing IRA songs during a minutes silence to mark Remembrance day. . If the sort of list like on the rangers article is justified then ill be adding some examples to the celtic page, but i do think the way its handled on the celtic page which is more like a summary is better. Rangers section is rather excessive for matters mostly relating to fans. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric
See the following diffs:. The issue seems to be that YouTube is not a reliable source. Now see the following diffs: ... now that a reliable secondary source has been introduced, more and more excuses to remove this are piling up. It becomes more and more apparent on the talk page, where it's obvious that the "article keepers" will do anything to keep such information out of the article, even if deemed as reliable by any applicable policy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One source with 40 odd words devoted to it makes inclusion of this undue i reckon mark nutley (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is that material even encyclopedic? Has she lost her job over the alleged incident, or some other relevant connection with her biography? I don't know, I am asking.  But until then, kudos for those keeping such tabloidisms out of an article, a BLP no less.  It doesn't matter where they are sourced from.   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a weight issue. We have one reliable source presenting the "leaked video" on their site (not as an article that I can find) with a write-up of 40 words. One reliable source covered it. The edit in question gives the video 44 words. We aren't summarizing what reliable sources have to say about the topic, we're selecting an issue and expanding on one piece of it (the edit covers that Couric might be making fun of Palin, but dispenses with what that entails. Actually, the "making fun" part isn't from the reliable source, it's from the unknown source of the video. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... then you haven't read the sources. There are seven of them now and a good portion of them mentions "making fun" or "mocking". Your claims have been reduced to "there is only one source, therefore the edit violates WP:UNDUE"... except that after those claims I added six more. Call it what you will, it is still a fact and it is directly related to the allegations of Couric's heavily biased interview with Palin. When an influential public figure, let alone a news reporter, commits such a deed, and the issue is covered by multiple reliable sources, there is no just cause for excluding this issue unless there is indisputable proof (backed by reliable sources, of course) that it is "just a rumor". These sources are no tabloids. And Morenooso... WP:DTTR please. Your WP:TAG TEAM doesn't make it less of an edit war for the other side. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as DTTR is concerned, it's an essay not policy. Now, since you are WP:3RR4, a templated WR:3RR advisory message is very appropriate as it can be used at WP:ANEW. BTW, with the exception of one editor, who is WP:3RR, no one else is edit-warring. moreno oso (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Our comments were related to the edit you presented with one source. Please comment on content, not editors. If you have evidence of tag teaming, meat puppets or anything else, this is not the place for that, as I would expect a regular to be aware. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, looks like we're getting somewhere here – "[yo]ur comments were related to the edit [I] presented with one source". Now that there are seven, why was the addition reverted? For the record, I am referring to this diff here, after being specifically told (multiple times by multiple editors) that the undue problem is solely because there is only one source that covers this issue. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter has been discussed at the BLP Noticeboard - Katie Couric which is the more appropriate board as this is a WP:BLP issue. The WP:CONSENSUS there is non-inclusion. moreno oso (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Four brief comments represents a consensus? The primary emphasis then was on use of a YouTube video clip.  Now, numerous reliable sources discussing the incident have been referenced in the article.  A quick search I did revealed other reliable sources--Politico, NY Post, NY Magazine, and the Daily Caller. Drrll (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The blogosphere can act as an echo chamber. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts.  You should listen when others explain that and avoid pursuing a disagreement beyond it's useful end.  Jehochman Talk 02:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources I mentioned and the others that were in the article hardly qualify as "the blogosphere"--they are reliable sources, despite some of them being entirely or primarily online. Drrll (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this discussion should be held at BLP Noticeboard - Katie Couric due to the special circumstances surrounding BLPs. Colincbn (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally: not cool. Does his response finish the debate for you? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is consensus at the notice board and on the article. And, it appears that the consensus on this board is for non-inclusion as well. BLP articles must get it right - there is no room for dubious edits. moreno oso (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not cool? Hardly. Now I see that Drrll is referencing my concern regarding the excuses that change and as usual, no one addresses that point. This is called ignoring common sense for the sake of exclusion.
 * The new excuse seems to be "there are no sources that explicitly state the connection between the interview and the video." How about these   ? The third link discusses the second link, and the fourth link asserts the genuineness of the video, referencing CBS.
 * Now please let's get back to the NPOV issue, which is why I've raised the concerns here to begin with. All red herrings aside, Couric is clearly biased against Palin and it influenced Couric's portrayal of Palin in the media. Couric is a major figure for many US citizens, and shapes opinions as such. Therefore, when such an influential person lets his or her personal views out in front of millions of spectators, it ceases to be news reporting. Couric acted inappropriately towards a political figure on more than one occasion, thus abusing her authority to influence the public politically, just days apart from the infamous interview. This is covered by multiple sources. Excluding this bit of information is akin to deliberately "covering up" for Katie's mishaps to make her look better... and this is what constitutes the essence of POV pushing. This is the sole reason I am insisting on including this in the article. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - which of the 4 sources you give above would you consider to meet WP:RS?
 * In addition, as regards your "new excuse" comment, you need to recognize that there are always a variety of policies in play when it comes to wikipedia. BLP requires strict adherence to "usual" policies such as WP:RS and WP:VER, as well as holding to a much tighter interpretation of such policies. However, when people are writing articles, they also have to take into account policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Again, BLP articles are under stricter scrutiny for adherence to policy than other articles.
 * So if I analyze the topic in question, I have these observations:
 * WP:RS - youtube clearly doesn't qualify - how about the other sources given? Do they meet the policy? At first glance the 4 above would not.
 * WP:VER - how do we know the video in question is "real" IE that it's really her voice, etc. How do we know it's really in the timeframe given? We'd need reliable sources for this.
 * WP:UNDUE - given the particular event, how much notable coverage does it have? Is it being covered broadly by reliable sources, or is it simply a minor event? Does it define overall the person in the biography?
 * WP:SYNTH - the text being promoted draw the conclusion that "because Katie remarked about Palin's kids name, she must be biased toward Palin". This direct connection isn't covered by any reliable source, and appears to be a clear case of synthesis, IE if I say A is connected to B, then I am making a synthesis statement. We're not allowed to do that, we have to use reliable sources.
 * Now if you can keep all those issues in mind, it might be easier to determine if the incident is appropriate for the article, and portrayed properly in the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the sources above are only the latest addition. Here are the six sources I quoted earlier:      . All of these meet WP:RS. WP:VER is automatically covered, since it is being cited in multiple reliable secondary/tertiary sources. WP:UNDUE – plenty of notable coverage as I have just shown. WP:SYNTH:
 * The Atlantic Wire's heading reads "Katie Couric's Palin Interview Prep" while covering the video and Couric's slander of Palin's character in direct relation to the video.
 * Quote from NBC: "The video was shot weeks before Couric's contentious interview with Palin. That interview left Palin's detractors claiming she'd been exposed as a lightweight and her supporters claiming she'd been badgered by a left-wing media doyenne."
 * Quote from Vanity Fair: "...Couric, who later positioned herself as Palin’s mortal enemy..."; they also mention similar fiascos, in particular the one with Dan Rather, clearly stating there is a pattern to her behavior, which is definitely an integral part of a full encyclopedic coverage of a person.
 * Quote from the Toronto Sun: "Weeks later Couric had a contentious interview with Palin. Some argued how Palin stumbled through the questions defined her as a candidate. Others have said Couric had an agenda going into the interview. The interview set off a bit of a feud between the two women."
 * Quote from the Los Angeles Times: "This video was made before the dreadful Couric-Palin interview."
 * In conclusion: plenty of coverage by reliable sources, who deem the video as authentic and make the connection to the interview, while one of the sources even points at a behavioral pattern. There is no violation of any of the above quoted policies. Therefore, the information is worthy of inclusion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and here's another cite that identifies the video source as CBS raw footage: . Quote: "The video, from September 2008, was taken from a CBS News satellite feed. It shows Couric[...]rehearsing her report on Palin[...]on the day she was announced as John McCain's running mate." Incidentally, they also reference the behavioral pattern, citing the Dan Rather example. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I agree that at some point this may be worth including. But even if it is at most it should be a single short sentence that points out what people are saying. I also think that if this was anything other than a BLP you could just be bold and put it in. But it is a BLP. So we should just wait a bit, maybe a week or two, and see what is happening with it then. I think it is highly likely that the news cycle will turn and everyone save for a few people who really hate Couric will forget about it, in fact I think the vast majority of people will never even hear about it at all.
 * The point is WP will still be here in two weeks (most likely) and so will Couric and Palin (most likely). If this really is a piece of info important enough for a BLP than it will continue to gain coverage. I think that unlikely, but if it does I will back you up all the way.
 * The course you are currently pursuing is simply going to harden people against anything you have to say about this. Generate some goodwill by letting it sit until there is no doubt that it is relevent. That is what we have to do with BLPs. Colincbn (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate to break it to you, Colincbn, but it has already been a couple weeks. All of those "sources" are from the August 4/5 24-hour news cycle, and there hasn't been any reporting on it since; just the residual echos in the chamber.  There isn't likely to be any real reporting on it another two weeks from now, or two weeks after that, either -- it's a non-issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I know that and completely agree. However I can't see the future, and there is a possibility that Couric or Palin might talk about it. I highly doubt that, but if they do it might be worth revisiting. But for now, as I said on the BLP Noticeboard, I would vote for exclusion. Colincbn (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So how many sources are enough for you to call the subject notable? 10? 200? 23487348764? I have found 12 sources by now. Maybe one of them really hates Couric... maybe two... but 12? I'm sure there is more coverage if I look hard enough, but I reckon I've done my share of WP:PROVEIT. You are assuming that all these reporters hate her, and the outlets hate her collectively, to the point that they all decided to slander her in public without reason. Yet, you are turning a blind eye to Couric's (alleged) hatred towards Palin and her expression thereof in public.
 * I will recap the reasons for inclusion of the video:
 * It has been covered by multiple RS, therefore establishing notability;
 * It has been authenticated by multiple RS, therefore establishing verifiability;
 * It has been connected to the interview by multiple RS, therefore establishing relevance to the paragraph and to the biography in general;
 * It has been interpreted as Couric's contempt towards Palin by multiple RS, therefore establishing open bias;
 * It has been connected to Couric's previous behavior towards Dan Rather and others, therefore establishing a behavioral pattern which, without a shadow of a doubt, influences her professional work (this connection is also covered by multiple RS, therefore excluding allegations of WP:SYNTH).
 * I honestly doubt that at this point, any WP policy would prevent this from being included... and by the way, a good BLP will cover all aspects of the person's life, especially if it affects their professional attire (which, in case of mass media moguls like Couric, affect millions of viewers). You want to rewrite the statement to make it a concise sentence? I have absolutely no problem with that, as long as you don't neuter its essence and remain NPOV. Oh, and by the way, news coverage doesn't repeat itself every few days... hence the name, news. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several assertions have been made and several questions have been asked that are begging for answers and clarification. I'll take a crack at it here:
 * So how many sources are enough for you to call the subject notable? 10? 200? 23487348764?
 * Establishing notability is a requirement for creating an article page about the subject; it is not a requirement for adding relevant, significant information to an already existing article. The number of sources is irrelevant to whether the content should be added to an article.
 * It has been authenticated by multiple RS, therefore establishing verifiability;
 * It has been verified that video footage of Couric doing warm-up preparations before newscasts exists. It has also been verified that this particular video was shot several weeks before the "Couric-Palin Interviews", and has no relevance to them. Nothing here provides a "reason for inclusion" in the article.
 * It has been connected to the interview by multiple RS, therefore establishing relevance to the paragraph and to the biography in general;
 * No, it has not. The only mentions of the Couric-Palin interviews in reliable sources is to clarify that this footage was taken several weeks prior to the interviews, which have been described by Palin critics and supporters as revealing and biased, respectively. The reliable sources do not make any connection between this footage and the interviews. Nothing here provides a "reason for inclusion" in the article.
 * It has been interpreted as Couric's contempt towards Palin by multiple RS, therefore establishing open bias;
 * Absolutely not. Perhaps you meant by multiple partisan opinion sites and blogs, but not by the reliable sources. The reliable sources note that Couric "pokes fun" at Palin and "quips" about the kid's names, but nowhere do they "interpret as contempt" or "open bias" any of the mocking banter on that footage.  In fact, one of the reliable sources conveys the non-story character of this issue by sarcastically entitling their two paragragh blurb: "Bombshell Katie Couric Clip Reveals That Track and Trig Palin Have Unusual Names!" Nothing here provides a "reason for inclusion" in the article.
 * It has been connected to Couric's previous behavior towards Dan Rather and others, therefore establishing a behavioral pattern which, without a shadow of a doubt, influences her professional work (this connection is also covered by multiple RS, therefore excluding allegations of WP:SYNTH).
 * The only connection between this footage and the footage about Dan Rather (there is no "and others") is that they both appeared on YouTube, according to the reliable sources. Perhaps the unreliable sources have asserted this psychobabble analysis of "Couric's bevavioral patterns", but I'm not seeing it in a single reliable source. If you are using a reliable source that isn't mentioned in the above discussion, please provide it here, because what you have asserted is not in any of the reliable sources mentioned above. Nothing here provides a "reason for inclusion" in the article.


 * I've watched the video footage, several times, and there doesn't appear to be anything out of the ordinary or "newsworthy" about the back and forth pre-broadcast dialog on that footage. The repartee seems quite typical as she reads the script that was written for her, and struggles to get her head around the quite unusual string of factoids (Trig? Mooseburgers? Track? Wasilla?) before the broadcast aired.  Honestly, I don't see the article-worthy content here.  And that's before we even get to the additional "high-quality reliable sources" requirements for BLP articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you even bothered reading this entire discussion? In my previous reply I brought up a few quotes. Please reply before I am forced into fishing for more proof-asserting quotes. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and...??? You never referred to the direct quotes I brought up. Why did you put quotation marks around the word "sources" when referring to the 2-day news cycle? Yes, it had plenty coverage when it started circulating on YouTube, do you need everyone talking about this for a month to make it inclusion worthy? This is yet another excuse that directly violates all basic policies. WP:RS + WP:V + WP:NOTABILITY = is to be included per Wikipedia rules (as opposed to any whimsical consensus). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "...and..." nothing. My response to your question was "yes"; I have read the entire discussion (here; on the article talk page; on the BLPN page...). I referred to the 24-hour newscycle where there was a brief mention of this non-issue in a couple reliable sources. There has been no significant reliably sourced reporting on the issue; zero reliably sourced follow-up. Just lots of pro-Palin echo chamber noise, nothing more.  You are welcome to direct my attention to high quality reliable sources that you feel give this matter any weight.  As for WP:NOTABILITY, you are welcome to try to create a whole new article about this issue if that is what you are attempting. "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you've been defining this as a "non-event" for a while now, but it seems like your own personal POV, which, obviously, does not belong in Wikipedia to begin with. So far, I've been sweating my 8@1I$ off to defend my stance, and yet you seem to brush it off with your "non-event" position while not even bothering to prove it. I don't want to start a new article, I just want to add one lousy sentence to the existing one. Nowhere is it mentioned that sources have to cover an event ad nauseam to make it an event, as opposed to a "non-event". So far, all I see in this discussion is a lot of pro-Couric echo chamber noise, nothing more. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you aren't starting an article, you shouldn't link to the WP:NOTABILITY policy about creating articles.
 * If you'd like to add one sentence to a BLP, please link to high quality reliably sourced reporting that you feel give that matter any weight -- "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
 * There is nothing for me to "prove" here; "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." -- WP:BLP
 * This is getting rather circular now, so I'm going to withhold further comment unless something new is introduced. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so we're in agreement here: since I have (repeatedly) introduced several reliable sources that covered this issue while explicitly mentioning the interview in the same articles, it is no longer the view of a tiny minority and therefore, will be included in the article unless you have a new excuse... err, reason as for why not. And by the way, I've done more than my share of WP:PROVEIT. You, on the other hand, haven't proven why this might be a "non-event", apart from repeatedly calling it such. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

National Labor Federation
Wikipedia goes pretty easy on this group, which most in-depth reliable sources basically treat as a cult. Not really an important issue but maybe someone is interested in working on it.Prezbo (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Palestinian territories
A few users have sought to restrict the content in the article Racism in the Palestinian territories to racism by Palestinians and have removed any reference to racism by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories or racist actions committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinians in the Palestinian territories. Is it "neutral" to restrict the scope of the article in such a way?  nableezy  - 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the material in the sister articel?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By that I assume you mean Racism in Israel which is now a redirect to Ethnic discrimination in Israel. As far as I can tell, no. That article does not discuss the settlers at all or any racist actions by the state directed against the Palestinians in the Palestinian territories.  nableezy  - 15:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case it should go there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Go where? In the Ethnic discrimination in Israel article? Israeli settlers are not "in Israel" and the actions of the Israeli state against those living in the Palestinian territories are likewise not directed against those "in Israel".  nableezy  - 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Carwil's summary on the talk page looks correct to me. No-one seems to have offered a proper explanation as to why the material should not be included (AFAICT), the only argument seems to be that the article ought to be restricted to racism committed by ethnic Palestinians. But there is no apparent justification for this and it would be inconsistent with comparabloe articles. --FormerIP (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My only point would be that as (as far as i am aware) the settlements are (according to Israel) part of Israel and the settlers are still Israeli the racism in Israel might be the proper place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs says: "Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. Israel has valid claims to title in this territory based not only on its historic and religious connection to the land, and its recognized security needs, but also on the fact that the territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue. ... The prohibition on unilateral measures was agreed upon in order to ensure that neither side take steps to change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations." In other words, the Israeli government refuses to formally annex the territory (to claim it is "in Israel") pending final status talks.--Carwil (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a view rejected by the International Court of Justice and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Even the Israeli High Court has said, multiple times, that the West Bank is held in a state of belligerent occupation, ie it is not in Israel. But you are right, even the Israeli government does not say it is in Israel, it only pretends there is ambiguity as to what the status of the territory is. But this is really getting further from the issue here than we need to be. Should the article Racism in the Palestinian territories include racism by those in the Palestinian territories who are not Palestinian?  nableezy  - 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about racism within a spatial area. The ethnicity of the source and target of the racism aren't relevant to the inclusion criteria. This is obvious. All that is required is that the racism occurs within the Palestinian territories. If there is already material about racism in the Palestinian territories in an article about Israel it needs to be moved.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Settlers and Jews do not live in the 'Palestinian territories', frankly, they are not allowed into these areas, so the title would be misleading. This is an attempt to water down the Palestinian racism issues, and instead turn the article into Israeli Racism in the Palestinian Territories. Anyways, I can see this article then turning into two: Racism in the Palestinian National Authority and Racism in the West Bank. --Shuki (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing misleading is your repeated insistence on using a definition of Palestinian territories found in no sources and backed only by your own imagination. All Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are in the "Palestinian territories". Countless sources makes this very clear and easy to understand point. Insisting, without sources, that those sources are wrong is silly.  nableezy  - 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Going by the international consensus (majority view) the settlements are in "occupied Palestinian territory" since they're in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Including things like the judaization of East Jerusalem doesn't "water down" racist acts committed by Palestinians. All aspects should be covered. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shuki, there are hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories. So they're racism is a part of the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I never received a link to this noticeboard. Editors have been trying to force in questionable material about racism among Israeli soldiers and settlers. Sentences like Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories are racially structured institutions don't scream neutrality. Another edit I reverted. For starters, the demographic section is irrelevant and has no place in the article. The lead sentence is simply bogus, "racist attitudes" by Palestinians, Israeli soldiers, and settlements? What? The Palestinian territories are the Palestinian territories, not Israel. Any credible accusations of racism among Israelis belong in the racism in Israel section. Inferences that Israel's presence in the West Bank is somehow inspired by racism shouldn't even be debated on wikipedia, it is simply propaganda and editors are trying to push it in an article they don't like. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are detailed content issues that editors can figure out. The basic question posted on this noticeboard is about whether an article called 'Racism in ' should contain all instances of racism that occur in . The answer seems entirely obvious and clear from the article title. Things about Israel belong in articles about Israel which is defined by the green line. Things about the Palestinian territories belong in articles about the Palestinian territories. Surely the one thing Wikipedia has to get right is something basic like where places are before it can even begin to describe those places.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The original page is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Palestine_(Arab_Palestinian_regime,_groups,_population)&redirect=no it was redirected to "territories" without any consensus. no settlers are relevant here anyhow. Nableezy, please stop your push for editwarring.RS101 (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

RS101, I understand your concern about redefinition, but I come to this having worked extensively on Racism in the United States, and having been won over to a respect for how the Category Racism by Country operates, which is how Sean.hoyland suggests. The spatial organization limits the degree that any one article becomes a "X People are racist" article.

On the substance of settlers and soldiers (and I haven't added any content on the issue of soldiers in the Palestinian territories yet), instances of their racist behavior (when sourced and substantiated) have a direct effect primarily on Palestinians in the territories, and therefore belong in an article on Racism in the Palestinian territories, more so than in an article on Racism in Israel. Examples may include (this is not the forum to debate whether they happen, that requires RSs on the page): humiliation at checkpoints of a racist nature, racially motivated attacks on persons and property (such as olive groves), racist hatred as an accompaniment or motivator to military violence or private violence by settlers against Palestianians in the territories, and yes, racially defined access to settlement housing, bypass roads, and building permits. All of these things may reasonably apply differently or uniquely to life in the Palestinian territories, directly affect Palestinian Arabs in the territories rather than Arabs in Israel, and are most honestly dealt with in the same article, rather than as a statement about life or attitudes in Israel.

That said, WP:Summary and sub-pages are always an option when the age gets too long. Indeed, Racism in Palestine ([by] Arab Palestinian regime, groups, population) seems like a subpage of Racism in Palestine, but given the surprising (to me) debate about what the Palestinian territories are--i.e., are the settlements in them?--I suspect that Racism in Palestine might provoke an even more tedious debate about what Palestine is.

In the mean time, must we move even the name of discussion on this page, or can we civilly seek consensus and understanding?--Carwil (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Human rights record in the Palestinian Territories is already covered as part of the Human rights in Israel. Are you proposing to remove it from there? Marokwitz (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. This is an article on racism. Human rights violations per se don't belong here unless they are associated with policies of racism, racist attitudes, motivated by racism etc. Or as I said: "humiliation at checkpoints of a racist nature, racially motivated attacks on persons and property (such as olive groves), racist hatred as an accompaniment or motivator to military violence or private violence by settlers against Palestianians in the territories, and yes, racially defined access to settlement housing, bypass roads, and building permits." Besides fact X is in article Y, putting it in article Z would require removing it from article Y, is not a Wikipedia policy or practice.--Carwil (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar to what User:Shuki | suggested on the article talk page, we could rename the article "Racism in the Palestinian National Authority". I'm not convinced that that is the better option, but it is one alternative. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would require there to be some kind of logical argument for not having a Racism in the Palestinian Territories article. Is racism that takes place in the Palestinian Territories but is not carried out by Palestinians considered unsuitable to be mentioned in WP for some reason? --FormerIP (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I too think a logical argument is necessary, but I'm open. There are some logical concern about "in the Palestinian National Authority." First, it's unclear if that means Area A or Area A and B under the Oslo agreements (and likewise if it includes H2 under the Hebron agreement, though by the logic of the settlers-are-out idea, it excludes H1). That puts Area C and H1 in the "in Israel" article, or in a third (Israeli-controlled areas of the Palestinian territories) article. One unverified sources says "150,000 Palestinians and 300,000 Jewish" setters are living in Area C. Now, "Racism in the Palestinian National Authority" would exclude these people from consideration, prompting lots of needless discussion about whether Palestinian X belongs in the article. It also confuses where we might talk about these Palestinians' racism. These are interesting ideas. Do they come up in the other articles about Palestinian territories too?--Carwil (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Carwil is twisting human rights issues with racism. The checkpoints in Israel are not inspired by racism, but terrorism. Settlement housing, bypass roads, building permits are again a political issue and not racist. All Israeli citizens use bypass roads, including Arabs, Druze, Jews, whatever. The partisan figures who twist the conflict into a racial campaign are for the most part fringe. Carwil's edits gave an obscene amount of representation for what is otherwise an irrelevant, radical agenda. Not enyclopedic at all. Maybe Dailykos or CounterPunch. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am very happy to acknowledge doubts, disagreements, and dissenting views on all of these issues. This NPOV/N discussion is of course not currently the forum for making sure that the text is eventually compliant. It's specifically attempting to address whether racism (if any) by settlers and soldiers should be included in the article. If something isn't racism, as you argue, it can be excluded for that reason--that debate concerns reliable sources, undue weight, etc. Can we try to address the question raised here, please?--Carwil (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have addressed it explicitly. Carwil, there are no reliable sources that show empirical data proving a systematic or institutionalized campaign of racism among Israeli soldiers and Israeli settlers. It is simply slander and propaganda. Israelis might be racist against Arabs on a personal level, and statistics exist in the pertinent article, but Israelis who work or live in the West Bank (a.k.a Palestinian territories) are irrelevant to the article. They aren't citizens of "Palestine" and would obviously be part of the future-Israel state in the event the Palestinians declare independence. I was simply addressing your silly claims about check points, settlement housing, bypass wrote as predicated on anti-Arabism. Simply hogwash. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikifan, in 1981 the Attorney General of Israel formed a commission of inquiry which confirmed reports that crimes committed by Israeli settlers against persons of Palestinian nationality in the "administered territories" were routinely closed without a proper investigation. The Israeli GPO report was reprinted and is available as "The Karp Report: An Israeli Government inquiry into settler violence against Palestinians on the West Bank", Institute for Palestinian Studies, ISBN 0-88728-141-9. The UN Fact Finding Mission gathered testimony and conducted inquiries which revealed that the same problem still exists in the West Bank today. See paragraphs 1384-1440 starting on page 294 in A/HRC/12/48, 25 September 2009.


 * The contracting state parties to the ICERD agree to accept the competence of the CERD, an elected panel of legal experts, who monitor the implementation of the treaty. The CERD panel of experts stated that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories violated the prohibition against apartheid and similar forms of racial segregation contained in article 3 of the ICERD:"'The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There was a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, was an imperative norm of international law. See CERD/C/SR.1250, 9 March 1998"


 * The CERD has repeated similar observations and concerns in its periodic reviews:"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in particular the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are not only illegal under international law but are an obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population, without distinction as to national or ethnic origin. Actions that change the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territories are also of concern as violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. CERD/C/ISR/CO/13"


 * Wikifan, someone with your block history for violations of WP:NPA really shouldn't be accusing other editors of twisting facts or giving an obscene amount of support to a racial agenda. harlan (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tl:dr. Your sources said nothing about apartheid or racism (against Palestinians), so I don't know where you got that sentence from. Human rights belong in the human rights article. There is very little, if any empirical data or mainstream records of systematic racism/persection of Arabs by Israeli settlers/soldiers simply because they are Arabs. Seem dubious considering 40,000+ Palestinians work in Israeli settlements and make 4x more than they would working in Jordan or Lebanon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, demonstrating both your ignorance of the subject under discussion and a short attention span is certainly no virtue. Either read those long official reports, or stop claiming there are no reports (like the Karp Report) that contain empirical data about racism.


 * The Goldstone report and the CERD each discussed violations of "the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin". The International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination defines "racial discrimination" as any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that impairs the enjoyment of human rights on an equal footing. So, those particular human rights violations certainly belong in articles about racism.


 * The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) said that the establishment of Jewish-only settlements violated the article 3 prohibition against racial segregation, which reflects an imperative norm of international law. They also said those settlements obstructed the enjoyment of human rights by the whole population, on non-discriminatory grounds. Apartheid and similar policies and practices of "racial segregation" (Article 3 CERD) was the definition employed for "the crime of apartheid" (Article 1 ICSPCA).harlan (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said, your original links said nothing about racism or apartheid. If you want to push the radical view that Israel's presence in the WB is inspired by racism, please feel free to speak your mind at the relevant talk discussion. Your issues have no place here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikifan ignorance merely means a person doesn't know yet, stupidity means that person never will. You said too long didn't read. So, it is not a "personal attack" when I mention that your ignorance of the materials does not promote your participation in their discussion. All you have to do is a little reading to remedy the situation.
 * The sources that I cited mention state sponsored policies and practices that violate international law regarding racial segregation and violations of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. Those topics are certainly addressed in the articles on racism in other countries. I don't know what definition of racism you are using, but the Israeli Settlers 'Price Tag' Campaign and "The King's Torah" produced and studied by the settlers of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva fits the bill for most reasonable Israelis ; ;  harlan (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? You obviously have not read 'King's Torah' or know what it is really about so your just harming your credibility with wild claims. The book has nothing to do with racism, let me add a - 'duh' to that. It is merely a study on a particular facet of Judaism from sources in the Torah, the Talmud, and other rabbis. Anyway, a state's handling of citzens of other nationalities is not racism. Arab (self-described Palestinians) citizens can vote, are members of parliament, and ministers in the government. It would be racism iff, Judea and Samaria were annexed and those citzens discriminated against. Since this is not the case, these issues go to the human rights page. --Shuki (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Harlan, I skim. You write a lot and most of it is simply you soaping away. I checked your sources several times before, none even remotely inferred anything about a racial/apartheid policies imposed by Israel in the Palestinian territories. I did not look at your latest refs above, but I'll check them later. IMO you are grasping here. I agree with Shuki on this one, turning an obviously political conflict into a racial one has become a serious campaign among Palestinian leaders so it's no surprise many on the internet are taking the charge. It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't petitioning this at a neutrality board, LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikifan, I'm not petitioning anything. I'm providing sourced material for inclusion in the article. Shuki read the Sasson report and concluded "There is also absolutely no use of the term illegal in the the entire 343 page report." He obviously missed the part where Sasson said "I must emphasize: an unauthorized outpost is not a "semi-legal" outpost. Unauthorized is illegal."
 * I put the relevant portions of the report above in blockquotes and the CERD was explicit that Jewish-only settlements violate the article 3 prohibition on racial segregation an imperative norm of international law. So you must skim about as well as Shuki. harlan (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to cite your sources better. Both UN cites had no references to Israel racism/apartheid even though you continue to say they did, however it did mention prohibition laws but said nothing about Israel. I don't know of any laws that bar Arabs from living in settlements. I know hundreds of Israeli Arabs attend universities that are located in settlement bloc. Any inference to "racism" similar to how Jews are barred from living in a future-Palestine seems to be coming straight from you as an editor. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1) As you back up the page to its origin it was always about Palestinian groups, regime & population ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Palestine_(Arab_Palestinian_regime,_groups,_population) ), as appose to a barrage, a ton of pages already on wikipedia with those claims of "apartheid" nd "racism" [propaganda] on Israel's defense. 2) Even in current redirected page, Palestinian territories are not yet defined, maybe in a future Palestine state (if there will be one) such "territories" can be defined, even occupied or disputed territories are not "Palestinian territories", certainly not de-facto. Please don't add/insert new things before reaching a consensus.RS101 (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RS101, I think you are the only one to address the scope of the article over the weekend (as natural as it is to respond to one another's debating points about the article. I concede(d) that the article began as you describe, but have stated several reasons above why the pattern of Racism in  is better, why Racism in Palestine would have similar problems (and that Racism in Palestine (by Arabs) would necesitate Racism in Palestine (by Israelis)). (see above for my arguments; I think it's fair to say you haven't addressed them, nor has Wikifan.) The concern about the existing articles concerning apartheid and Israel (Israel and the apartheid analogy) is best addressed, I think, by signposting a section with a See also tag, rather than trying to innovate a new division of Racism by country for this particular case. On (2), I think Palestinian territories is most straightfowardly defined in its article.
 * Dear world, your opinion is requested. It's not so fun to have this conversation among involved editors only. That's why we're on the noticeboard in the first place. In exchange, we can perhaps try to keep our sniping to a minimum among ourselves.--Carwil (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, looking across articles such as Roman Catholicism in the Palestinian territories and Tourism in the Palestinian territories, we find a view which considers areas under Israeli and Palestinian government control. This pattern generally applies except for topics exclusively concerned with governance, and despite the potential racism of both government actors in this area, there is clearly racism by non-state actors to be discussed in this article.--Carwil (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Butter village
Could someone have a glance. A new article about a highly sensitive news topic, the recent Sialkot murders; I think it needs editorial oversight for neutrality, OR, etc. 86.172.143.220 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the "neutrality" issue is; could you be a more specific? I've fixed some of the links and references, though (as they were broken). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article seems to suggest the location is notable only for the incident of violence; if this is not true, then the article is non-neutral. Also, the article should state which province, division, etc. (as applicable) of Pakistan the village is located in.  Finally, the article is unencyclopædic in tone, and should be copy-edited.  Bwrs (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been essentially recreated now at the POV title Bhutter Tragedy. Additional review and correction still needed. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry Brünjes and wife - Jacqueline Storey - articles being edited by former's secretary
I'm not sure where the best place to mention this is, but the above articles (and others close to the subject) are being edited by User:Harrybrunjes, who here claims to be her namesake's secretary. I suspect it may be Harry Brunjes himself, due to the user editing Folkington Manor - which is owned by Brunjes... but there's no proof of that. Just thought others should know as the Harry Brünjes article is in danger of becoming a vanity page. The subject is clearly influential in business, but that's not the same as notable in an encyclopaedia. Malick78 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think that editing one's own page is in principle OK, but special care should be taken to keep the material verifiable, notable and neutral. In that sense careful review of edits done by the person in question is probably a good idea, and if something appears amiss, working co-operatively with the involved editor. I recall there was a problem with some American congressmen (or their staff) editing their wikipedia pages, but those edits turned out to be wrong based on normal wiki policies so it didn't really matter who'd done them. --Dailycare (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalia article dominated by Anarchist/Libertarian/Austrian economics interpretations
This is a repost of my summary of the issue in the talk page of Somalia:

I have looked through the revision history. This article has been edited in a blatantly biased fashion by Middayexpress in particular, but also by a few others as well. This user, and a number of others, carry a clear anarchist or Austrian economic bias. I understand their frustrations, because these ideas are generally left out of evaluations of relevant subject matter, which is not only unwarranted, but often done in a non-civil manner. Nonetheless, that does not justify this kind of misinformation.

On the other hand, a number of edits have also been made by those biased by government, indeed, those who may have never even considered any other viewpoint due to the prevalence of pro-government viewpoints in western cultures that surely dominate this English-speaking page.

Firstly, Somalia is indeed in abject poverty by modern standards ($600 per capita GDP). Economic growth rates are far slower than many other countries that also have less than lucrative economies. Evidently, the Somalian economy is not as strong as this article mentions. Of course, the economy is not a complete failure either, but that does not mean that abridging these facts is acceptable. Stating that the economy is relatively stable is fine, and indeed, more accurate. Certainly, it is also unacceptable to have the nation painted as a chaotic mess that consequently has economic failure (if any point along a pro-government viewpoint could be made, it is that a capitalist, national government system would produce more economic growth for the country as a whole).

At the very least, anarchists should acknowledge that Somalia has a failed state, because state is another word for government. On that note, the notion of the failure of a state being the measure of success of a society is also clearly fallacious. However, somalian society has also failed in the sense that there is war in the south, extreme poverty, and only mild growth. Accounts that do not acknowledge the partial success of the Somalian system are in error. Regardless, the society is not abdicated of its failures because its partial success.

A few other things to look into are: whether or not investment is low because most businesspeople do not believe in anarchy, and whether that could be a source of minimal growth; whether there is actual growth after accounting for inflation; whether there is any more in-depth analysis of the economy of Somalia, and not just from Austrian economists; and just how strong the economic growth is in the north.

A more accurate viewpoint than simply viewing Somalia as either a chaotic failed nation or an imperfect success story of anarchism with an only so far unresolved southern civil war would be to realize that it is more like two nations than one. We also should recognize that at the level of the entire world, there essentially is anarchy (no government that controls the whole world. The UN has very minor power, and that's it). There is no anarchy in Somalia, no more than the world, and we are really just talking about different levels of government on a hierarchy of size and power. Many other "nations" have had civil wars in parts of itself, systems sort of like anarchy, weak federal governments, economic prosperity in sections with failures somewhere else. In fact, central governments are not all encompassing, and the same kinds of divisions exist even in countries we see as run by a government. Often, even in highly centralized nations, the government is powerless in a number of ways. Limitations of government power written into law in many Western "democracies" also help to ensure that in those nations.

Still, there are major failures, and downplaying the failures of Somalia is obscuring the suffering of people in Somalia, preventing sympathy or action. Knowledge is in the first place something we have to benefit humanity. Obstructing that benefit in one case generalizes to all cases. Doing so for just for the sake of an argument on government systems is very selfish.

Further, regardless of whether or not this article is empathetic enough given the purpose of knowledge, the editorial standards of Wikipedia require neutrality. This article is not neutral. It needs to be made neutral. That means a solution that is neutral both to anarchist and government viewpoints, instead focusing more on empirical realities of Somalia. An editor that can see outside their own viewpoint needs to step up and revise this article, or a current editor needs to learn how to step outside their own viewpoint. Further biased edits by either side should be considered as vandalism.

To add to that, NPOV states that the most major viewpoints should comprise the page. Austrian economics is a fringe viewpoint, and should not dominate the Somalia page. It would be fair to have a section for the Austrian interpretation, though.

Nikurasu (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see Economy of Somalia and Anarchy in Somalia; both seem to be pushing an anarcho-capitalist POV. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Repost of my Talk:Somalia comments) I want to point out that a POV regarding free-market economics, etc. was pointed out more than five years ago by myself and others. Note that this precedes Middayexpress' involvement with Wikipedia by several years. I think the article reads better than it did where economics are concerned. Not to say it couldn't be better, just that I don't detect the same slant that once existed. See old discussions at Talk:Somalia/Archive 1 and Talk:Somalia/Archive 1. My $0.02, Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How to describe what seems to be a majority
This sort of thing happens a lot: I cannot find a source that says "A majority of experts believe X." I can't find any reliable statements of prevalence at all. But, there sure seems to be a prevelance. What's the best way to report this in an article? Terms like "most" or "majority" are original research. Noloop (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read a source that says X
 * I find another source that says X
 * Scouting around, not looking for any POV in particular, I find several sources that say X
 * I find little dissent from the view that X is true.
 * This is an excellent question. The case you describe is a bit easier than the more complex case where you find, say, 5 sources that say X and then 2 sources that say Y (where X and Y are mutually exclusive). But in your case, depending a bit on the case (details always tend to turn on the facts of the case) options might include " ... is X", " ... is considered to be X" or " ... is considered by many, but not all, experts to be X". These are supported by the sources you've found (in increasing order of dissent found), but I agree that if you find in addition to those a source that says "the consensus position is X" then things get a lot easier. What kind of ideas have you come up with? --Dailycare (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DUE vs UNDUE at Libertarianism
Please note that an RfC is running at Libertarianism. Basically, the dispute seems to regard whether any mention of certain understandings of libertarianism are completely Undue within an article entitled "Libertarianism", versus the idea that policy demands that Due weight be given to the varying understandings of libertarianism which are found in reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC closed with decision to accord Due weight. BigK HeX (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and Chris Mathews
I noticed that Glenn Beck is referred to as a "conservative" yet there is no label for Chris Mathews. It seems to me that he should be labeled "liberal" if labels are being dished out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.204.56 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Glenn Beck labels himself as conservative, and is widely considered to be a conservative pundit by sources. Chris Mathews makes no such claims about being liberal, and here is no such preponderance of sources that identify him as such.  Wikipedia doesn't put labels on people because we think they should have one; we report the way people are identified in sources.   do you have any reason to believe that outside sources largely consider CM to be liberal (the way they consider, say, the journalists at Democracy Now! to be progressives)?  -- Ludwigs 2  21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhhh...how about this? –CWenger (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Fox Nation cannot possibly be considered a reliable, neutral source by any conceivable standard. It's a place for conservatives to espouse opinion, not a news site. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about MSNBC's own transcript of the show? –CWenger (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a primary source. It would be better to see a preponderance of secondary sources (such as newspaper articles) writing about it. To be honest, labels like these are unwelcome in all BLPs. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We can deal with this on the Chris Matthews talk page. But I think the original point is well taken. –CWenger (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hooth
The article Hooth contained only a single line for some quite time. but a paragraph has been added by an IP address.

The paragraph includes all Rind orgin tribes as Hooth origin without any references. It is well established that these tribes are of Rind origin.

Furthermore I want someone to look at the paragraph itself. the paragraph does not actually discuss Hooth tribe but some fictional characters. It is also written in a very non neutral and repitive tone.

OmerKhetran (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't encyclopedic, whatever the content. I reverted back to before the links were removed in february. — kwami (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Keio University
Disagreement over the presentation of Keio University's academic rankings. Please read discussion section for further details. This seems to be a long-standing dispute, as many sections within the talk page refer to possible academic boosterism. There exists 2 different versions of the edits that keep on getting reverted. I would like an expert on POV to review both versions, review the talk page, and provide input as to how to resolve this.--ScorchingPheonix (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement
There has been a continued attempt by various editors to use various polls to paint the Tea Party movement. It had reached a mostly stable version including most of the polls in order to avoid cherry picked specific polls to promote one point of view, however this section was still quite long and a violation of MOS.

Subsequentaly this section was condensed to Three polls in order to conform to MOS. However, this version was a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE focusing only on the most negative aspects. The synthesis was the reporting on a UW poll limited to the State of Washington and presenting the information as if it were representative of the entire population of the US. Washington State has less than 2.5% of the US population, thus the poll was representative of less than 2.5% of the US, yet it was given preference over national polling. A second UW poll/study (limited to 7 US states) was also included, again providing a view which does not neccessarily represent the majority of Tea Party impressions.

Thus the section was now limited to 3 polls, two of which were from the same source, and two of which were not even national polls, this is a violation of NPOV (in the information that is being taken from the polls and point of view from the polls), and Undue weight (Two polls from one source, and two polls which don't represent a majority of the US population). Arzel (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at your before (stable) and after (condensed) versions, and it appears you are mistaken when you state, "Thus the section was now limited to 3 polls". All 9 original polls are still present and cited in both versions, but the editor who did the condensing appears to have also sorted those poll results into headered subsections by type.  You'll find your missing polling data in the section just above where you linked. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We are going to have to split the difference on this one. The "stable" version I listed had nine polls from 8 outlets (CBS, Gallup, CNN, Quin, UW (Wiser), Bloomberg, Rasmussen, and Angus all with relatively equal weight.  The new version has 5 (CBS, Gallup, Bloomberd, Quin, and both UW).  However they are not treated equally.
 * CBS/NY Times - Cited - 71, 72, 73, 75, 80, 81, 82, 85, 89
 * QUINN - Cited - 74, 77, 83, 84
 * Bloomberg - Cited - 86
 * Gallop - Cited - 78
 * UW Wiser - 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94
 * Note, UW Wiser study (as refered) is a 7 state non-random-stratified (states selected were not randomly selected) poll/study. UW Poll/study is limited to only the state of Washington.
 * Three polls (outlets) are now given far more weight than any others, and the one poll limited to one state has 4 citations (87, 88, 90, 91). Furthermore, that section (which I am referring) is being used to define the entire movement, even though far less than half of the movement was in the sampling frame.  Arzel (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Could an Admin please comment on this discussion. One specific problem in the section that Xenophrenic continues to make is the following.

The following paragraph contains a patently untrue statement which is not backed up by the study which is being cited. (emphasis mine)

"A number of polls have also been conducted to examine Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with just 11% of the general public and are more likely to believe President Obama was born outside the United States. [77] 74% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement '[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it.'[79][80]"

The highlighted sentence does not make the distinction that the survey was of Washington State Tea Party Supporters. The sourcing for the section does not really make it clear either, and to be fair Prof. Matt Barreto and Prof. Christopher Parker do an absolutely terrible job of pointing this out either. However from the actual poll you can clearly see that this is a poll of Washington State voters. I don't think that this poll should be used for the above reasons, however if it is to be in there in any capacity then it must be noted from who the poll was taken. The implication from the text as Xenophrenic has selected is that the poll is representative of Tea Party Supporters throughout the US. I am going to cross-post this at ANI as well. Arzel (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole idea of juxtaposing a poll on a racial issue which has nothing to do with the topic with the content of this article is pure OR and an attempt at Ad hominem smear tactics.  That's like including, in an article on the Democratic Party, a poll on the acceptance of the concept of sex with animals in Democrats vs. the population as a whole, and then looking for percentage differences to cover.  Again, in Wikipedia terms, it's pure OR and an attempt at Ad Hominmen smear tactics; the whole concept has no place in the article and should be dropped.  North8000 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This content dispute continues to be discussed on Talk:Tea Party movement. Any interested parties should feel free to join in there. --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mono (software)
I'm trying to get resolution on this section. I propose deleting the section entirely. This has been discussed on the talk section there is general consensus, appart from seemingly one person (who frequently posts not logged in, but this has been established), who considers removal of this section to be a slur on the FSF.

My reason for removal is that the patent warning originates from just one source, the FSF. There are other articles that comment on the FSF's statements but none which provide further evidence that this is an opinion held widely in the software community. In addition there are numerous other pieces of software and hardware that the FSF have made statements about however I have not been able to find any others that have a reference to this in their pages. For example: iPhone, Windows, Java_(programming_language)

Dave.hillier (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The user who posted this request (User:Dave.hillier), is a known Mono apologist, and is not to be trusted when concerning serious issues, like whenever Mono is safe to use or not. The thing is, all free software C# implementations are not too safe because of patent issues with C#, even after the Microsoft Community Promise was released. Additionally, Jeremy Allison, the creator of Samba, agrees that Mono isn't safe (see his ZDnet article, Mono Mania: It's Risky Business for more info), and he's definitely a member of the free software community, so there's some good info for you. 76.201.154.32 (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what being a known Mono apologist is or why I should not be trusted. The only piece of evidence that the user has is that I have tried to edit the above page. I was just trying to correct what I saw as biased POV. I read the guidance on this section and thought I could contribute towards wikipedia by removing this unbalanced section. The anonymous user has never established why this is different to the precedents that I mention. Dave.hillier (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone, a Mono apologist is someone who goes out of their way to support Mono. They support biased (towards them) sources like de Icaza's blog, they remove or diss anything or anybody that is not in favor of Mono (eg: Techrights and The Source, two known anti-Mono sites), and they can even support outright lies if they want to. The behavior of User:Dave.hiller is somewhat like a Mono apologist, in the way that he wants to remove something that criticizes Mono. They also attempt to move the goalposts very often as well. Other known Mono apologists are User:NovellGuy and User:BrianRandal. Just remember that the apologists are dumb and will treat facts as personal attacks (take my statement about all smears against the FSF are all FUD on the discussion page of Mono (software), it was treated as an personal attack by User:BrianRandal) 76.201.154.32 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments above conflict with WP:CIVIL and I have left a warning at User talk:76.201.154.32. This section is for commenting on the issue, and further attacks on other editors will be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated in my talk page, I should never mention known apolgists in that statement, but you can tell the aplogists from the rest if you read my signs (and one more thing: they think that de Icaza's blog is credible, in which it is really not, since it's filled to the brim with pro-Mono stuff.) 76.201.154.32 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As a completely uninvolved editor, I think the information in the section "Free Software Foundation's warnings" could easily be trimmed and merged with the parent section "Mono and Microsoft’s patents". There seems to be plenty of sources for the content and I imagine in the C#/Mono programming world these events are notable. However it seems to me that the current layout may give undue weight to both the issue and to the Free Software Foundation's part in it. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is when I tried to remove the section, it hit a revert bot heuristic Dave.hillier (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The wider problem is that section is the only bit (as far as I can see) that is sourced to independent reliable sources, the rest is to project pages and to blogs. If reliable sources aren't talking about large elements of this, why are we?--Cameron Scott (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you mean, can you be more specific? For the most part, the information is facts about Mono. This section is opinion, or perhaps you are talking about something unrelated? Dave.hillier (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what he's saying is that this section is the only section (I haven't verified) that references sources that are not blogs/project pages. However, it should be noted that the independent reliable sources (which I've marked below in the list) all counter the claim made by Richard Stallman on his organization's noticeboard saying that Mono is somehow legally unsafe. In other words, the flow of the section is like this:
 * Richard Stallman's post claiming that Mono is unsafe because of some vague fear of patent threats by Microsoft
 * (Independent reliable source) An announcement by Microsoft and Novell about their agreement not to sue each others customers over patents
 * Richard Stallman's post claiming that Microsoft is probably going to sue Mono over patents
 * (Independent reliable source) Announcement by Microsoft saying that they have put ECMA 334 & 335 under their Community Promise not to sue over patents (which counters Richard Stallman's previous warnings)
 * A followup by Richard Stallman saying that the Community Promise is not good enough (because it doesn't cover areas like XPath and regex which are not part of ECMA 334/335)
 * A link to an email by Miguel de Icaza pointing out that the XPath and regex have a lot of prior art and that Mono is not the only Free Software to implement these things
 * (Independent reliable source) A link to Canonical's Position Statement regarding Mono saying there are no valid legal threats on Mono
 * (Independent reliable source) A link to a news article with an interview of the Fedora project leader saying "We haven't come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out."
 * The last 2 links, especially, suggest that the community in general are not agreeing with Richard Stallman and so, as Colincbn has suggested, the section gives undue weight to Richard Stallman's statements.
 * Cameron Scott, correct me if I have misinterpreted your statement.
 * My thoughts are that this section is inappropriate because:
 * it is FUD (as clearly shown by the Canonical Position Statement and by the interview with the Fedora project leader, and by Miguel de Icaza's email)
 * no piece of software is completely safe from patents and yet Mono is the only piece of software I can find on Wikipedia that has such a section without having been involved in a patent lawsuit first (Dalvik does have a section, but it is currently involved in a patent lawsuit and even so, includes no opinion or vague patent fears, just the facts).
 * Thanks for your time. BrianRandal (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well from what I can see it is irrelevant whether the claims are in fact a valid reason not to use Mondo or not. If the claims, however spurious, have been made and covered in second party news outlets or other cite-able places we should add that the claims have been made. If others have disputed the validity of the claims we simply add that too. In fact it seems like both sides are already there, I just think the section needs trimming to more accurately represent the level of importance the claims have. Also if there is a much more prevalent opinion one way or the other that opinion should be put forth as the dominant view. Just because there are those arguing against the majority view does not mean the non-majority view deserves equal standing in the article. This is not a violation of NPOV; this is what the policy on undue weight calls for. Colincbn (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, I guess the conclusion is to leave the article as it is, and add that Jeremy Allison news article to that page (the Mono-mania one) 76.201.154.32 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding more undue weight to the patent fear claims is appropriate, especially since the dominant view is that it isn't a problem, otherwise Canonical (which is the dominant player in the Linux Desktop space), for example, would not be shipping it by default. Keep in mind that both the Canonical representative and the Fedora representative clearly got legal advise before making their statements which adds a lot of weight to their credibility. Thanks. BrianRandal (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of the article contains facts about Mono. This section is about an organisations opinion about Mono. This section gives undue weight to that opinion because:
 * It is the opinion of one organisation.
 * Each point is clearly debunked.
 * The ironic thing is, this section actually does a pretty good job of debunking the FSFs opinion. Surely someone as an advocate of the FSF you wouldn't want a section like that left in? Dave.hillier (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Earlier today I recalled something about the OIN pledging to protect Mono against patent attacks and did a search. What I came up with was not only that the OIN does include Mono on the list of software that they will protect from patent attacks, but also a reference to the Fedora Project Leader (from back in 2006) who claims to have gotten legal advise from Red Hat's patent lawyers claiming that they now felt that Mono was "safe". Fedora and Mono and OIN — clarifications. The list of software that the OIN will protect seems to be private, but I think it's safe to say that Red Hat (who is a founder of the OIN) would be privy to that list. Added to the fact that they very clearly got advise from their lawyers, who concluded it was safe, speaks far more volumes than non-lawyers such as Richard Stallman and Jeremy Allison ever could. Also note that Red Hat's proverbial is on the line if they are wrong and so it is unlikely that Red Hat's lawyers are claiming that Mono is safe without being confidant that they are right. Stallman's/Allison's opinions, on the other hand, do not come with any repercussions if they are wrong. BrianRandal (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Mono?
What is different about Mono, such that it requires commentary from the FSF in its article? There are plenty of other subjects the FSF has commented about, but there is no mention in their articles Dave.hillier (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never thought that the "other articles argument" was the best way of resolving content disputes. For one thing, if there is some info that should be in the article but is new information it will by default not be in any other articles because it is new. Using the above rational it would never be included just because it is not included yet. Kind of a circular argument.
 * I prefer to work using Verifiability as my barometer of whether content should be added or not. Also I think people are confusing whether the FSF is "right" or not with whether the statements are verifiable; not verifiably true, just verifiably said. It does not matter at all whether or not the concerns raised by the FSF are in fact things worth being concerned about. It only matters whether or not they did make the statements and whether those statement were covered by third-party sources. Now we must also remember Undue weight and not give the issue more coverage than is warranted. In this case I would have to deffer to others with more knowledge of the subject to determine what amount of coverage, if any, is appropriate. But from what I can see here, a small one or two paragraph section is most likely sufficient. Of course the section should also cover the verifiable statements made in opposition to the FSF's statements. Colincbn (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood and thanks for the comments so far Colin. What I'm getting from this discussion is that, other than perhaps reworking the content of this subsection to read a bit more coherently (by maybe combining the FSF statements together?), the content as a whole should stay the way it is. I guess I'm ok with that if everyone else is. BrianRandal (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Arborsculpture has been given WP:UNDUE weight on Tree shaping
Tree shaping

To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI (an artist in this field), I have already tried to address this issue by both asking Colonel Warden (an editor with different views to me about how alternative names should be used in articles.) User_talk:Colonel_Warden to find a way to create a more balanced view and starting a discussion on the Talk:Tree_shaping. I didn't edit the article itself as I knew it would be contested and didn't want an edit war.

The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article to the number of reliable and verifiable references. Arborsculpture also has the issue in that it is not a neutral wording as it was created by a still living person (Richard Reames/self outed user Slowart) and strongly associated with him still. Google Arborsculpture and it leads to Richard Reames or his books.

Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet this is not reflected in the article. There are other alternative names with references, that are not even in the article yet. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Article before the extra insertions of Arborsculpture. Please note how the word Arborsculpture has since been inserted though out the article. Article as last edit

When it was pointed out with this list Looking at the evidence supplied for Arborsculpture that arborsculpture is not a neutral name. Martin replied with "Many references lead back to Richard Reames, that is just too bad, he happened to coin the term that most people use to describe this subject. Get over it." Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Martin was one of the editors for changing the title to Arborsculpture. For Martin's full comment go to the above link.

I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears to frequently throughout the article based on the number of reliable verifiable references. I have been unable to get the editors who created the changes to justify the amount of times Arborsculpture has been included WP:UNSOURCED I've asked that it be proven that Richard Reames is an expert and received no evidence that he is, yet the bulk of the references for arborsculpture hinge on Richard Reames being an expert.

What I am asking for is outside editors to look at the article before the survey and the article as it is now. Here is where I have been giving my reasoning that arborsculpture has to much weight. Please give an opinion about the amount of weight that has been given to Arborsculpture on Tree shaping. Blackash  have a chat 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was one of several completely neutral uninvolved editors who came to the page as a result of an RfC. One of my first actions was to suggest that Blackash, who has a strong and obvious conflict of interest, and Richard Reames( editing as Slowart) who also has a conflict of interest should withdraw from the discussion and let the uninvolved editors decide what to do.  Slowart agreed to do that but Blackash continued to push her own viewpoint.  Several new editors agreed that she has a conflict of interest and should withdraw from the discusion.


 * What Blackash is doing here is to try to push her case to a new set of uninvolved editors in the hope of finding some who will support her opinion. Please look at the article and talk page history. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an explanation of the issue, Martin. I would not call you neutral anymore because in some instances you have made shows of support in the article talkspace without contributing additional points or arguments.
 * I see hostility on this board against user:Blackash. There are good arguments in place by Blackash and others, and perhaps the counterarguments are good also, but they too frequently contain rude language.  I posted something; it could use other uninvolved editors' viewpoints also.  Blue Rasberry  15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin you asked here for me not to comment and that lead to some editors doing a Requested move.
 * The weight that Arborsculpture has received since this requested move, has not been discussed before. Claiming a COI is not the way wikipeidia handles content disputes. How to handle COI quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.") Blackash   have a chat 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have responded to Bluerasberry on the talk page in question about "being nice". On the topic of undue weight, I would like to point out several things. The first is that I don't care about "tree shaping/arborsculpture/pleaching/etc." I only ever based my opinions on WP policy. The term "Tree Shaping" commonly refers to something besides what this article is about. Here is something Martin wrote that unfortunately got buried in the course of all of the discussion going on: I have explained individually to editors that 'tree shaping' is a common term for the standard arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain their natural shape. For those still in doubt have a look at these links, all found from a quick Google search of 'Tree shaping arborist'. Note the url of the first one one www.treeshapers.com search on each page for 'shaping'. There are plenty more.


 * This is my only problem with the term. As AfD Hero stated when he made the original page move (with zero discussion and no consensus) he chose the name because some people had used it and it seemed neutral. That is fine, but it means something else. I don't really care if the page gets renamed to arborsculpture, I only support that because of this which specifically says: If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
 * As far as I can see this is a cut and dry case that WP has a perfect answer to, I don't do this craft, I don't know anyone who does, I have never read any of the books or other media on how to do it, I honestly do not care. I have just been pointing out WP policy.
 * As for How to handle COI, you are of course completely correct. I have avoided going that route as I was hoping all the editors who have a commercial interest in the name of this craft would recuse themselves from the conversation, most have. I do not like conflict and a particularly don't like conflict when it becomes personal, but I now see it may be time to start the process outlined on the CoI page. Colincbn (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed this a few weeks ago and commented on the article talk page, but haven't given it attention since. For the record, I support Colincbn's statement above. I am not in any way connected with this field, but I have seen professionals carry out "tree shaping", and it was exactly what Colincbn stated above: tree pruning done by someone with a clue, in order that the tree will be more manageable in a suburban setting, while still looking attractive as a tree. It may be true that in some corner of the world, the dispute about the names "Arborsculpture" and "Tree shaping" is significant, but it is nonsense to bring that dispute to Wikipedia (is there a reliable source stating that the different names are disputed in the real world in a significant manner?). The Tree shaping article is actually about arborsculpture, and the fact that the article is still called "Tree shaping" is due to the confusion caused by COI editors. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with both Colincbn & Johnuniq, in particular regarding the fact that tree shaping means something else. Common English unambiguous usage policy dictates the title arborsculpture and the continued usage of the commonly accepted term for the specific craft detailed, as do the reliable sources that cover the topic, as does the policy on article titles, referenced by Colincbn above and in my comment on the talk page. Please carefully study the sourcing. Expunging the word violates all these policies, and defies good sense. I have also commented on the talk page for Tree shaping, below the odd admonition to be nice.
 * Blackash has not got a potential conflict of interest, but an actual, real-world conflict with one of the other involved editors (the coiner of the word that so offends; a professional rival to Blackash, a multiple-subject editor, who has rightly stood down from influencing the discussion of this article's content, per policy). Her conflict and antics have been fully disclosed and detailed in the article's talk page history, and far predate my editing of the article. The dynamics of her position and actions are complex, but transparent upon careful study, and I'll not act as if the evidence for that doesn't exist, nor as if the overbearing nature of her continued editing pressure is acceptable or preferred to diligently vetted citations from reliable sources. I've read the COI policy too, and it's clear, but hasn't struck Blackash yet as applicable to her actions here, multiple editors' gentle and not so gentle reminders notwithstanding. Sometimes, after many gentle and artful reminders, the only approach left is a very direct, even a blunt one. Sorry for that, but this is one of those cases. I'm not writing her book for her; I'm editing an encyclopedia.   d u f f   05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC.

As someone new to wiki, I am glad to see this on the noticeboard. I made three comments on the talk page and ended up being in a sockpuppet conflict.

There seems to be a group of editors that work like a tag team and attack editors who don't agree with them and have been successfully holding the page. Are these editors paid lobbists?

I came to wiki to seek knowledge about tree training as I have read Richard Reams books and have not had success with these projects.I have finally found what I've been looking for and it is in Blackash's sandbox. Good work - Blackash- Well done.

I believe that the article needs involved editors who are experts in the field and know what they are doing and have photos of their recent work to support the article. Drawings do not do this because drawings represent what people think trees will do or how they they would like trees to be shaped. The editors who state they are uninvolved need to learn about the subject so their edits are contain the right information, instead of creating misinformation for the encyclopeadia.

The article had great photos that I have mentioned on the discussion page but were removed and not posted back up. This inaction I feel is a put down to Blackash. Blackash has every right to use the talk page and Blackash has not edited for quite a while and has copped a far bit of colourful language.

Labelling the art form "arborsculpture " is similar to having your piece of artwork signed by another artist and it implies that all treetraining is done by the arborsculpture method which does'nt work as well as other methods, if at all(as there are no current photos of the arborsculpture.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Sydney Bluegum. To repeat good advice "put the Sock-puppet investigation behind you. Try working on articles other than the one you have joined Wikipedia to "seek knowledge" about, at least until you have some experience. Please read WP:MEAT and note that if you have been solicited privatively to say anything here, it is unethical to continue. If your comments have come from your own motivation and thoughts then you are welcome to be here.
 * There are no paid lobbyist here. Being unsuccessful while using a book is irrelevant. Sometimes editors just agree with one another, there are some 41 editors watching the page, it is in good hands. Arborsculpture is the label that WP:IRS use to refer to the art. Your argument is with the reliable sources, not with the article.Slowart (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading "How to grow a chair" I grew a tool handle in 2000. It was an axe. I harvested it in 2005. When I dried it the head was loose after a couple of chops the head fell off. Is bark soft? and Does drying wood shrink? Richard do your tool handles work? They are on the article as useful and given prominence.
 * I did not appreciate your advice. I have been following your advice from your books for several years now and havent had any success.I do not want to edit anywhere else as I am involved in "The Days of Our Arborsculpture" or is it "Tree Training.
 * Am I a meat puppet? I am sick of your accusations. The four seconds was clear to me   Sydney Bluegum (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sydney Bluegum yes wood shrinks, and both the bark and sap wood are soft. This would cause the results in problems you have reported. Blackash   have a chat 13:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the problem
Some facts that seem to keep being left out Pro arborsculpture title team have changed this discussion yet again to be about the title, I'm specifically asking for opinions about the amount of weight given to the word the arborsculpture in the article considering:- Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet this is not reflected in the article. There are other alternative names with references, that are not even in the article yet. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. Article before the extra insertions of Arborsculpture. Please note how the word Arborsculpture has since been inserted though out the article. Article as last edit
 * Tree shaping has been used as the name for this art form generically and descriptively before the title change at Tree shaping. At Duff request I found 9 books that used the term before the name change. (list here) and has continued to be used, references with quotes
 * Arborsculpture appears in 5 books
 * 2 are self published by Richard Reames creator of the word. (user Slowart) and WP:SPS applies to these books.
 * 1 book titled Tricks with trees the authors talk about the name for the art form, quote "It hasn't got a name: Richard Reames calls it arborsculpture, which doesn't exactly fly out the mouth;"
 * 2 use the word generically but I also suggest Tree trunk topiary.
 * Tree training has also been used in a generic sense references with quotes yet it is not even on the page as alternative name.
 * Words are commonly used for more than one definition, which is why wikipedia has disambiguation pages.
 * AfD hero tried to engage in open discussion about creating an disambiguation page here and here but the Pro arborsculpture title team where not open to discussion.
 * I have repeatedly asked for evidence that Richard Reames is an expert and haven't received any.

I believe that the word Arborsculpture appears too frequently throughout the article based on the number of reliable verifiable references. I have been unable to get the editors who created the changes to justify the amount of times Arborsculpture has been included WP:UNSOURCED I've asked that it be proven that Richard Reames is an expert and received no evidence that he is, yet the bulk of the references for arborsculpture hinge on Richard Reames being an expert.

What I am asking for is outside editors to look at the article before the survey and the article as it is now. Here is where I have been giving my reasoning that arborsculpture has to much weight. Please give an opinion about the amount of weight that has been given to Arborsculpture on Tree shaping. Blackash  have a chat 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already commented on this article. In the past I thought that the word "arborsculpture" is used too much.  Proponents of the word seem to say that it is an equivalent term for "tree shaping" and other terms and yet seem to object when a less controversial term is used.  In the "before" version you post above the word "arborsculpture" is used 8 times and in the "after" version it is used 15 times.  Since the word "arborsculpture" is controversial, associated with the work of a particular Wikipedia editor currently working on the article, and has not been in common use before 1995; and since alternatives like "tree shaping" are supported by minimally reasonable arguments and, in my opinion, are more intuitively understandable as generic terms for a practice which has occurred throughout history in many different cultures, I would support changing most instances of the word "arborsculpture" to something else.  Whatever the title of the article is would be the best choice for the large majority of the usage throughout the article.  Blue Rasberry  00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard Reams in not working on this article. He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content. Although he does (rarely) post to talk pages and discussions like this one. Blackash, one of his competitors, does work on the article. Personally I feel she has done some excellent work and the article is much better off for it. I also happen to think she is biased about the name of the craft because it affects her commercial interests, and therefore she should leave the one particular point to other editors to work out. She has also brought up this article's name on other websites as "proof" that tree shaping is the "official" name because WP uses it. I feel that is a blatant misuse of WP to further her own monetary gain. (also tree shaping means something else) Colincbn (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As of today, no one has edited the article since July 23, more than two weeks ago. The history shows that Richard Reams, user:slowart, edited the article between July 11 and 14 to include his own pictures, bearing his name, from his commercial work, with links to his homepage. User:blackash last edited the article on June 21 with a note to not change the WP:STATUSQUO and to take controversial changes to the talk page; I commend this kind of edit.  Both editors have used the talk page since then, and I do not think anyone is objecting to that.  Whenever there is a problem, it is proper for an editor to turn things over to uninvolved editors, such as blackash is doing by coming to this board.
 * You have made a serious accusation against user:Blackash and a strange defense for user:slowart considering his behavior and it is not obvious to me what you mean, when it looks to me like user:slowart is promoting his commercial interests and user:blackash is asking for discussion. What are you seeing that I am not seeing that allows you to say what you have said?  Blue Rasberry  17:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I donated and placed my own photos of Erlandson's work to this page because the other were really poor. I donated some photos of my work on request, did I do something bad ? Slowart (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, slowart, the actions you took which I described above were not bad and I apologize if I what I wrote made it seem that way. I think user:Colincbn is being naughty because - if I understand him correctly - he is saying that you quit editing the article (and it is quite okay for you to continue to edit the article) and that user:blackash continued to edit the article after you quit (which she did not, but it would have been okay if she had).  There are many ways this issue could be discussed, but unless someone truly is engaged in "blatant misuse of WP" as Colincbn says, I would prefer to talk about article content and not anyone's character.  You do link to your website in the file info for the edits you made, and that's terrific, and I wish more professionals like you would get involved in editing Wikipedia articles pertaining to their fields.  The only problem - and this has nothing to do with you or your behavior - is that Colincbn has suggested that this discussion about the merits of using various terms within an article be converted to a discussion about how user blackash is interested in advertising some commercial interest while you have not done anything which can be construed as such.  Please do not mind me; for now I just want to listen to Colincbn because I want to know how he came to think as he does.  Blue Rasberry  03:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to personally attack me when all I have done is point out WP policy? I like Blackash, I have edited her sandbox to help make her edits more WP friendly. I also like Slowart. I think the craft is interesting and if I had the time and space I would love to give it a try. I think Blackash has contributed great work to the article and I am glad she is here to do it. I think the fact that she edits to try and remove the word arborsculpture and then, on outside webpages, points to the fact that the WP article does not use the word is an obvious misuse of WP. Why is that "naughty"? Is basing your decisions on policy rather than emotion bad??? If you think that is so by all means start a RfCU on me, I would love to see how that turns out. Colincbn (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way here is one example of what I am talking about: Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames's method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. Wikipedia Tree shaping You may be also interested in visiting this website tree shapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.


 * This came from the website here. There are more examples like this around the web, all you have to do is look for them. Colincbn (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is another from this website:"Hi this is Becky from Pooktre. In relpy to splatgirl about Formally, it's called 'Arborsculpture' This is incorrect. Arborsculpture does not represent the art form as a whole. It relates to a tree shaping method of Richard Reames. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping Also the couple of books you mention on the subject of Arborsculpture are written by Richard Reames who created the word Arborsulpture. You may be also interested in visiting this website http://www.treeshapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world."


 * Or how about this? How is this anything but a misuse of her position as a WP editor??? Colincbn (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And one more just for good-measure. I could do this all day but it is late here (Japan) and I need to get to bed. Colincbn (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry- Richard Reams/Griseum/Slowart, Duff, Colincbn, Martin Hogbin and Quiddity. This group of editors fully support Arborsculpture and have their eyes closed to the fact that Arborsculpture leads to Richard Reams, the gate keeper. Just google it to seeSydney Bluegum (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not support the term "Arborsculpture". I support Wikipedia Policy. This Policy specifically says that the article name should have remained "the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub". It also states that before the title was changed the new title should have been advertised at Requested Moves, and consensus reached. This did not happen. That is all I care about. I do not, in anyway, have any interest in this craft whatsoever (although it does seem interesting). I only became involved in this debate after following a Request for Comment. I could see that WP has a very clearly defined policy where issues like this are concerned and have simply been pointing it out. As for my issues with Blackash, I feel that my statements above clearly show that she is using WP as a tool to further her off-wiki activities. And that is strictly forbidden. Just look | here for more examples than you could possibly need to see my point. Colincbn (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sydney Bluegum - Blackash is the only person who believes, or has ever claimed, that Griseum is the same editor as Slowart/Reames. There is no evidence to support this conclusion, just Blackash's "hunch". See User_talk:Deskana (archive) for the last thread discussing this. Please don't repeat such insinuations, that have no evidence/proof. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm Intresting Quiddity you really should have linked to the sockpuppet investigation which was closed on Ip data, not behavioral evidence, even though I stated that the evidence was behavioral and not IP. Blackash   have a chat 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I linked to "the last thread discussing this", wherein you linked to the SPI and also elaborated on your theory.
 * Both Griseum and Slowart have edited more recently than the close of the SPI, so you should be able to establish fresh technical evidence.
 * Or, you could point out the mistake that was made in the SPI that Special:Contributions/208.91.143.205 has never edited, and Special:Contributions/208.91.143.250 is what was meant. (The mistake is probably based on your initial mis-transcription of the number, as .205 instead of .250 ...) (Nobody appears to have mentioned or noticed that. Now do you see how easy it is to make mistakes with reading IP numbers?)
 * Hence the explanation that Griseum saw the 208.xx.xx.xx and leapt to the conclusion that it was his 208.59.xx.xx IP you were confounding as "Reames", rather than the 208.91.xx.xx that really was Slowart/Reames.
 * Or you could simply compare their editing/writing styles, and see how different they are... -- Quiddity (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Feeling lost
My behavior has been inappropriate and I have told Colincbn as much on my talk page. There must be a lot about this issue which I do not understand and I am feeling lost.

Here is part of what User:Colincbn said which stood out most to me above on this noticeboard. (user:slowart) in not working on this article. He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content. Although he does (rarely) post to talk pages and discussions like this one. Blackash, one of his competitors, does work on the article. ... She has also brought up this article's name on other websites as "proof"...

I immediately took that to mean that User:Colincbn was asserting that user:slowart had not recently been editing the Wikipedia article in question but user:blackash had. My above stated interpretation of the page history for that article supports the opposite conclusion, and I was further convinced because the former user also had done edits which provided external links to his commercial website. I said as much above.

Especially because User:Colincbn said "He has voluntarily recused himself from editing the content." and "Blackash ... does work on the article" I assumed that, despite Colincbn's assertion that Blackash was doing something on other websites, Colincbn was talking about those individuals making edits to the Wikipedia article. Colincbn, should I understand that this was not the conclusion which you wanted readers of your comment to have? If you were not referring to someone editing the Wikipedia article, then I misunderstood, and I am very sorry.

As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?

Besides this, the issue was that you said "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article." The links you provided are from mid 2009, as are all the other postings I checked. The links you provided as proof of blackash advertising also have slowart posting in the same forums pushing a POV whereas blackash just made a RfC; see here for an example.

I would be willing to write more about this, but I will be gone for a while. Colincbn, I am having difficulty understanding you. When you say "(slowart is) not working on this article. Blackash ... does work on the article," are you referring to the Wikipedia article? If so, within what time period, and can you respond to my assertion that the article's history does not support your claim? Also, can you please explain how the off-site posting of user:blackash violates WP:CANVASSING or any other policy, but Richard/slowart's posting in the same places does not? I want to understand you.  Blue Rasberry  17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is this: Both Blackash and Slowart have contributed good work to this article and I hope they both continue to do so. A quick scan of Blackash's contributions (I am talking about more than just the last few weeks) will show that she has put in a lot of work on improving the article, this is a good thing. But it will also show a lot of edits to the talk pages that are, in an abundance of cases, attempts to steer the naming of the article in a way that benefits her business. The links I provided above are not general discussions of which both she and Slowart were parties to. Every post by Blackash (Becky from Pooktre) is the first in the Arborsculpture/Tree Shaping issue on each page. This is because she has systematically searched for every use of the word Arborsculpture and attacked its usage. Slowart (Richard Reams) then posts after she does in many, but not all, those cases. Now just by itself this does not bother me in the slightest. This is an issue for the two of them and the community of practitioners of this craft to work out. It doesn't even bother me that she references Wikipedia. What does bother me is that she actively edits Wikipedia to remove the word arborsculpture while pointing it out as proof that tree shaping is the appropriate term. If she wants to reference WP that is fine, many people do. But she should not then edit to make what she said on other pages true. This is a clear conflict of interest. She should edit with the sole intent of improving Wikipedia she cannot do that if she is editing to prove a point on outside webpages.


 * Look at it this way:
 * Editor 1 believes A is false and B is true.
 * Editor 1 changes WP in good faith to say B is true.(this is perfectly OK)
 * Editor 1 then points out that WP says B is true as proof of B being true around the web.(Kind of bad)
 * Other editors think B may be false and A true, and try to find consensus about the issue.
 * Editor 1 disrupts that process and tries to remove all reference to A being true. (no good as this is not in the best interests of WP)


 * What she should do is allow other, non-involved editors to work out the naming of the article and the appropriate use of the term. I have been taking part in this discussion for a few months now and I can tell you that while both Blackash and Slowart have contributed in that time Blackash has made much more of an attempt to control the article's title. I see this "Undue weight" NPOV notice as simply a continuation of that and possibly an attempt to "game the system". But once again I still very much appreciate the good content Becky has added here and I see her presence as a benefit to the project. Slowart does not, or at least rarely, edits on the talk page to influence the article name or other contentious issues from what I can see. He may have in the past but he has said he will recuse himself from those discussions and from what I can see he has. This is an excerpt from a thread on the article's talk page where I confronted Slowart on the exact same issues I have with Blackash:

Let me just say, as someone who feels policy clearly states the article should have remained "Arborsculpture", I still agree with the closing of the move at that time as No consensus. That is very different from a consensus not to move. The fact seems clear that there are editors with vested interests involved in this debate and those editors will continue to disrupt the debate process until they voluntarily, or forcibly, refrain from involving themselves in this article. There was clearly no consensus either way during the move debate. However there was not only no consensus but no debate at all for the original move. Policy is clear, but that policy cannot be carried out in this atmosphere. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Your right Colincbn about consensus. As I'm one of the editors with a vested interest, I'm outa here, sorry. Please note this thread of the discussion I was trying to have with RegntsPark, was just moved over here, my apologizes. Slowart (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that Blackash also seemed to backoff for a while. I took that as a great sign she was going to allow the WP process to progress without influencing it from a commercial standpoint. She then started this, in my opinion frivolous, NPOV notice. She should simply not edit about anything that could be seen to have an impact on her conflict with a business rival. She is using WP as a tool to promote the term "Tree Shaping" over "Arborsculpture", WP is not a tool for her to wield as a weapon against her competitors, Period. That being said it is not a tool for her competitors either and I have taken, and will continue to take, the same standpoint in relation to them, or anyone, who attempts to use it as such.
 * That was kind of long, but can you see where I am coming from? Colincbn (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Colincbn a couple of points of misunderstanding, I corrected these before but maybe you missed them.
 * Title change from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping was my choice. (Not true)
 * When title was changed to Tree shaping it was done because a group of editors thought tree shaping was more neutral.
 * In the following discussion after the title change some other options were thrown around. Then as now I don't care what the name of the art-form is as long as it doesn't lead to one person and doesn't have a method attached to it.
 * "attempts to steer the naming of the article in a way that benefits her business" (Search engines are very keen on key words, we mainly use tree shapers to describe what we do.)
 * Our business name is SharBrin Publishing Ptd Ltd.
 * Pooktre is the name of our art.
 * I use the wording of Tree shapers as a descriptive name because of reading Elfquest since I was 14(Redlance an elfquest elf is described as a tree shaper forums on official elfquest site), the wording is fanciful and people get it when you state you tree shaper.
 * We would continue to use mainly tree shapers as descriptive wording for the art-form on our site even if the article title changed to something like tree art.
 * If the article title was tree art I would still talk on the discussion pages asking that the title of the article be used instead of an alternative name that leads to one artist in the art-form.
 * Asking that a word be given the appropriate weight compared to its references is not unreasonable, or even pushing a POV. Blackash   have a chat 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware that you were not the one who originally changed the title. It was AfD Hero. However even in the discussion you linked above you can see that there was no consensus to move. Nor did he put up a "Requested Move" tag or anything else. My point has simply been that without following the proper procedure we cannot make sure that the article has an appropriate title. I also don't really care what it ends up as. I think that the original title should be retained, per policy, unless a consensus is reached to change it. I indicated in the RM to move it back to arborsculpture that I support the move for that sole reason. My issue with "Tree Shaping" is that it clearly means something else in the wider arborist world, as pointed out by Martin. If I was allowed to choose a name I might go with "Tree Training" but that would be original research at best and we can't do that here.


 * You indicated that you don't want the title to be a term that represents a different artist's work. I completely understand that. However that is also a clear conflict of interest in that you are editing based on the effect the article will have on how your work is perceived and not on what is best for WP. If other editors find that the term is commonly used to mean all forms of the craft, regardless of who first used it, they may well decide to use it as the name of the article. Considering that was the original name of the article it carries a lot of weight. They may decide on a new descriptive term or they may decide to keep it as it is now. The point is if, as you have said, the article's name effects your life outside WP then you yourself should not be a part of that decision making process.


 * I think once that process has a chance to complete a discussion of the way terms are used within the article can commence.


 * Otherwise I think you have really helped this article come along and I hope you continue to do so. Also, I freakin love Elfquest and Redlance was one of my favorite characters (The part were he goes into a coma after has to use his ability to... well you get the point). Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Colincbn as to the title,
 * I don't think it was clear from your comments that I didn't change the title or even request that the title be changed.
 * As to the "per policy" RegentsPark's summary addressed that point and others. Stating that it is not a strong argument as the page is now 4 times the size since the title change.
 * Words do have more than one meaning and that why Wikipedia has disambiguation, but when AfD Hero was trying to discuss it he run into a brick wall.


 * It is not "a term that represents a different artist's work" that is the problem. It is using a term that represents or leads to any one artist including ourselves, which is why we have stated that Pooktre could not be the title of the article. Just as Arborsculpture leads to one artist, Pooktre leads to us.
 * The discussion about having or not having Arborsculpture as the title has been argued to the point of rhetoric over and over again as can be seen by the very discussion we are having now. There is no reason why the content of the article cannot be improved whatever the title may be. Asking a word to be given the appropriate weight throughout an article shouldn't be an issue that leads to obsessively discussing the title this is distracting technique, and not worthy of someone who really believes in Wikipedia policies. Blackash   have a chat 12:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to answer your points one by one:
 * I don't think it was clear from your comments that I didn't change the title or even request that the title be changed.
 * I can see your point on this one. I was summarizing and simplifying, which is what lead to what can be seen as a false accusation. That was my mistake.
 * As to the "per policy" RegentsPark's summary addressed that point and others. Stating that it is not a strong argument as the page is now 4 times the size since the title change.
 * This assumes that everyone who has added to the article since then has agreed with the title change. As you can see from the amount of content added by Duff and others not happy with the change this is not the case. So expansion since the change should not be used as evidence the change is accepted.
 * It is not "a term that represents a different artist's work" that is the problem. It is using a term that represents or leads to any one artist including ourselves, which is why we have stated that Pooktre could not be the title of the article. Just as Arborsculpture leads to one artist, Pooktre leads to us.
 * I understand how and why you feel that arborsculpture leads to Reames. But Non-involved editors never got the chance to debate whether it actually does before the title change. If the word has been used by enough outside sources to refer to the art in a general sense then they might have decided otherwise. The fact that the article was created by someone other than Reames as arborsculpture gives that argument substance.
 * The discussion about having or not having Arborsculpture as the title has been argued to the point of rhetoric over and over again as can be seen by the very discussion we are having now. There is no reason why the content of the article cannot be improved whatever the title may be. Asking a word to be given the appropriate weight throughout an article shouldn't be an issue that leads to obsessively discussing the title this is distracting technique, and not worthy of someone who really believes in Wikipedia policies.
 * There was never a discussion to move the page in the first place, and the discussion to move it back was closed as "No Consensus" this means we need to keep talking about it until we build consensus. I feel that you and Slowart should state your cases one time each and let the others decide what to do. There is no deadline, and there is no reason to drop an issue just because we do not yet see eye to eye on it.
 * That being said you are absolutely correct that a word, or anything for that matter, should be given appropriate weight throughout the article. But the fact that the word in question is not the current title is not proof that it is being given too much weight. Especially considering the way in which the title was changed.
 * Just to be absolutely clear, I do not "support" the word arborsculpture. I simply see a policy violation that should be remedied before an honest debate can begin. The fact that there has been so many hours of editing back and forth since the change happened, including reverts of title changes and page protection, leads me to believe that the original un-discussed title change should not have happened. And I feel WP policy supports that view. Colincbn (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify a few things you may have missed in reply to your answers.
 * During the year after the title change the article expanded to approximately twice its size, diff this by editors who didn't care about the title (except for Slowart/Reames who didn't edit much), so Regent's Park point is still valid.
 * "created by someone other than Reames" you mean editor Ezekiello? Without saying who he is both Slowart and I know this edtior, in point of fact both Ezekiello and Slowart where visiting us and together they show how to edit wikipedia. I know for a fact that Ezekiello has partnered in projects with Slowart/Reames.
 * I have never stated because Arborsculpture is not the title it is getting WP:UNDUE in the article. To quote myself from above "The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article to the number of reliable and verifiable references." It is not about the title, it is about the fact the word Arborsculpture has been deliberately given to much weight in the article to the references. Blackash   have a chat 22:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller and User: Bachcell
User: Bachcell is attempting to use the Pamela Geller article to push Geller's FRINGE theories and views, including trying to claim that Geller was justified in linking Elena Kagan to Nazism in a blog post:. It's obvious to me that Bachcell is attempting to actively promote Geller's views, rather than simply describe them (as the article used to do, and is supposed to do). Personally, I don't think Bachcell should be editing that article if he can't do so without pushing POV, as well as displaying a "chip on his shoulder" in his edit summaries and talk page comments:. His bad attempt at canvassing (for which I warned him) is icing on the cake:. What should the consequences be, if any? Or should we just tell Bachcell to stay away from Pamela Geller for the time being? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me that Stonemason89 is declaring war and campaigning for punishment over posting ONE message to ONE other user interested in the topic. There is nothing wrong with stating what one editor considers a fringe view, such as a conspiracy theory (see all of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists) as it cannot be accurately described merely as an attack page. Please live by WP:CIVIL instead of dropping what smells like the threat of block after already issuing an ominous warning. Bachcell (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one using UNCIVIL terms like "pig pile".... Stonemason89 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that the article had a very one-sided presentation of the controversy. A pig pile is a neutral sports term for a bunch of people on top of one person, it has nothing to do with islamic connotations of pigs, or lipstick on a pig, police as pigs, or when pigs fly, etc. I have issued no warnings against you, nor tried to lobby for a block or ban against you, nor accused you of promoting fringe theories, or using uncivil language. You claim she is strictly FRINGE, but it's not clear what of her views qualify under the guidelines. She was one of the first to correctly call Hasan and Awlaki terrorists, which is clearly positive for some people, if negative for another POV. She was the first to make the mosque a decidedly mainstream and not a FRINGE issue. Even fringe conspiracy theorists have articles on WP as long as they are notable or have a wide audience, which Geller does have (she's on TV after all) . The article makes almost no positive statments about her, despite her large following (top 30 blog) and very little about what she herself stated she stands for. Media Matters clearly calls Geller at fault for the inappropriate picture (which remains in the edit) and for making the stretch that Geller states that Kagan "admires" the marxist, when she merely quotes the controversial person at the start of her thesis. This editor does not justify her article or what Media Matters appears to portray as an attempt to link Kagan to Nazism, but merely clarifies the facts of the case from both sides. That is hardly promoting an un-balanced point of view. The "queen article" used a a reference is itself an un-balanced attack article which is itself lacking in corroborating sources, and interviews sources such as CAIR and Media Matters that consistently fall into a predictable position in the matter of Islam, but that is hardly the only notable point of view. Since this is a neutral point of view notice board, it might be pointed out where the lack of balance lies, and who is the party that is preventing a presentation of "all sides". How can you be banned merely for documenting the views of the person in question? Where does it state it is pushing a POV merely by putting in information which does NOT attack the subject? Could Stonemason89 be promoting an un-balanced point of view by contesting or removing edits which do not attack Geller? Bachcell (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sports term? Yes, but according to the source you just linked to, the term is also commonly used in porn and in a sexual sense. Also, there is plenty of evidence that Geller fits FRINGE. As the article and its sources point out, she has denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps, accused black South Africans of "genocide", defended Eugene Terre'Blanche and the English Defense League, claimed Obama's birth certificate is fake, called Obama an anti-Semite, hinted that Malcolm X is his real father, etc. All definitely fringe. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * um - someone keeps removing the link where Geller clarifies that she doesnt think "Malcolm X is his real father". Active Banana   ( bananaphone  01:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand she said that she didn't actually believe that Malcolm X was Obama's real father; however, this happened after she once posted a blog entry that hinted that he was. So this was basically a flip-flop. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I will encourage editors familiar with NPOV to pay close attention to everything that is going on at that article. More eyes are surely needed. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I also have brought up how some content in the blog section that has been included is simply based on truth and not verifiability. All content in Wikipedia articles must be ascribed to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research. Yet, I have seen at least one edit summary that has stated otherwise. Truthsort (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like much ado about nothing.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this confusing for readers not in the know...
Currently over at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, we've been working on amendments to the Ireland Place Infobox. Whilst we have everything settled upon there is one issue i would like to bring to the attention of this board - does the use of the Ireland pipelink, rather than just using Republic of Ireland unpiped lead to confusion for readers who don't know the difference between the two?

The current Ireland Manual of Style is that if the state and island are being talked about in the same paragraph/context then the Republic of Ireland is to be used to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland - however the island in this case is not being explicitly stated, though it is depicted in the map - so does that qualify the use of Republic of Ireland unpiped?

Heres Rannpháirtí anaithnid's sandbox demo of the infobox for when it applies to Republic of Ireland counties:

Do you think stating just "Ireland" is confusing for readers who don't know the difference between the state and the island? Mabuska (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you use State then it must be RoI and not pipe linked IMO so as not to confuse. Codf1977 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At last we've got a response from somebody lol :-) Mabuska (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But not from someone who has not been involved in discussions around controversial Irish topics. Bjmullan (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it would be better to say ROI rather than just Ireland. However id rather the infoboxes for Northern Ireland be changed to reflect the new agreement now if they have not already been. The issue of if it should say ROi or just I on the ROIs counties may take far longer to get agreement on. It will also take some time to get feedback, this board is sadly a rather ignored part of the wiki world. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bjmullan. The reason i posted this here is for opinions from people outside of the topic to see whether it confuses readers from around the world as oppossed to those who already have a preference for which term and know the difference. Though i do agree we should implement the agreed parts of the new agreement whilst this one is sorted out, and i'll raise this back at the appropriate talk. Mabuska (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Convertino / User:Furtive admirer
I've taken the bold step of reverting Richard Convertino to a version over 1 year and 40 edits old, to fix the | massive POV rewrite of the article by the now-banned User:Furtive_admirer.

Most edits following the rewrite were attempts to remove POV content, though despite this, numerous POV statements and tone remained. For a few examples: "He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."

"Jurors, for a second time, said that clearly these men were terrorists and that Convertino saved American lives by prosecuting them." Note that the second statement is cited from (Debbie Schlussel's political blog), yet is actually a quote copied verbatim from that site.

While some actual information may be salvageable, it's not something I'm prepared to invest time doing, and the article as-is absolutely cannot remain.

The other primary reason for my posting this notice is to encourage some investigation into the edits of User:Furtive_admirer before his ban. He (or perhaps she) authored or dramatically rewrote a number of biographies of (politically connected and sometimes controversial) living persons. Serious scrutiny should be brought to bear on a number of these edits, as several appear to troublesome, just from my cursory inspection. If this is not the proper forum for such a request (especially considering the potential time investment), please direct me to a more appropriate forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.30.225 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits of User:Furtive_admirer should be scrutinised if there is serious doubt over them. I'm not sure of the proper place to take this, but if they have edited articles to swing a certain point of view or bias and/or has twisted sources to state something different or used sources whose verifiablility and reliability are question then those edits should be checked out and either reverted/counter-balanced/or amended.


 * All statements that are questionable such as the following need a verifiable and reliable source otherwise they are suspect and candidates for deletion on grounds of PoV and bias:

"He is a favorite of Detroit FBI agents, who like his courtroom drive."


 * On the verbatim, unless its a sourced direct quote and styled as a quote, the text must be reworded so that it is not copied word-for-word as that in all possibility infringes upon the original sources copyright. If whole sections of the article are copied word for word then that is a serious issue and steps should be taken to amend.


 * I looked at that edit you supplied above and the manual of style that user used was incorrect and didn't provide an encyclopedic feel to the article and loaded in too many weasel words etc. You did right in reverting the edit even if it was so long ago. Mabuska (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible POV problems at Libertarianism
A very recent RfC closed that deemed the current inclusion of certain viewpoints at Libertarianism was largely appropriate according to the many RS provided. However, editors still dissatisfied with the RfC have created proposals today which ultimately aim to have different content at the page called Libertarianism, as previous attempts have been unsuccessful at removing the content that has been deemed as WP:DUE for inclusion.

Outside opinion posted at the Libertarianism talk page would be greatly appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement
I substantially rewrote this article. Here is the diff. I applied the policy WP:V in my edits, specifically the section on self-published sources

''Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.''

Almost all of the self-published sources which were in the original version violated 2) and 3). I retained those statements which were commented on by secondary sources. I would like input on whether other contributors think the article as it exists now is neutral. One editor (on the talk page) doesn't think so. BillMasen (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the deleted material involved neither claims about third parties, nor claims about events not directly related to the subject. The deleted material described LaRouche's theories about economics, all of which had been commented upon by secondary sources. According to most current press accounts, LaRouche is an economist by profession.. I should add that my efforts to discuss the neutrality of the article with Bill and the other editor who supports him have been met by evasion and stonewalling. I would appreciate it if other editors would look at the article talk page and respond. Thomas Conneff (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To the minute extent which LaRouche's economic "ideas" (which by necessity involve claims about things in which LaRouche is not personally involved) have been commented on by secondary sources, they have been included in the article. The point is that TC wants LaRouche defined as an economist in the lead, which is simply not supported by the sources.
 * In the articles offered, far more space is given to LaRouche's calumny of Obama-as-Hitler than to the economic credentials of LaRouche. He has none, having no more right to call himself an economist than I do to call myself a neurosurgeon.
 * I object to his characterisation of the discussion as "stonewalling". His problem is simply that he can't meet WP:RS. No amount of local newspaper articles will serve to define LaRouche as an economist. If you want to define him as that, find a non-vanity-press, book-length treatment of him, as I have done, which defines him as something other than a conspiracy theorist and antisemite. BillMasen (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See also WP:BADPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.204.10 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point! The easiest way to tell if one or more editors have an activist agenda is how often they seek to remove reliably sourced information from non-biographical articles, instead of cooperating and compromising with other editors to find a way to include it at appropriate length It would appear Mr IP address is feeling remorse for violating this policy, and owning up.
 * As far as my own removals are concerned, not one of the removed items was from a WP:Reliable source. They were all self-published sources (and not all of them were favourable to LaRouche). BillMasen (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

However, he does raise a relevant point. Prior to his re-write, the article was comprised of a broad selection of viewpoints, which as I understand it, is desirable. His re-write changed all that. Now the article is shaped in such a way as to emphasize only one particular source, which Bill describes as "a non-vanity-press, book-length treatment of him," published over 20 years ago. It is the most hostile caricature of LaRouche that I have seen; it purports to find nefarious hidden messages in his writings; and the author has been criticized by third parties for doing his own "conspiracy-mongering." To slant the whole article toward one source seems to me to be an ipso facto neutrality problem.
 * As for the issue of "stonewalling" on the discussion page, I can only urge readers to see for themselves. Thomas Conneff (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is worth remembering that I added very little to the article. The article is not based on one source; it is based on all the WP:RS secondary sources which were contained in it before I got there. This includes several books and a large number of newspaper articles. On the rare occassion that a secondary source had something good to say about LaRouche, that was retained.
 * The lead is the only substantial part which I altered rather than reduced. I agree it would be preferable to have more than one source there, but I've been given lemons, so I'm making lemonade. I don't think that a local newspaper article is good enough to define LaRouche as what he desperately wants to be (an economist).
 * I would greatly appreciate it if more editors took an interest in this page, because as it stands agreement on it is not forthcoming. BillMasen (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis
In the lead of the article Manila hostage crisis there is a line that reads:


 * "As a result of the ten-hour siege, the ensuing shoot-out, and a botched rescue attempt by MPD watched by millions on live television news, eight of the hostages and Mendoza died and nine other people were injured. The Hong Kong Government then immediately issued a top-level 'black' travel alert for the Philippines. The assault on the tour bus to rescue the hostages was widely regarded by pundits at home and abroad as 'bungled' and 'incompetent'; the Philippine government also admitted that errors had been made and promised a thorough investigation, which they would report to the Chinese government. "

I wished to edit to the following or something like it


 * "At the end of the ten-hour siege and an assault conducted by the MPD watched by millions on live television news, eight of the hostages and Mendoza died and nine other people were injured. The Hong Kong Government quickly after the end of the ordeal issued a top-level 'black' travel alert for the Philippines. The immediate reaction to the assault on the tour bus to rescue the hostages by pundits at home and abroad was that it was 'bungled' and 'incompetent'. The Philippine government also admitted that errors had been made and promised a thorough investigation, which they would report to the Chinese government."

However, I've been reverted twice here and here. The reason given by the reverting editor is that it violates WP:SYN. I do not believe it does and although asked on the talk page to explain, no comment by the opposing editor has been given so far.

My concern with the current version is that it makes a cause and effect statement with no source attribution, is factually incorrect, and is defamatory. It makes conclusive statements even though the formal investigations aren't even finished and the preliminary findings can be interpreted to contradict the statements or at least their suggestive implications.

The hostages were not killed by the siege (they did not die of starvation for example), according to an eyewitness account two hostages were already shot by the time the assault began, so the pool of possible victims due to the assault is six at max and that is pushing it. A preliminary report is that all hostage victims were shot by the gunman and not the rescue assault mounted by the police.

Given the foregoing I ask that a third party make the changes I was attempting to, thank you. Lambanog (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems resolved for now. Lambanog (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A possibly new issue is developing revolving around appropriate See also links involving the same editor who previously blocked my edit regarding the above earlier issues with no explanation. I have therefore removed the resolved tag I had earlier put up and am awaiting further developments in case further mediation is necessary. Lambanog (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article Manila hostage crisis I'd like to request another editor to remove the See also link 1998 Manila blackmail incident inserted by the same party who was also the one who tried to block my earlier edits to the lead. The link is unrelated, provocative, and unbalances the POV of the article. If it remains I might feel compelled to add another link to balance things out, but due to the possibly controversial nature of the article's subject, I'd rather a third party simply step in right now. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

An edit has been made that addresses my concerns so this has been temporarily resolved. But I would like to see that it sticks for a little while before marking this request for neutral opinions as permanently resolved. Lambanog (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears I was justified to believe this issue wasn't over yet. Still unresolved. Lambanog (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am hopeful this issue is now fixed. But waiting for confirmation from opposing party before marking it resolved. Lambanog (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How should articles handle disproportionate coverage from a single news source?
Over the past month, I’ve been assembling sources in my userspace here with the intention of creating an article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. (This link currently redirects to the article about the New Black Panther Party.) As can be seen from the page in my userspace, this topic has received a respectable amount of coverage from several well-known news sources, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, ABC, CNN, and NPR. So I don’t think there’s any question that it’s notable enough to deserve its own article here. However, before I create this article, there’s something that I’m having a hard time figuring out how to handle about it: this topic has received more coverage in the Washington Times than in all other news sources combined. When a topic has received coverage from a single news source that’s this disproportionate compared to all other sources, what’s the appropriate way to handle it in articles here?

I don’t think there’s any question that the Washington Times is a reliable source, so the coverage it’s given to this topic should definitely be included. But if I give each news article exactly the same amount of weight here, then the 50-odd articles that the Washington Times has published about this case will completely dominate the Wikipedia article, which doesn’t seem like it could be a neutral solution. But on the other hand, it also doesn’t seem reasonable to give each newspaper the same amount of weight regardless of how much coverage they’ve provided to this case, so that the 50 articles about it in the Washington Times would only have the combined weight of the single (and fairly short) Los Angeles Times article. I imagine that the appropriate solution probably lies somewhere between these two extremes, but I don’t know how to determine exactly where. Can anyone offer any advice about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Washington Times i'd say is a reliable source. Though i would suggest build up as much of the article as possible with all the sources using what each one has to give if possible an even and unbiased viewpoint stating contradicting views giving by sources it there are any. If the Washington Times gives more precise detailed information then it should be included. As long as the article has a balanced and as neutral a feel and flow to it, i wouldn't worry about one source dominating too much unless that source has questions about its neutrality, impartiality, reliablity etc. Mabuska (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As is stated in the Wikipedia article about it, the Washington Times is often considered a conservative newspaper, although in this respect it isn’t really different from the Wall Street Journal (which is also considered conservative) or the New York Times and the Washington Post (which are considered liberal.) At least in the United States, there aren’t many newspapers which don’t have any tendency in either one direction or the other.


 * Something else that’s probably the case for this topic is that it’s received more coverage from sources with a conservative tendency than those with a liberal tendency, maybe because liberal-oriented sources don’t think it’s as newsworthy as conservative-oriented sources do. (As you can see from my source list, liberal sources have still covered it, just not to quite the same degree).  Since NPOV policy requires that viewpoints about a topic be presented “in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject”, and in reliable sources about the Black Panther case, conservative perspectives are somewhat more prevalent than liberal perspectives, I’m assuming that the presentation of these viewpoints in the Wikipedia article should reflect that proportion.  Can anyone confirm for me whether I’m thinking of this correctly? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing you can just mention in some Non WP:OR way that WashTimes has covered this extensively and mention their editorial viewpoint. I'm sure there's a bunch of editorial and opinion pieces that have one particular viewpoint. (And mentioned any editorial views of any other news sources that have covered it significantly, I suppose, for balance.) I'm sure sources have mentioned that there is a liberal-conservative divide (and perhaps other opinions too ) on this, so that goes in too, in whatever non-WP:OR way you can do it. (Not looking at the article in question, I can't suggest how to do that off hand.) Actually I can think of several controversial areas where this is an issue and maybe it could be deal with more specifically on the WP:NPOV article, if you come up with a good solution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of those stories where the media coverage is more important than the underlying story. You should look for academic articles that cover this, and explain why it received so much coverage in the WT.  TFD (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc: I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re suggesting. The issue here isn’t so much a matter of opinions as of what specific facts are being discussed.  The Washington Times discusses a lot of specific facts that aren’t discussed by most other sources, and mentioning these facts casts Obama’s department of justice in a negative light.  There may be similar facts which could be mentioned that cast them in a positive light, but if there are they aren’t being covered by reliable sources, at least not to anywhere near the same degree.


 * Based on Mabuska’s comment and my interpretation of NPOV policy, it seems like what I should do is probably to include most of the facts and details that have been included in the news stories about this topic regardless of their sources. And since conservative sources have covered this story in greater depth than liberal sources have, this means it’s inevitable that the article is going to contain more details which have been pointed out by conservative sources than have been pointed out by liberal sources.  What I’m trying to make sure is that this would be acceptable.


 * TFD: If you check Google scholar, you’ll see that there aren’t any academic articles about this case.  The news coverage comprises the entirety of what secondary sources have covered about it, so those are the only sources we can weigh against one another in determining what’s consistent with NPOV policy. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If the disproportionate coverage is large and there is a noticeable contrast perhaps grouping the paragraphs according to news source may be appropriate. Write the story that all news sources agree on or think is worth mentioning in several paragraphs then group all the additional information added by the Washington Times in other paragraphs introducing it the way CarolMooreDC has suggested.  Lambanog (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the other news sources cover the same general topics that the Washington Times does; the Washington Times just goes into more detail about a lot of them. So I think breaking the article into sections based on news source would disrupt its overall flow too greatly.  Your suggestion gives me an idea that I think could be a good solution, though:  when a particular piece of information has been reported only by the Washington Times, and casts Obama’s department of justice in a negative light, rather than asserting it as fact I can make it clear that the Washington Times is what’s reporting it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Echoing TFD, above, one of the hallmarks of a political POV is the effort to "set the agenda." Isn't it possible that the reason why Washington Times goes into more detail might be because the editorial board is promoting a conservative cause? It might be possible as well that other newspapers have simply not decided to focus any attention on this issue because other issues seem more timely or important. WP:NOTNEWS. If after some initial attention, only certain newspapers are writing about this topic, and no one else, that's a pretty good indication that the topic really doesn't have historical significance, or at the very least that true secondary sources haven't yet digested the purported political controversy. Steveozone (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are really two separate issues here. The first is whether or not the topic is notable.  This has been discussed on several talk pages already, and everyone who’s expressed an opinion there has been of the opinion that it is.  Even if we were to completely ignore the Washington Times coverage, I think that looking at the rest of the sources I’ve assembled in my userspace, it’s hard to argue the issue of notability.  This topic is about as notable as the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.


 * And the other question is one of NPOV. It can’t be an acceptable solution to ignore what’s actually stated by NPOV policy—that the proportion of viewpoints in the article should reflect the proportion that exists in reliable sources—and instead make up our own rules, such as that certain reliable sources should be ignored on the basis of their assumed motives for covering this topic.  I posted about this here to ask how NPOV policy applies to disproportionate coverage from a single newspaper, and I’ve received some useful advice about that.  But to suggest that we ignore this policy and make up our own rules is really unhelpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)