Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 18

Immigration to Norway
IMO the article Immigration to Norway is severely biased, as I've described on Talk:Immigration to Norway: selection and presentation of facts are made to make "immigrants in norway" appear as "criminals", "social problem" and "public expences".

I added a POV tag to it yesterday, but it was removed by an IP with a history of vandalism. I enlist the case here in order to bring further attention to the article. Bw --Orland (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does have some issues with PoV and appears to concentrate on certain aspects of sources to get a negative point across such as:

In 2008, it was reported that more than one third of inmates in Norwegian prisons were Muslims
 * This is clearly biased as they are still a minority and numbers showing other denominations should also be provied for balance. Also its incorrect to simply state Muslim as not all Muslims in Norway are bound to be immigrants - there is native converts in every country so the way it is worded hints of anti-Islamism. In fact i shall remove that statement from the article myself as it in no way states that all the Muslims are immigrants. I've also made over edits at the minute such as removing the anti-Semitic section as it makes no reference to immigrants but to Muslims and the article is about immigrants.
 * However if the claims are from a verifiable and reliable source then they have merit for inclusion as long as the source isn't cherry-picked to get what an editor wants into an article whilst leaving out things that may make it more balanced. However many statements especially in regards to Muslims are clearly biased and sectarian in overtone. Mabuska (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worse than I thought (that is, situation in Norway, not the article - must strike Oslo out of my retirement home shopping list). Look, the subject leaves no place for neutrality. The natives may tolerate the invaders but you cannot force them to be neutral, and vice versa. All that can be done is striving for a well-rounded and correct presentation of available sources. Indeed, calling all black-haired alien criminals "Muslims" may be incorrect - no one can prove that they indeed are. Perhaps, "people of races which are associated by the White Norwegians with immigrants from typical Muslim countries" is what the source actually meant. But if the source said "Muslims", there's no way around it. East of Borschov 11:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But the source didn't mention immigrants anywhere in it so its irrelevant. It focused on Muslims and would be more appropriate for an article on Muslims in Norway. Mabuska (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga's history in denial
The history of Kundalini Yoga is under dispute. 

"In 1969 Kundalini Yoga was brought out of the secrecy and seclusion of India to the United States by Kundalini Master Yogi Bhajan, who began teaching it openly in group settings and made it for the first time widely available to interested students. These teachings were delivered in a practical format of classes for the Western householder and yogic practitioner, with regulated teacher training programs and a spiritual approach which became synonymous with the teachings of Yogi Bhajan. Today, it is openly taught at yoga centers all over the world, and is widely considered a powerful healing modality with an ever growing range of benefits."

User Gatoclass has consistently without aiding in the improvement of the article been in denial of Yogi Bhajan's historical contributions and significance to Kundalini Yoga. Multiple revisions without AGF and use of ignorance as a basis for research.

This user has no knowledge of the subject, nor has ever contributed one word to it, or done any research besides stating his POV.

I have tried numerous times to resolve this dispute with the author (see two links above).RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Article Neutrality Questioned
I have reposted this from Glenn Beck prefix:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. — GorillaWarfare talk 23:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Glenn Beck article is currently under the control of a group of biased editors with a pro-Glenn Beck agenda. If you examine the history of the article, it appears that information deemed negative towards Glenn Beck is routinely removed. At the same time, editors carefully craft sentences to obfuscate derogatory content. For example, here is a detailed critical review of the current (Aug. 30, 2010) 3-paragraph summary of the article:

The first sentence of the article describes Beck as a "conservative radio and television host, political commentator, author, and entrepreneur." This description presents Beck in the most favorable light possible. For example, he is not simply a "conservative", which is an incomplete, watered-down description of his political/social views. More appropriate, accurate monikers are neo-conservative, theocratic conservative, right-wing, Christian right, evangelical right, etc. Beck himself has described his political persuasion in a variety of sometimes conflicting, confusing ways, including as a militant libertarian, but never simply as a conservative. The sentence goes on to describe Beck's radio and TV work using the most gracious, formal, positive-sounding description possible: "host". Even Beck's own site describes him more accurately as a "radio and TV personality." Beck is an entertainer, first and foremost. And is Beck really qualified to be called a "political commentator"? Newt Gingrich, Wolf Blitzer, or Karl Rove are political commentators, but Beck is an entertainer, with no journalistic or political training/experience. His history prior to 1999 is unremarkable, notable for Beck's drug abuse, alcoholism, failure to complete more than a year of college, a failed marriage, and pop radio disc jockey gigs. He got his current shows because he was bombastic, abrasive, and entertaining to a large audience. He does have significant on-the-job training as a disc jockey. Similarly, the description "author" seems inappropriate for someone who at most "co-authors" books, and at worst may not actually pen any of his books. He has indicated that while books using his name may contain his beliefs and editorial approval, he does not actually type any words (Forbes, Apr, 2010). In June, 2010 Beck described his team approach to writing, clarifying: "There's clearly no way that I'm sitting behind a typewriter or word program and pounding this out. ... I have my vision and need someone to make sure that vision stays there."

The rest of the Summary reads like a press release from Beck's PR firm, singing his praises and obfuscating or failing to mention information deemed negative. I have a suggestion. The only way articles like this are going to be neutral is to have two inherently biased editors representing opposing viewpoints collaborate on compromise verbiage, and jointly manage the article.

- Jwilbiz (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010(UTC)


 * The article looks fairly neutral to me, sadly some material is often inserted into articles like this which do not belong and so do have to be removed.
 * "conservative radio and television host, political commentator, author, and entrepreneur."
 * The current introduction with wording like that is neutral and accurate. Changing it to say things like "neo-conservative, theocratic conservative, right-wing, Christian right, evangelical right" is far more questionable and far less neutral.
 * If you feel certain things are being handled badly and need changing, you should raise the issues on the talk page so it can be debated. But you have made no comments on the talk page before making this post here. The only change you have made to the Glenn Beck article itself was partly to change the introduction to say...
 * "Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is a highly controversial American radio and television personality known for his theocratic conservatism and caustic tactics. A former drug addict and alcoholic who found salvation as a Mormon in 1999,  " 


 * Now i am sorry but there is no way that is a neutral or acceptable introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The line mentioned above did not even last a day before it was reverted. If you don't like it fix it but keep a eye on POV yourself Jwilbiz. People complain about this article all the time but then refuse to do anything about it. It is pretty balanced as far as I can tell. And no, I am not a fan of Glenn Beck but I have plenty of edits on the article.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only POV I see is not describing him as Libertarian conservative, which is what he considers himself. Toa  Nidhiki 05  23:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland
I have tagged the above article with as I believe The failure of the article to mention what every school child knows, namely the island of Ireland is part of an archipelago called the British Isles for reasons related to the fact that a very small number of people dislike the name of the archipelago for political and historical reasons is pushing that view contra to WP's WP:NPOV policy. Codf1977 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a wee bit of background at WT:BISE. Note that in both cases (at Ireland, and at WT:BISE) I take no position on the correctness of the situation, and outside views are extremely welcome (not that I want to sound "needy" or anything...) TFOWR 16:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If British Isles is mentioned at Great Britain? then it should be mentioned at the Ireland aticle, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * removed the tag with this edit despite the fact the dispute remains un resolved, I have requested at Snowded Talk page that he re-instates the tag but he has declined. Can an un-involved editor look at this with a view to re-instating the tag with the hope of bringing in other editors. Codf1977 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not uninvolved because I am currently trying to solve the problem, but allow me to comment anyway: The official main purpose of such tags is to mark problems so that other editors can deal with them when they get around to it. In this function they are simply not necessary while there is a discussion going on on the talk page that looks as if it is going to finish soon with a definite result that everybody can agree with. A second purpose is to alert readers to seriously misleading aspects of an article. Omitting mention of his presidency of the US at the Obama article would be an example of that, but the mere omission of "British Isles" from an article about Ireland simply doesn't require such a warning.
 * I don't think the question whether the article should be tagged during the discussion has a definite policy-based answer. That puts all sides that are currently edit warring about the tag in danger of being blocked. The fact that this is a known contentious area makes this more likely. Hans Adler 15:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau: Edits made arguing that some text is non-neutral.
There are what I view as two major edit disputes at Mary Kay Letourneau, and each seems predicated on varying interpretations of WP:NPOV policy. I hope I haven't presented these disputes non-neutrally. I invite others to add links to relevant edits where they feel necessary. Thank you for any assistance in resolving the disputes, and apologies in advance for the lengthy discussions. Blackworm (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute 1:
(Discussion link.)
 * edit by Blackworm replacing "lover" with "victim"
 * edit by Jakew replacing "victim" with "boy."
 * edit by Keithbob removing the term "victim" from a different part of the article.
 * edit by Keithbob replacing two occurences of "boy" (including the one in the change referenced above) with "student."  Text now reads, "student."

Discussion focuses on whether the terms "victim" and (in a related dispute) "boy" are non-neutral and should be replaced in the context of Blackworm's and Jakew's edits above. Blackworm (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute 2:
(Discussion link.)
 * edit Keithbob inserting the phrase "rape of a child in the second degree" into the article.
 * edit by Keithbob adding the phrase "second degree child rape" (later removed as "repetitive" by Keithbob)
 * edit by Keithbob changing "statutory rape" in the lead paragraph to "child rape" (June 15)
 * edit by Jakew removing "statutory rapist" as "redundant" with the phrase "child rape" found later in the lead (August 3)
 * edits by Blackworm moving the phrase "child rape" (August 3)
 * edit by Jakew replacing "child rape" with "statutory rape" (August 4); reverted by Blackworm, then Jakew, then Blackworm, then Jakew.
 * After lengthy discussion, edit by Blackworm replacing "statutory rape" with "statutory child rape" per the discussion. Reverted by Off2riorob. Text now reads "statutory rape."

Discussion focuses on whether the phrase "child rape," despite its use in the sources brought, is overly likely to inappropriately evoke emotions in the reader in this case. There is also some disagreement on whether the frequency of the phrase's use in reliable sources merits its inclusion. Blackworm (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to express a conclusion on #1 at the moment, but "victim" is clearly a POV term, whereas "student" is neutral. However, in the case of statutory rape, use of "student" might be whitewashing. I half-heartedly think that "victim" is too loaded, and that "student" is more effective because a reasonable reader should understand that a teacher should not exploit a student. Re #2: the current wording "statutory rape of her 12 year old student" is correct and NPOV, and I see no reason to change it to "statutory child rape of her 12 year old student". The word "child" has no value (it is redundant wrt "statutory rape" and particularly since the age is given) other than to ensure the reader does not miss the point. In both cases, use of reliable sources should resolve the issue, but I do not see a need to use stronger wording than what is currently in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you expressing a conclusion without reading the arguments presented in the discussion, including the sources? I clearly address your specific argument, with sources indicating the difference (i.e. the lack of redundance) between "child rape" and "statutory rape."  Also, "child rape" is the standing consensus edit (note the dates of the edit replacing "statutory rape" with "child rape" in the lead, June 15, and the edit replacing it with "statutory rape", August 4).   "Statutory rape" is the edit which I immediately reverted twice, and so it seems replacing "child rape" with "statutory rape" is the edit that must be justified here, not the reverse.  You must assert and justify a need to use weaker, more imprecise terminology.  I apologize if this is complicated or long, but I think it reasonable to expect a basic familiarity with this dispute before judgment is rendered upon it.  Blackworm (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have missed something pertinent to the NPOV policy please spell it out. I still think that whatever the precise wording of the law in the relevant jurisdiction, there is no reason to describe what is likely a welcomed act as "child rape" (although in case of doubt, I think that a 12 year old's possible "welcome" of sex with a teacher is totally irrelevant to the fact that a serious crime was perpetrated by the teacher). If "child rape" is the appropriate NPOV term here, what would we call a case involving the forced and unwelcome rape of an 8 year old? Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I had spelled it out; in detail, above, and in detail in the discussion. The NPOV policy does not call for removal of "child rape" as argued by proponents of that edit; to claim so is misuse of the policy, and the result of dignifying that claim is non-neutral POV seeing its way into the article.  You say it's clear a serious crime was perpetrated, but you assert that victim is "clearly a POV term?"   It is used in sources, as shown in the discussion, in articles about other statutory rapists in Wikipedia, and no less than seven times in the statutory rape article itself!  There is no dispute in that article over that.  Why is there one here?  To answer your question about a hypothetical 8 year old forcibly raped, we would say simply "rape," or "child molestation" or perhaps "child rape," (and not "child rape (statutory)" as I've suggested) or preferably cite the name of the offense the person was convicted under, which in Letourneau's state would have been "rape in the second degree" and/or "child molestation in the first degree" and/or "rape of a child in the first degree, a class A felony."  I don't simply rest on the actual documented name of the offense but on the sources that use that exact terminology, which seem to outnumber the sources using "statutory rape" (if crude Google searches are to be believed).  I realize the following isn't a reliable source, but please read the lead paragraph of statutory rape to see why this might be the case; it says "The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called 'child molestation,' is typically treated as a more serious crime."  Is a 12-year-old male past the age of puberty?  I'm willing to call it a grey area and write "child rape (statutory)," but I'm unwilling to accept arguments invoking this child's "willingness" (to paraphrase) in defense of an edit (and then contradictorily asserting his willingness is irrelevant).  You seem like you are engaging in precisely the non-neutral POV argument I am opposing -- the argument goes, "oh, he wasn't really a victim, no real bad crime was committed."  That fringe POV merits no weight in this article, and you have no sources supporting your view that this "welcome act" in any way calls on us to weaken the actual language used in the conviction, and the actual language used in many and possibly most sources describing the conviction, when describing the conviction.  Blackworm (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I still think it appropriate to use language that can distinguish between different extremes of rape, it may be best for me to simply deny that my words carry the meaning you suggest, and leave this discussion to allow room for others to join in. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "Rape of the second degree" means nothing to a British read. Under English Law we only have one crime - rape.  I suggest that the wording should reflect the language used in the jurisdiction concerned with a reference clarifying why that particular language was used. Martinvl (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the discussion at the talk page, I suggested that we might avoid such terminology altogether, and instead describe the events that led to her imprisonment: "Mary Kay Letourneau is an American former schoolteacher who was imprisoned for having sexual intercourse with her 12 year old student, Vili Fualaau." I still think this might be the best solution, as it steers a course around language that proves difficult to agree upon. Jakew (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What crime did she commite?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the precise wording. Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jakew, your suggestion does not steer a course around this dispute, it steers right through it; the arguments of your opponents has been that there is no reason for the weaker, more imprecise language you support. Now, you suggest even weaker, more imprecise language, and call it the "best solution?"  I am completely dumbfounded.  Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that by definition of puberty, if the boy was able to father a child he was "past the age of puberty". As such, I think statutory rape is a more appropriate term as child rape. But Jakew's suggestion also is sensible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What dies the law say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Link. Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then its rape, its what she was charged with and prosecuteed for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephan Schulz, the boy did not father a child at the time of the first intercourse (the time referenced by the conviction, presumably) -- he was 12 at first intercourse, 13 when he impregnated her. (See article for sources.)  If you are still not convinced it is unlikely he was "past the age of puberty," please read the sourced statements in puberty that say "Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15-17, while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16-18."  Blackworm (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: User:Jakew is again editwarring this change, days after having stopped discussing the matter in Talk, presenting no new arguments, and in fact after having indicated qualified agreement with a proposed solution. Should I take this matter to WP:ANI? Is another forum appropriate? How does one deal with editors who editwar and do not discuss changes nor proposed suggestions? Blackworm (talk) 23:27,
 * I am an involved party who appreciates and agrees with the common sense comments by User:Johnuniq. We need to follow WP:N which is a pillar of Wiki policy and avoid language that is sensationalistic, POV and not becoming of an encyclopedia, particularly in the lead. I have not problem quoting a legal document in the body of the article that states the legal charge she was found guilty of. However I do object to POV terms like victim, child rapist and boy. What do you do with an editor who refuses to recognize consensus both on the article talk page and on this noticeboard?-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP
I think you might be better off taking this to the BLP Noticeboard. The editors there should have more experience dealing with the sticky situations that come up when dealing with these kinds of articles. Granted that page has less traffic but that might be a good thing considering the nature of BLPs and the fact that cool heads are often more important than numbers in those disputes. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If the opposing editors want to, they may take it there. But several editors here and elsewhere have favoured the long standing text, including the one admin who came to this discussion.  They all seem to agree that "statutory 'rape of a child'" was fine in the lead, and yet it is still being editwarred, this time by a newly involved editor claiming a consensus. (!)   Blackworm (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that User:Jakew is still editwarring this change without any discussion:. Why are no admins stopping him? Blackworm (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with just saying "statutory rape"? The way you wanted to write it made the sentence reading awkwardly, BW:


 * "Mary Kay Fualaau is an American former schoolteacher convicted in 1997 of the statutory 'second degree rape of a child' of her 12 year old student, Vili Fualaau, for which she served time in prison."


 * Better just to say "convicted of the statutory rape of her 12-year-old student" etc. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs


 * I'd actually suggest "convicted of the statutory rape in the case of a 12-year-old student". reads a bit more detached to my ear.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did either of you actually read the discussion and note what the sources said she was convicted of? In any case, I don't care any more -- it's obvious there is no neutrality here: statutory rape victims are "victims" in statutory rape and where offenders are male, but "students" in Mary Kay Letourneau's case. A 12-year-old male is called a "boy" everywhere else in Wikipedia, but in Mary Kay Letourneau's case that is non-neutral and editwarred out. Her crime is called "child rape" or "rape of a child" by sources, but we can't say that because editor's believe Mary Kay Letourneau made a point and a valid mockery of the law -- hey, he was asking for it! Whatever, let this encyclopedia be the people's rag for POV it so desperately wants to be. Blackworm (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The best thing is to write in as disinterested way as possible. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the best thing is apparently to revert without discussion, and have lots of admin friends. Blackworm (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame: OR/Synthesis Dispute
I would like to resolve a dispute regarding my additions to aspartame. It appears there are a few bulldog-like editors patrolling it constantly, biting anyone who challenges their article. They keep undoing my edits, accusing me of all sorts, this time- bias, original research and synthesis, wheras I beg to differ: I stuck to what the numerous reliable sources I cited say exactly. There is nothing original, I have not synthesized anything, and every single statement is verifiable - yet they keep deleting it all - every single word is deemed unworthy of their article! This goes contrary to the NPOV guidelines on this which state:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."

Please can an administrator or two have a look through the aspartame page to assess this and make a decision on the content of my latest addition or my suggestions on the discussion, which I done to clarify a biased statement (explained in the discussion), or advise where to go from here? I don't even mind if it is all deleted, the only position I want to advance is a NPOV. It is quite a complex, controversial subject, and for a full picture, edits, sources and discussions of the aspartame page will need to be checked (which are quite lengthy). Thank you. КĐ ♥ 03:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the other editors have the right of it: The edit you're trying to add is synthesis, and is not permissible.  Yes, each sentence you are adding has a citation.  However, the combination of those statements advances a position not supported by any individual source, and that's synthesis.  If a reliable source had made this synthesis and you reported it, citing that source for the entire thing, that would be different.  In this case, you're trying to draw together disparate sources to advance a line of reasoning, and that's exactly the definition of synthesis. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does the methanol content of fruit juice deserve its own paragraph in an article on aspartame? (Admins don't resolve content disputes, BTW). Noloop (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like a mix of WP:SYNTH (plugging together sourced sentences in a way that misleads towards a synthetic conclusion) and WP:UNDUE (why is all this fruit juice nonsense at all relevant?). The editors on the article are right: Killdec, I understand you are in good faith, but you are doing it wrong. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I accept that. But I just want to say that this started because of dissatisfaction with the original sentence, which is the real "fruit juice nonsense", as it only gives half of the picture (methonol in fruit juice), and misleads people to the conclusion that methanol is 100% safe, because fruit juice is 100% safe. I think to provide a NPOV the statement either requires clarification, or it should be removed (it is a statement that compares "apples and oranges" - as another poster in the discussion pointed out - and the sources I provided confirm there is really no comparison). КĐ ♥ 19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree that the current statement has NPOV issues. The preceding sentence talks about "methanol poisoning;" in that context, no reasonable person would infer that fruit juice is 100% safe, if it contains more of a substance that can poison you than an aspartame-sweetened drink.  It may be a non sequitor, but that doesn't necessarily make it non-NPOV. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory and fringe
A large number of sources, whether secular or religious, indicate that the theory is fringe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232

Yet Jesus myth theory does not suggest this at all, simply saying that "most scholars believe Jesus existed".  Flash  11:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading Historicity of Jesus you do also get the impression this is a fringe theory. There is also the point that the Pauline epistles have been dated to a period when persons who had known Jesus personally would still have been alive. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Although, I would suggest, reading Wikipedia articles to check whether other Wikipedia articles have the right take isn't a good way to go about things. The Jesus Myth Theory appears to be a minority sport amongst credible academics and writers, but I don't think "fringe" would be correct. --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It was once fairly credible, in the era when the Bible was the arbiter of history, then (if I understand correctly) dropped from favor as Biblical scholarship became a respectable field. There are also a fair number of scholars who concede it might be true, even if not likely. Not really fringe, though certainly a minority opinion. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there is the overlay that it is incendiary, telling one or two billion people that the foundation of their religion is a myth. Not sure whether or not it is Wikipedian to take that into account. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be unconscionable to remove it because it is "incendiary". A large number of people have referenced the theory, and said it is possible but unlikely, or rejected it (if we don't count the people who agreed with it, who I suppose are "linked to the theory"). In other words, this is most definitely notable. BillMasen (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course we wouldn't delete it. The question is how it's presented. It's not crack-pot, but not mainstream either. I think the best we can do is cover the history of the idea and how modern historians have responded to it. The problem is which historians can be considered reliable, when there is so much external motivation for reaching particular conclusions. — kwami (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No historian is reliabel, that is why we would put all sides of the story. Whatr we do is represtn the amount of both praise and critismism the thoerey recives, and repoprt it in prorpertion to prevaling accademic conosensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) While I agree that Christ Myth theory as it is generally represented is fringe the problem is there are definitions out there that muddle matters.


 * Jesus began as at a Myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) The Role of Religion in History Transaction Publishers pg 58)(one possible reading of Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press  pg 17)


 * Jesus was historical but lived c100 BCE (Price, Robert M. "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (eds.) The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity, 2009, p. 65)


 * The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism (Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 1995; first published 1977, p. 199)


 * The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character and therefore non historical by definition.(Price, Robert M. (2000) Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85)


 * Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)
 * The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. (Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" review)


 * "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)  There are  six different ways myths are thought to come about: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena with "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent." (Bulfinch's Mythology, "Origin of Mythology" chapter)  Bromiley doesn't clarify which one he is using.

These and other definitions are why the term is such a mess--how it is defined is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses page - Equating Jehovah's Witnesses with Old Testament Prophets
This is a line that one editor who is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses has placed on the main page.

Publications have also claimed God uses Witnesses as a modern-day prophet, warning about what is to come in a similar manner to Old Testament prophets.[294][295]

It is used as a way to try to implicate Jehovah's Witnesses as a false prophet. The editor is making strenous efforts to make that point on Wikipedia. I had appealled for comments from other editors. They have given comments on the talk page. But despite that, we still have this issue. The two references used are from 1959 and 1972. They do not state that Jehovah's Witnesses are the same as or similar to Old Testament prophets. Jehovah's Witness literature has stated repeatedly that they do not make prophecies, and that only the Bible, which the Old Testament prophets wrote, along with the New Testament, is inspired of God. The writings of modern Jehovah's Witnesses are not. Additionlly, these two articles speak of Jehovah's Witnesses similarity to prophets, only in the context that Jehovah's Witnesses preach the message already in the Bible. They do not make any new prophecies. The Wikipedia editor blocks attempt to edit this erroneous sentence. The reason is, it supports his strong POV. I feel the sentence violates the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia and is biased.Natural (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

After posting this, it is noted, in reviewing the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page, that these two references, 1972 and 1959, are actually not taken from JW literature, but from Ray Franz's very biased writings against JW. This was not disclosed on the main Jehovah's Witnesses page. So, the sentence reflects both a bias and is unethical.Natural (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Natural


 * Raised earlier at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 16. Do we all repeat ourselves now? User:Naturalpsychology has posted a succession of talk page threads in the vain hope of gaining support for his view and posted an RFC on the article talk page with little support for his complaint. He is forum shopping and not listening to other editors. BlackCab (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In relation to User:Naturalpsychology's second complaint here, I have now added a clear attribution of the contested statement with numerous citations. See and . His claim that Franz is "very biased" is a nonsense; his books are critical of the religion, but he is no more a "very biased" source than the Watch Tower Society itself. -- BlackCab (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially given that the word "Jehovah" itself is a mis-translation, they started out on the wrong foot. The essence of NP's complaint seems to be, "How dare you quote us accurately!" However, it's certainly best to attribute the source, as you've done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

historicity of Jesus
There's a dispute over at historicity of Jesus and related articles about the proper way to frame some statements about scholarly consensus regarding the existence of Jesus and the historical value of the Gospels. These two edits give examples of the material under dispute: and. At issue are two passages in the article. One version of the first passage is "While scholars draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the figure of religious faith, the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus are Christians who believe his existence as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence,..." The source cited for this passage is a quote by Graham Stanton in which he writes "nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed." Is Stanton's text being represented in a fair and neutral manner?

A version of the second passage is "Devout Christian scholars may assert that mainstream historians consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about Jesus as a Galilean teacher..." The sources cited for this passage are Robert Van Voorst and William Weaver. Van Voorst writes that "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted", and Weaver writes that "The denial of Jesus' historicity has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles, nor did it in the first part of the century." Is it appropriate to characterize the statements of Van Voorst and Weaver as being those of "devout Christians"? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not fail to mention that Van Voorst is using Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing ("Publisher of religious books, from academic works in theology, biblical studies, religious history and reference to popular titles in spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature." per their own webpage's meta tag for descrition) and Weaver is using Continuum International ("a leading independent academic publisher, unconstrained by the interests of any global media group or academic institution, and based in London and New York."; why are these professionals going to such publications if their positions are that mainstream?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ONE POINT OF VIEW IS NOT A NUETRAL POINT OF VIEW!

Wikipedia claims to present everything from a nuetral point of view, but this is just a label to stop people from presenting their point of view. If it was truly a nuetral point of view, there shouldnt be anything on this whole website that hasnt been 100% proven and has no opposition to this proof. Everything that we see and speak in this world comes from an individuals perception, therefore a 'nuetral point of view' on a topic is something that doesnt even exist in our world. A 'point of view' is exactly that, it cant be labelled as 'nuetral'. The only 'nuetral' point of view possible in this world would come from somebody who cannot hear, see, smell or feel. As from the moment we are born we are influenced by everything that our minds experience. Please Wikipedia, please turn your site back into a place for freedom of speech and expression of thought. It will police itself, people will delete the BS themselves, or it may just open their eyes to a thought they have never been presented with. I thought this was a site dedicated to education, a tool to increase the intelligence of the human race, but i think im mistaken. Is WikiLeaks just a site built to make the people you believe in Freedom of Speech? Because i dont understand how Wikipedia can be such a police state when Wikileaks is dedicated to getting the truth out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.225.77 (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb's comment is unconstructive and unbecoming. Is he suggesting that the sources are unreliable?  Then say so, and explain why.  Do we have a policy of using books only published by academic presses?


 * The key point is this: Graham Stanton was a professor at Cambridge university, and the winner of an award from the British Academy. In the UK, it is hard to have higher or more prestigious academic credentials.  He was used as a source for a statement about the views of most historians.  An editor changed the text to say that this what most Christiansd believe.  Yes, i have an NPOV concern because the result is to alter fundamentally the view being represented, and if we do not represent views accurately, the whole encyclopedia falls apart.  But this claim that this is what most Christians think is the pure fabrication of the editor.  My main concern is that this violates NOR.  It may well be that most Christians believe this, but we still need a verifialbe source saying so, not just an editor's opinion.


 * Be that as it may, Stanton was not summarizing what most Christians believe, he was making a statement about what Christian and non-Christian historians believe. Yes, I take the word of a Cambridge professor over the word of another WP editor.  It is why we have V and NOR policies right? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb, Civilizededucation, and the IP seem to think that if Wikipedia editors believe a source is biased, it's ok to misrepresent their views. I seriously doubt this is in accordance with the NPOV policy... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus misses the point. It has already been shown via Jesus now and then by Richard A. Burridge, Graham Gould which states "Jesus is also mentioned in the writing of the three main Roman historial writers from the end o the first century CE - Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius" that Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing doesn't double check its author's claimed facts as none of these source actually mentions Jesus.  In fact, of the three only Tacitus makes any mention regarding what the Christians believe about "Christ" and what he presents is wrong (Pilate's title was Prefect which had been replaced by a similar position called Procurator by that time.)


 * International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J by Geoffrey W. Bromiley is another example of Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing's lack of professional editing. "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."
 * Bulfinch in the "Origin of Mythology" chapter points out six different ways myths were thought to come about: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena. He also said "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent." so which type of mythology is Bromiley talking about? It is unclear as you have one sentence about Lucian's criticism regarding the Jesus story being being a pale imitation of Apollonius of Tyana followed by one talking about the idea that the death and resurrection story said to resembling dying and rising god cults like that of Attis, Adonis, Osiris, and Mithras.  Problem is at one time Euhemerism was very popular with Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10 (1919) edited by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray and J. G. Frazer The Golden Bough looking at the theory that some of these gods had been men.  So instead of informing in a clear and concise manner Eerdmans allows a totally confusing passage in.


 * As for Stanton Amazon doesn't have page p. xxiii available for The Gospels and Jesus but it does have page 143 where Stanton firmly puts Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) in the Christ Myth category: "His case is quite simple: until the beginning of the second century AD Christians worshiped Jesus as mythical 'Saviour' figure; only at that point did they make their 'Saviour' a historical person who lived and taught in Galilee" but Wells himself clearly states in 2009 "In fact, however, I have expressed stated in my books of 1996, 1999, and 2004 that I have repudiated this theory (Christ Myth theory), and now really belong in their category 2. If the reader wishes a brief statement concerning my change of position and the reasons for it—briefer than I give in those three books or in the present one—I can refer him or her to my article "Jesus, Historicity of" in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Tom Flynn." (Wells, G. A. (2009) Cutting Jesus Down to Size. Open Court, pp. 327–328.)
 * If Stanton is wrong about Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) by Wells own words then you have to ask what else is he wrong about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * if a source is biased, we should say so!! But we need more evidence than the editor's say so.  What passes as evidence - like nameing the publish of the book - would be zapped as a violation of SYNTH and OR if we were talking about article content.  Bias needs to be named!!! But we have to determine bias from reliable sources without violating NOR.  One way is that many authors admit to bias (e.g. some say that they write as Chistians, or as women, or whatever).  another way is to find a reliable source that says that the first source is biased - this is what we have been doing in the articles on the Race and intellience controvesy articles.  Bot please, no violations of NOR.  Find legitimate reliable secondary sources that explicity state that x's arguments in x's book are biased. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What passes as evidence - like nameing the publish of the book - would be zapped as a violation of SYNTH and OR if we were talking about article content. True, but we're not, so it isn't. Obviously, in determining whether a source has bias which ought to affect how we treat it, the fact that it comes from a Christian publishing house (or a Marxist one, or animal rights one, or a revisionist one) may be a relevant factor. Reliable sources are not need needed to back up common-sense arguments made on talkpages. --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Akhellius. Actually I am saying that the statements about academic consensus from this field should not be used at all. These statements are of no value.- Civilized education  talk  02:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Civilizededucation and not just because of who the publishers are but because they themselves use Avoid_weasel_words that we as editors would never be allowed to use--ie these sources can be used to break the spirit but not the letter of the guideline.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody who thinks that PeaceLoveHarmony's edit here, which inspired Akhilleus's original post, was appropriate? john k (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not this editor. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

University of the People and Shai Reshef
I wasn't really sure where to take this, I considered the COI noticeboard, but I think this is more appropriate. These two articles have been subject to NPOV editing by SPAs for over a year now (one of the SPAs was actually the name of PR company, so there is some definite COI going on). In fact, the vast majority of edits to these articles are by SPAs, and although much of the content they add is fine, it tends to be suspiciously positive and advertisement-y in nature. I've posted to the talk page of University of the People, but I don't get much response there.

As far as I know, I'm the only non-SPA editor keeping an eye on them and trying to keep them neutral, but I think I'm at the point where I'm no longer neutral myself (I may be unnecessarily removing valid content), so I'd appreciate some fresh eyes and minds to help me out here. There's nothing really egregious there right now, and these articles are edited at a pretty slow pace, but as I said, they've been pretty consistently edited by SPAs for over a year now, and I'd feel better to know that there are some other regular WP editors keeping an eye on them. SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I share your concern, and have watchlisted both. If I get a chance, I'll try to clean out some of the inappropriate text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over ethnic origin of Clement of Ohrid
There has been an edit war (in wich I am involved) on the page Clement of Ohrid, a medieval orthodox saint. The dispute is about the origin of the person: whether he is Bulgarian, or Macedonian, or Slavic. I saw in the discussion page and history that there were previous disputes that have not been solved.

The point is that Clement is regarded as a pan-Slavic saint and patron by all Slavic People, as being one of the inventors of the Cyrilic alphabeth. Bulgarians and Macedonian try to monopolize him as been strictly Bulgarian or strictly Macedonian. Various sources refer to him as either Slavic or Bulgarian or Macedonian.

Currently the article is written as if he was a Bulgarian national hero. Whenever I try to change something it gets reverted almost instantly, although I am providing proper citation. Whenever a Macedonian editor reads this, he will immediately try to change, all the references to Bulgaria, and write Macedonia instead. Bulgarian editors that have the page on watchlist will revert instantly.

I think that the article should refer to a Slavic saint because all that he did promoted Slavic culture and language. That will be a reasonable compromise as Bulgarians and Macedonians are both Slavic nations, which did not exist at the time. It should also satisfy most readers and one-time editors, and there will be no further sporadic edit wars.

Svrznik (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What sources do you have that he is Slavic?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After searching on google books, I was surprised to find that very few authors mention his ethnic origin explicitly. That is after I eliminated works written by Bulgarian or Macedonian authors. He is discussed in the context of his work, and his greatest achievement is the spreading of Slavic language in Medieval Bulgaria which at that time controlled most of the Balkan peninsula. The point is that in the 9th century, Bulgaria was Slavic dominated, but the ruling class was Bulgar of Turkic origin. Part of the aristocracy recently converted to Christianity and embraced the Slavic language, while other hard core elements sicked to Bulgar pagan traditions. Clement played a major role, and is one of the main figures that helped Slavic language resist the assimilation into Greek, and also made it prevail as the dominant language in Bulgaria and the whole Eastern Europe.

This is best described here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y0NBxG9Id58C&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20early%20medieval%20Balkans%3A%20a%20critical%20survey%20from%20the%20sixth&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

pages 128-129 and page 134.

and here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G2bsJdYrwD4C&pg=PA66&dq=Clement+of+Ohrid+Slavic&hl=en&ei=myuXTJOeFcah4AaIprTcBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Clement&f=false

page 66.

Dimitri Obolensky a prominent Byzantine historian, in his book Six Byzantine Portraits, on page 9 calls him a "A Bulgarian Slav". You can download the book here: http://hotfile.com/dl/35219986/83ebf44/0198219512.rar.html

An online database of saints (https://saints.sqpn.com) lists him as a Slavic: http://saints.sqpn.com/saintc3h.htm

Svrznik (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And everything else you have is your own OR on the subject. Sources (as you already pointed) treat him as a Bulgarian or a Bulgarian Slav (which is btw the same thing). Plus, instead of aiming for consensus you've broken 3RR on the article (again). Plus, you've being playing around with article names the whole day, not even trying to adhere to WP:NC. Great work.-- L a v e o l  T 19:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can post more sources:
 * 1. http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Orthodox+Church+in+the+history+of+Russia&hl=en&ei=QmWYTM-2OoLr4Aab77hc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slavic&f=false
 * On page 12 you can read: "Slavic desciples Naum and Clement".
 * 2. http://books.google.com/books?id=ANdbpi1WAIQC&lpg=PP1&dq=A%20history%20of%20East%20Central%20Europe%3A%20East%20Central%20Europe%20in%20the%20Middle%20Ages&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q=Slavic&f=false
 * On page 146 you can read: "Slavic-speaking priest Clement".
 * 3. http://books.google.com/books?id=hFVEOVpoHLsC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Orthodox%20Church%20in%20the%20Byzantine%20Empire&pg=PA100#v=snippet&q=first%20Slav%20bishop&f=false
 * On page 100 you can read "first Slav bishop".
 * 4. http://books.google.com/books?id=-P_huGq9mV4C&lpg=PP1&dq=Slavic%20Scriptures%3A%20the%20formation%20of%20the%20Church%20Slavonic%20version%20of%20the%20Holy&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q=Greek-educated%20Slavs&f=false
 * On page 89 you can read: "they were Greek-educated Slavs" (talking about Naum, Clement and others).
 * 5. http://books.google.com/books?id=-P_huGq9mV4C&lpg=PP1&dq=Slavic%20Scriptures%3A%20the%20formation%20of%20the%20Church%20Slavonic%20version%20of%20the%20Holy&pg=PA85#v=snippet&q=%22first%20Slav%22&f=false
 * On Page 85 you can read: "he [Clement] would be the first Slav in general".
 * I looked at the page about Charlemagne, and there was a similar dispute there. The solution is that he is not labeled as French, nor as German, but simply Frankish. His name is written only in Latin. I think Slavic will be a similar solution on this page.
 * Svrznik (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Can some people help me with this article? There's been scattered NPOV discussion on it for several years, and there are two facts about its current state: 1. Parts of it read like literature straight from the organization (because it IS wording straight from the org) and 2. User/IP 98.204.64.30 (who only has ever made edits about Komen or its founder) has recently popped in and qualified a lot of the edits I made regarding controversy with the organization and has removed things he/she considered "biased information," although it was sourced.

I feel that it is important that such a large organization is accurately represented, including both good works AND controversy (which surely exists for any huge non-profit as such), but this particular editor has deemed me "biased" and will likely delete/qualify anything I do. (In my opinion they are quite biased that Komen Can Do No Wrong, so there's that, but anyway.) Any outsider help is appreciated, as I never intended to stir up controversy here. Thanks. Sweet kate (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Are there any guidelines re category names? The recently created category "Famines_in_British_Empire" is in my view a value-laden term. It has been created by an editor User:Zuggernaut who appears to be a borderline WP:SPA. This editor clearly holds the view that the British Empire was solely responsible for famines in India and Ireland, as demonstrated by his edits to various articles, but this is a matter of opinion rather than fact. "Famines in the British Empire" is clearly causally linking the fact there was a famine and the fact that it occurred under British rule. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not useful. There are already categories for Famines in India and Famines in Ireland as well as a general category Famines. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and discuss the subject rather than the editor. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Alterdoppelganger at Pamela Geller
"New" editor has come in to completely whitewash the Pamela Geller article to make it read as if she were writing the article herself. They claim the new version is "neutral", I see it as so pro-Geller as to be ridiculous. This is the version they keep reverting to. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games
You'll probably guess from the lengthy title of this article that it's attracting some less than neutral edits. More eyes would be very welcome. It's a serious topic - there have been very real failings by the organisers - but it's being used to slam India and the article is drawing every tiny little negative news story. seems to be the sole voice of reason, which makes protection less attractive, but hopefully additional neutral editors will avoid the need for protection anyway. TFOW<b style="color:#F00">R</b> 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An Australian athelete has pulled out, bridge collapse, partial drop ceiling collapse in the weighlifting, some teams are delaying leaving, etc. so some editors seem to be going all out to dig up as much negative detail as they can. Don't worry too much about me, I hope (chances!) to go UzT early tonight. 220.101 talk\Contribs 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Gavin Menzies
There's a dispute over a statement about Menzies - removed here by the editor saying NPOV is being violated. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who marked that page non-NPOV after having noticed that the entire article is violating so many Wikipedia rules that I am not even going to bother listing them all. The most blatant one, a small statement as noted in that page discussion, which was used more as one example of many others. The problem with the rest of the article ranges from a clearly biased language and rhetoric, multiple references to anti-1421 blogs to character assassination. However, some of that same information can be kept if it is put in a much more neutral form, while removing some of the strong emphasis on the detail in his book 1421. This is, after all an article about the author and not a discussion blog about his books, which can be found elsewhere. These corrections is something the current editors have strong "opinions" against. In addition after briefly inspecting both discussion and article page histories, it seem like the same issues have been repeatedly raised on several different occasions, just to be reverted by the same people. Some of these people, in addition, have been associated on earlier (see page histories) occasions with the same IP adress range, giving a weak evidence that these people either know each other or may even be the same person. It is sad that this page have become hijacked by an anti-1421 junta and therefore it is very important that other people get involved in this matter. Jahibadkaret (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are hopefully unaware that this article covers both Menzies and his books, as the book articles have been merged into this article. I'm not happy about accusations of sock or meat puppetry without evidence, particularly when you are tarring all the editors there, including myself, with the accusation. There has been some sockpuppetry, see Talk:Gavin Menzies/Archive 2 which is possibly part of the 'repeatedly raised' that you mention. Your edit has been discussed in some detail now on the article talk page, with 4 editors including myself disagreeing with you. I've said there that I think your 'neutral' is not our NPOV. Menzies is rejected by most if not all academic historians and the article should reflect that. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the article, it seems to me to be well within the guidelines of WP:FRINGE, and the article would not be neutral if the contested statement were removed. I've commented further on the article's talk page. I see no NPOV issue here. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thilo Sarrazin
I found a discussion at WP:HELPDESK where an editor is concerned about bias and sources in this article. I've just removed the edits today by an IP (technically 2 IPs but almost certainly the same person), but I'm concerned that the article is still being used to push an anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim pov. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me add that German Wikipedia has a detailled article on Sarrazins controversial book Deutschland schafft sich ab, which might proof helpful in editing this article.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Mode (computer interface): is an article biased where only negative sources exist?
Hi, I'm a major editor in the "Mode (computer interface)" article. This article contains substantial content merged from the deleted "Mode errors" article, describing how use of modal interfaces is likely to induce users to have errors while using it. Those effects are soundly referenced in the article.

This article has been twice tagged as biased by centering in the negative, and |both times I've asked the editors that tagged the article to provide sources for a different viewpoint, or to make (and discuss!) some solid edits that reduce their perceived bias. In both cases the editor raising the issue has never come back.

So my question is, what should be the next step to solve the dispute, and how can I improve the article so that this dispute is not brought back in the future? Diego Moya (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is most of what is written about modes negative? If so, then the article has to reflect that. It seems from a brief reading, that modes are something that computer experts are trying to move on from. If that's the case, then it's useful for the reader to know that. You should refer any new editors to our sourcing policy: WP:V. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes I've been referring editors to WP:V, I think that's why they never returned :-) I'll try to find a source to reflect why there aren't any writings supporting modal design. Diego Moya (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Contraceptive mentality
Somebody have a look. Popped up on NewPages. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a lot of WP:OR to me. As most of the references are religious in nature, I redirected to Religious views on birth control.  Grsz 11  04:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Football terminology
Hi all, I tried to initiate an RFC on the talk page of Football regarding this issue, but got nowhere, so i'm trying here now.

A few months ago I saw that there wasn't a consistent MOS rule regarding football articles. On some about American football, the term American football was used, and sometimes football was used. Likewise, on Association football, sometimes soccer was used, sometimes football was used, and sometimes Association football was used.

Ditto that on Gaelic football, Canadian football and Australian football.

There needs to be a standard NPOV accepted MOS term on all articles, or I can guarantee you that there will be edit wars in the future between partisans of the varying sports claiming their football is "the" football and forcing that POV down the throats of other users. I've already unfortunately been in edit wars with other users in the attempt to try and stop this from happening.

I don't care how it's done, I just want to see a way that all of these codes of football can be seen and treated equally in the encyclopedia. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is just forum shopping. You've already initiated an RfC, which failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever for forcing standardization across all articles on sports called "football", and posted at the NFL Wikiproject, which also failed to get the results you wanted. The fact is most editors just don't see this as a neutrality issue.
 * Let's not beat around the bush, Doc's problem is with soccer articles. That's the only type of football where the name is routinely pipelinked from just "football" ( football ). Articles on American football almost always use "American football" in at least the first instance. Occasionally they pipelink as football (and Doc recently added a bunch of these pipelinks despite the lack of consensus for the measure), but almost always it is called "American football" in the first instance. The same is true for Canadian football, Gaelic football, and Australian rules football, as well as for rugby union even in places where that is known as "football". By contrast, association football is called simply "football" in articles on English-speaking countries that call it such, as well for many articles on non-English speaking countries. It is called "soccer" for Canada and United States articles, and "association football" in other instances, such as the main "association football" article and articles on Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland.
 * Doc Quintana's proposal basically asserts that either soccer articles must change, or else articles on all other types of football need to follow the soccer articles. Judging by the various discussions other editors do not tend to agree. Whatever happens with soccer articles, there is no reason to make sweeping changes to articles on all other football sports, especially ones that will just introduce further confusion.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The RFC was incredibly inconclusive, the results I wanted were some results, which i've said over and over again. I don't care if soccer articles change as long as there is a standard between soccer articles and the sport that is known as football in the United States. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The RFC was conclusive: there was no consensus that anything should be done any differently, so we default to the status quo and no changes are made. And if you're tired of "stalking", stop forum shopping and just discuss the matter in one venue.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Famine in India
Famine in India has been tagged with as POV, the reason being cited is than non-mainstream sources are being used. The POV allegation is seen in this diff. The sources in question are the Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and European Journal of Development Research Prize winner Olivier Rubin. A direct like to Google Books or web sites has been provided in the article for easy access and verification. The content being attacked as POV can be seen in this diff. A discussion between the editors can be seen in several sections of the talk page. Is this a valid NPOV allegation? Is the content non-mainstream and/or non-neutral? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see any POV issue here. In fact, omitting the views of a respected academic as published in an established journal would create a POV issue, not remove one.  Whether or not the opposing viewpoint is "non-mainstream" depends a bit upon what your definition of "mainstream" is.  It's not a fringe theory, but it does seem to go against the consensus in the field.  Of course, in any field of study, consensus can change, and the fact that this research made it into a peer-reviewed journal argues that it's worthy of mention.  It doesn't seem like it has undue emphasis, either.  I think the objecting editor is in error. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only issue I see is about the amount of space to be allotted to Sen's view and the criticism of it. Arguably, the discussion is more about the nature of democracy than about the nature of famine. Sen is a very prominent figure and his views on more or less anything are notable, but two or three sentences should be ample space to cover this. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of non-free historical images
This issue, which at a first glance, is more relevant to another noticeboard, has a direct relation to neutrality. I noticed that non-free historical photos are gradually disappearing from many XX century history articles. They are being either totally removed or replaced with some much poorer quality photos. This process, which seems to be in formal accordance with WP:NFCC, in actuality may affect neutrality of Wikipedia. The problem is that, whereas many US, German or UK historical photographs are in public domain, national archival photographs are copyrighted in other states. As a result, overwhelming majority of US, Germany or UK related photos remain in Wikipedia, whereas most, e.g. Soviet or Russia related historical photos, which are non-free, are being removed as "redundant". The obvious consequence of that is that some part of Wikipedia's content becomes nationaly biased. Sometimes that leads to a paradoxal situation: many articles about Soviet-German war contain mostly or solely the photos from German archives (because Bundesarchiv have opened many of its photos for free use in Wikipedia), and few Soviet photos which are still there have been nominated for deletion (see, e.g. ). Despite my numerous attempts to explain to some members of the non-free media project that historical photos should be treated not in the same way as the endless Transformers toys, album covers, book covers, and the rest, all these arguments are being totally ignored for quite formal reasons (see, e.g. ). I would like to know the community's opinion on that account. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been concerned about this too, though my main concern is the removal of Holocaust images. Without those images our articles are going to be woefully incomplete, but because of the time frame of the Holocaust we have very few, if any, images regarded as free in the United States. There were some Holocaust images in the bundle given us by the Bundesarchiv, but many of them were not the Bundesarchiv's to give. I tried to point this out at the time, but I was asked to be quiet because it was such an important donation. I also think it's inappropriate for us to be forced to rely entirely on Germany for images from that era.


 * I share Paul's concern that we not treat historically important images in the same way we treat cartoons of the Simpsons. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, your arguments aren't being ignored. They are being considered. The issue is your arguments are being disagreed with. There's a big difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of my arguments have been considered. However, unfortunately, part of my arguments was simply ignored. For instance, I pointed out that the way Yad Vashem treats the Holocaust images ("you can copy them, but you can't sell them") is quite correct, and the attempt of some Wikipedians to collect libre images of the Holosaust and WWII (thereby providing a perfect opportunity for various businessmen to create commercial products based on these pictures) is hardly dictated by any rational needs. And, note, that "noble" goal (to care about the possibility of commercial use of the content that should not be sold) is achieved by decreasing the article's quality. This and many other my arguments are still unanswered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I share these concerns of systematic bias on Wikipedia's treatment of non-free images as I've seen it reflected elsewhere. The tension is between Wikipedia's goals of delivering quality unbiased content on one hand and promoting free content on the other.  If fair use is applicable I would use it for a truly superior picture.  WP:NPOV can be invoked on one side of the argument; WP:Non-free content.  In the end the general issue may require wider community consensus.  Maybe through an RFC. Lambanog (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is in essence an external issue that Wikipedia is in no position to fix. If the US, UK and German governments legislate to release historical images into the public domain, while former Soviet states legislate to copyright historical era images (which is some what ironic given the supposed public ownership of all things in communist states), and the result is a systematic bias in the availability images and thus a perceived POV issue, I don't see how Wikipedia can fix that, other than to ban the use of PD images sourced from US, UK and German government archives to balance the lack of availability of images from post-Soviet states due to their copyright legislation. I don't think that is practical solution. The only thing Wikipedians can do is to lobby their respective governments to change the legislation. --Martin (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "...I don't see how Wikipedia can fix that, other than to ban the use of PD images sourced from US, UK and German government..." I already proposed a solution, which does not require any changes of WP policy. It is just sufficient not to remove non-free photos based on purely formal interpretation of WP:NFCC. I, as well as many other editors already explained that elsewhere. The only thing which is needed to fix the situation is to stop the flawed tendency to wrongly interpret WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, some images are truly iconic. But playing the devil's advocate, WP:NFCC is not just Policy, but is Legal Policy, designed to minimise exposure to potential legal liability. I may be wrong, but I don't think it is a policy that the community can re-interpret without input from the Foundation's legal counsel. Wikipedia operates on a shoe string budget, the last thing they need is a law suit over copyright infringement, and the aim of WP:NFCC is to prevent that, as far as I understand it. --Martin (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul's sentiment. While the two editors who have given him the most headaches with are bona fide freedom fighters, there are editors in the disputed East European topic area who specifically target (Soviet) images for deletion to advance a POV. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who? Do you want to name names, or are you going to refactor this statement? --Martin (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, the notorious EEML case is totally irrelevant to this thread. The problem is that some editors are obsessed with the idea to create a fully free content, even at a cost of decrease of the article's quality. They seem to be perfectly unbiased, believing that (by contrast to the policy itself) the policy's the letter of the rule trumps the spirit of the rule. However, one the of unintentional results of this activity is a creation of biased content. IMO, such an activity is more dangerous than the activity of EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only is it irrelevant, but Petri's assertion is just plain BS. What nexr, the EEML were behind September 11? --Martin (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "... playing the devil's advocate, WP:NFCC is not just Policy, but is Legal Policy, designed to minimise exposure to potential legal liability. I may be wrong, but I don't think it is a policy that the community can re-interpret without input from the Foundation's legal counsel. Wikipedia operates on a shoe string budget, the last thing they need is a law suit over copyright infringement ..." Not correct. The fair use is an absolutely legal thing, so WP does not become to be exposed to any potential legal liability as a result of that. A decision to make a totally free content is an internal WP policy, which is much stricter than American copyright laws. The major, and probably, the sole argument of the proponents of totally free content is that there is no limitations for subsequent use of such a content. More concretely, a fully free WP content can be used not only for education purposed but also for creation of commercial products. However, I do not think it is relevant here, because the idea to make money on the Holocaust or WWII pictures is intrinsically flawed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the thing I've found most disturbing when the non-free policy is taken to extremes. I've asked many times about this, about why we do it, and I've been told it's out of consideration for people who might want to sell our content. But who are these people? We should not be refraining from showing people Holocaust images because some businessman somewhere would prefer us to find a free one that he can package and sell. No one has ever been able to give me an example of a re-seller who would be inconvenienced by our use of these images. I once asked on the mailing list, and the only example anyone could think of was people who sell T-shirts! SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, you're characterizing my stance (presuming, I think accurately, you are at least referring to me) entirely inaccurately. I'm beyond attempting to convince you of anything at this point. Nevertheless, it needs to be said to others reading that your characterization of my efforts is utterly false. Paul, I know you're going to disagree, and I'm the anti-Christ in Wikipedia editor form. Don't really care. Regardless, to the other readers; you can decide for yourself if this image with the hammer and sickle flag forefront and the Brandenburg Gate clearly in the background is somehow more biased (presumably against the Soviet accomplishment) than this image showing the same design flag hanging over the Reichstag, when the Reichstag is barely even in the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Below are your own words from there
 * " @Paul: The reason is simple. I pointed you to the Gratis vs. Libre article because it is a fundamental concept that needs to be understood to understand our NFCC policy here. If we didn't make a distinction between Gratis and Libre, we could just follow U.S. Fair Use law and be done with it. Libre, which we follow, means anyone can use our content for whatever purpose they want to use it, including SELLING it. AP would never consent to the Rosenthal image being used in that manner. Therefore, we treat it as non-free and limit its usage within the project to as little as necessary, so as to maintain our focus on our libre goal. ... it is our choice. It's a fantastic one."
 * I expect you to either explain how concretely I distorted your words or to apologize.
 * I fully understand that it is your choice. Two questions remain to be unclear for me, however:
 * Whose concretely this choice is? Since you seem not to pretend to speak on behalf of the Foundation, you probably mean some influential group within the Wikipedian community. Please, name this group, because I, as well as many other editors do not belong to this group, and we would like to know, who are "you".
 * Why do you believe you have a right to impose your vision of the policy on other Wikipedians? And why have you decided we need a mediator between us and the policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One more question. In your previous posts you and your colleagues repeatedly state that photographs play auxiliary role. Please, point at the specific clause in the policy or guidelines which allowed you to make such a statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Brandenburg gates etc. I already explained why the Reichstag photo is essential, however, that belongs more to the article's talk page, not to this noticeboard. If you genuinely want to know the answer, we can continue there, just let me know. What is relevant to this thread is that it is much more easier to find free US or German photos than the Soviet ones. I spend enormous time in attempts to create a collage for the EF article using only PD photos. Most of them but one were from the US or German archives. In few month the last non-US and non-German photo I used for this collage had been deleted from Commons, and, fortunately I was able to find a free picture of Soviet Il-2 in Bundesarchive. As a result, the collage about Soviet-German war is now composed exclusively from German and American photos, and this situation is typical. All Soviet photos from Commons are either of terrible quality or nominated for deletion (or deleted). It appeared to be impossible to find a free WWII photo non-destroyed or non captured T-34, and so on. As a result, the articles are full of German tanks, German soldiers, German civilians, whereas the Soviet photos are of poor quality and rare.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to apologize to you when I am, according to you, introducing bias into the article by choosing a free image over a non-free image. I didn't say you distorted my words. I said you characterized my stance in a completely false way. Unless you were referring to someone else (and I gave you the opportunity to reject that, and you didn't), you claimed that I believe the letter of the (policy) is more important than the spirit, that I am introducing bias into the article, and that in so doing I am more "dangerous" the EEML people (whoever they are). Good lord, if I'm so flippin' "dangerous" then report my biased backside to WP:AN/I and get me banned from the project. Enough with the rhetoric already!!!!! As to the rest of your post expecting something or the other from me, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. As to your collage, I don't care. I have no iron in that fire. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe I characterised your stance in a completely false way, then two explanations of that are possible: I either (i) lie, or (ii) misunderstand you. If you assume my good faith (and I believe you do), than only (ii) is plausible. Therefore, it is quite natural expect you to explain me how concretely did I misunderstand your words. The problem is however, that I doubt I misunderstand you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "if I'm so flippin' "dangerous" then report my biased backside to WP:AN/I and get me banned from the project." I am not going to do that for two reasons: firstly, I hate ANI, secondly, as I already pointed out, I think your activity generally leads to improvement of Wikipedia. However, every good thing can be misused. That is equally true for the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, I fully understand what you are saying, Wikipedia's decision to make content totally free, even for commercial use, makes it more difficult to make fair use of images. I agree 100%, I know of tons of images that are licensed for free distribution but not for commercial use (BY-NC-SA), so they cannot be used here, which is a bummer. Someone even brought up the issue of commercial usage of Wikipedia content with Jimbo here. This has to be sorted out at that level, to get the Foundation to change their content licensing policy, I would support you 100% there. But until that is done, blaming people like Hammersoft is pointless. --Martin (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are too pessimistic. The Foundation's resolution says:
 * "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose."
 * In other words, the historical photos, which illustrate historically significant events, should be approached not in the same way as majority of other non-free images. However, the use of the non-free historical photos is allowed only if some free photo which serves the same educational purpose is not available. Hummersoft & Co makes two major mistakes: (i) they treat most photos, including historical ones, as some auxiliary materials, so, according to them, the article without photos serves the same educational purpose. This idea is their own invention, I failed to find such a statement somewhere in the policy, and (ii) they mix two things: "a free photo which serves the same educational purposes" and "a free photo on the article's subject", which is obviously not the same. As a result, their standard arguments are: "we already have free photos on the article's subject, so we don't need the non-free one", and "we don't need a photo that describe concretely this article's aspect because the photos in general play just an auxiliary role, and, therefore, can be even totally omitted, and the same idea can be transmitted just by words". Obviously, all of that is not what the policy says, so I see absolutely no reason to modify it. What we really need is to prevent privatisation of the policy by a group of Wikipadians. obsessed with the idea of totally free content. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, you're tilting at windmills. Nobody in this discussion is obsessed with totally free content. You also claim the existence of a non-free media project. Unless you are referring to WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free, which is effectively dead as there's been almost no activity there this year, there is no such project. Further, none of the people involved in this discussion claim membership in that project. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by making such accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, please, disregard my last words. If you think they are wrong I apologise. However, could you please address my other points, which you are repeatedly ignore. For your convenience, I reproduce them below:
 * Whose concretely this choice is? Since you seem not to pretend to speak on behalf of the Foundation, you probably mean some influential group within the Wikipedian community. Please, name this group, because I, as well as many other editors do not belong to this group, and we would like to know, who are "you".
 * Why do you believe you have a right to impose your vision of the policy on other Wikipedians? And why have you decided we need a mediator between us and the policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One more question. In your previous posts you and your colleagues repeatedly state that photographs play auxiliary role. Please, point at the specific clause in the policy or guidelines which allowed you to make such a statement.-
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Re your "Therefore, we treat it as non-free and limit its usage within the project to as little as necessary, so as to maintain our focus on our libre goal. ... it is our choice. It's a fantastic one." Could you please explain me why this idea is so "fantastic" when it is applied to a content which is not supposed to be used for commercial purposes (photos of wars, genocides, some other unique historical events)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already responded to this request above. You didn't like my response, and so you're asking me to respond again. My response was, "I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about" To the point of "auxiliary" roles, you're asking me to answer for Seraphimblade who brought that up. I never mentioned it. Without meaning to put words in his mouth, the point I believe is that we're not a pictography of various subject. We're not a collection of media on various topics (that's Commons). We're not flickr. We're an encyclopedia. It should be obvious as finding text definitions in a dictionary that our primary content here is going to be text, and pictures support the text, not the other way around. Regardless, this seems a straw man argument. As to your P.S., I refer you again to gratis vs. libre. I'm of the impression that you're not understanding this subject. I also don't think you're understanding our mission, and the very limited role that non-free content plays in supporting that mission. I apparently do not have the talent to educate you on the underlying philosophy of this project. Given that, I'm going to bow out of this conversation as my participation is not helping you to a better understanding of our purpose. To the less abstract issue of the Reichstag photo, by your own admission there is no consensus to include the image in the Battle of Berlin article. I'm quite confident you and others will not attempt to restore it without there being consensus to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the idea that the photos play auxiliary role was first put forward by Seraphimblade, you seem to fully support it, and you resort to straw man arguments in attempts to advocate this idea. I never stated that WP is a collection of various photos. Moreover, I fully agree that WP is not and should not be a pictography of all historical events. However, since, as you correctly noted, WP is an encyclopaedia, its primary goal is to correctly and neutrally present human knowledge, which sometimes (very infrequently) cannot be done without using non-free media, and the Foundation's stance reflects this fact. Therefore, some (few) historical non-free photos must be used in WP to illustrate key historical events or to compensate article's bias, because Wikipedia is not a good encyclopaedia without that.
 * My point is that, since we speak about rare and non-standard situations (in actuality, about placement of a handful of photos in several history articles), the standard non-free media guidelines' criteria can hardly be applied here automatically and non-creatively. That would be a clear example of the situation when the letter of the rule trumps the spirit of the rule, which directly contradicts to the policy.
 * Re: "I apparently do not have the talent to educate you on the underlying philosophy of this project." By saying that you imply that your knowledge about the philosophy of this project is more deep than mine. That as arrogant as your attempts to teach me which events should be depicted in the Battle of Berlin article and which should not. Whereas the former implies your deep knowledge of the policy and the letter implies your profound historical education, you demonstrated none of that. Maybe to abstain from further discussion would be really a solution for you?
 * PS One more photo has been removed from the WWII article . There is almost no Soviet photos there now, so this GA may lose this status soon as non-neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Universities and Antisemitism
I made a correction to this article, but it was removed. I am confused about how to get the matter resolved, but in its current form the article repeats as fact that two men, one of them Jewish, were attacked by a group of students, one swinging a machete. I modified the article by saying that the incident was alleged and not verified, that there were no witnesses. I cited as source my article in Canadian Charger. I think that my correction to the article was extremely reasonable, simply indicating that the attack was alleged, not verified. Why was the modification removed? I note that I am supposed to sign using tildes. I don't know how to make tildes on my keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdurre (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Amdurre. Welcome to Wikipedia.  If you want to discuss the contents of an article, the usual practice is to do so on the talk page for the article.  In this case you would create a new section on Talk:Universities and antisemitism and pose your question there.  But if you go to the article itself and click on the "View history" tab at the top, you'll see that the editor who undid your change tried to explain why in their edit summary, saying "Ret to previous text, as per reference provided. New source not available".  Also, if you're in the United States, the tilde is probably on the key to the left of the number 1 -- you need to use the shift key also because it's the upper symbol on that key.  Finally, take a look at the Tutorial, it's a very good overview of how to be an editor here.  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Universities and Antisemitism
My alteration of this article was reversed, on grounds that the source cited could not be found. I am pasting same here: A mysterious attack in Ottawa


 * The preceding message was from . I have removed the copy-pasted story -- posting the entire thing here is a copyright violation.  The story can be found online using this link.  The reference that Amdurre inserted in the article was incorrectly formatted, which may be why LessHeard vanU reverted -- or not; I'm not really sure.  I'm not expressing an opinion here, just trying to fix the collateral damage. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Young Conservatives of Texas
In the article, Young Conservatives of Texas, there are multiple instances of seemingly biased analysis of its achievements and seems to have been written by a supporter. Please help this article by re-writing it to be a more neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseus1776 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Stargate Project
I hope I'm on the right noticeboard here; responding to a note at WP:EAR recently, I tagged this article as being POV (to such an extent that it's essentially in-universe and reads like a work of fiction). It appears to be a fringe conspiracy theory, but the article quotes fringe sources and tries to pass the content off as fact. It's going to take a hefty amount of work to clean up so volunteers to help out would be useful; I'm having trouble just figuring out how to start clearing up this mess... <font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch  <font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]  23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletion as Hoax probably, or completly redirect to Joseph McMoneagle as all sources lead back to him. I think this could be the same group as the The Men Who Stare at Goats (film) I cant find relaible sources any where for this Military Project. Which there ought to be. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having reviewd further its at AFD as I compared with Project MKULTRA, If this was a real program by the US military then there ought to be some fully independent government or Third party source to confirm its existence. All I can find are fringe sources that all trail back to this guy all sources trace back to him. I can not find any indication this is anything more than what he cooked up smoking something. Nor can I find any indication that this even a notable conspiracy theory like Moon landing conspiracy theories The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality on Gibraltar
Which of these texts, would editors consider treats a crucial event in Gibraltar's history in a neutral manner. The intention is to provide a very brief overview for the Gibraltar article. I believe the texts should stand on their own supported by inline citations. There is a more detailed history of Gibraltar article, a brief overview giving a few significant details is required.

1. On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances but commanders lost control, sailors and marines engaged in rape and pillage, desecrating most churches, and townspeople carried out reprisal killings. By 7 August, after order was restored, almost all the population felt that staying in Gibraltar was too dangerous and fled to San Roque and other nearby areas of Spain. 2. During the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar on 4 August 1704. Attempts to win over the population to the Imperial cause were frustrated by the disorder that followed. The effects of this, combined with the expectation of a Spanish counter attack led most of the townspeople to leave. 3. On 4 August 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar. Following a heavy naval bombardment on 2 August, marines launched a pincer attack on the town. Gibraltar's defenders although well stocked with food and ammunition were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The position was clearly untenable and in the morning the Spanish governor surrendered. Rooke remembered the looting at Cádiz but could not prevent a repetition at Gibraltar. Senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline but lost control in the days following the capture, sailors and marines ran amok. This aroused anger in Spain against the 'heretics, and the chance of winning over Andalusians to the Imperial cause was lost. The terms of surrender provided certain assurances (Article V promised freedom of religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar), the perpetrators of crimes against the population were severely punished and order restored but by 7 August the majority of the population felt staying was too dangerous and opted to leave. Anticipating a Spanish counter attack and that they would shortly return, they initially settled around the hermitage of San Roque later dispersing into nearby areas of Spain. The temporary resting place around the hermitage ultimately became the modern town of San Roque founded in 1706.

Several counter attacks by sea and land followed but all were repelled by the English and Dutch marines and Spaniards loyal to Charles.

Significant facts
1. Intention of the invading forces was to seize Gibraltar as a toehold, leading to gaining support from the local Spanish population for their Spanish allies in the War of the Spanish succession. The subsequent exodus of the population frustrated those aims.

2. Clear orders were given to protect the local population, the commanders sought to avoid a repeat of what had happened previously at Cadiz but the soldiers and sailors ignored those orders and some ran amok. There were instances of rape, pillage and Catholic churches were ransacked. The disorder was again counter productive to the aims of the allies.

3. Perpetrators of those crimes were caught and punished as examples, the terms of surrender provided assurances of religious freedom and order had been restored at the time the local populace chose to leave.

4. The local population did not believe those assurances and expecting a Spanish counter attack chose to leave settling first around the nearby hermitage of San Roque. They then dispersed into other nearby areas, the fishermen founding the nearby town of Algeciras and in 1706 the remaining refugees founded the modern town of San Roque.

Factors related to Nationalism
In the modern context, Spain claims the population were deliberately forced out so the population could be replaced by an implanted population. On this basis Spain argues that the current population do not enjoy the right to Self-determination.

Also, San Roque, is claimed as the real Gibraltar and that only the people of the San Roque have the right to decide the future of modern Gibraltar. It is claimed that the referendums rejecting integration with Spain are flawed because the real Gibraltarians didn't get to vote.

Summary
I believe that to be a neutral summary of relevant facts and the only comment I intend to make. I would welcome outside opinion on the text that treats the subject according to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Other helpful essays include WP:CHERRY and WP:COATRACK Wee Curry Monster talk 21:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to complete the summary: the atrocities and the exodus after the capture of Gibraltar are overwhelmingly covered by reputed secondary sources (as has been mentioned uncountable times in the months long discussion at the article talk page). It has been argued that just the level of overwhelming coverage should give an idea of the noteworthiness of these issues. On top of that, many sources consider these episodes as very relevant from a historical point of view and many others -as Wee mentions- as an argument for the Spanish claim in the Gibraltar sovereignty dispute. For a quick review of sources (most of them British), you can check here a sample of: 5 sources mentioning the atrocities during the capture and 9 sources mentioning the exodus to San Roque (all of them sources focused on Gibraltar, authored by reputed historians or political scientists).


 * A couple of quotes from these sources about the noteworthiness of these events: "The sack of Gibraltar was memorable through Andalusia for the peculiar fury of the invaders (...)" and "The defilement attracted comments and attention in an age when widespread raping and looting was taken for granted as part of the spoils of war."


 * (BTW -as a very secondary note- no reputed source cited in this year+ long discussion seems to say that Spain claims that the population were forced out in order "to be replaced"(?) or that the local population left for fear of a Spanish counter attack). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is where WP:CHERRY becomes instructive, because if you select only those passages that deal with the atrocities (btw see WP:WORDS that WP:LABEL) and selectively select quotes about the atrocities and embellish those quotes to make sure you emphasise the atrocities, you get a completely skewed picture. If on the other hand you look at overviews, see ,, for example a different picture emerges.  Here we have a favoured text that is so focused on atrocities that it completely forgets to discuss the geo-political aspects of the conquest and thats why I brought it here.  I'd like to see objective outside opinion on which text best achieves NPOV. Wee Curry Monster talk 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum, Imalbornoz claims no sources say and I quote "the local population left for fear of a Spanish counter attack", I made no such claim you'll note my exact words were "expecting a Spanish counter attack" - each and every text I've produced states this and to criticise Imalbornoz has to distort what is written. This is actually cited above  See: Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100-101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives.  Unfortunately the  did not work.  Wee Curry Monster talk 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The argument that the individual details of the disorder are very relevant and that the Spanish claim hinges on them is illogical for two reasons. First, it rather implies that, had there been pillaging and desecration but no rape (for example), there would be no dispute.  That doesn't make sense and there's no evidence to back it up: Spain's arguments do not hinge on the details of the disorder.  Second, the article we're discussing is the article on Gibraltar, not one of the articles on the Gibraltar dispute.  Even if something is very relevant to the dispute, that does not necessarily make it very relevant to the history of Gibraltar as a whole.  That argument is an argument for putting it on a completely different article to the one we are discussing.


 * That said, I suggest that we three all shut up at this point and allow for discussion by outsiders - without the walls of text that we otherwise inevitably end up with. Pfainuk talk 11:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, I hope you will get input from more than one uninvolved editor. Where I would begin is by deciding which are the best sources on the topic. You need to decide on the basis of how thorough the coverage is, how recently they were published, the qualifications of the authors and, if possible, how well they were reviewed. After you've agreed which sources to use, you can identify the information they all have in common, i.e. that there was a siege, an occupation, a movement of people. If the good sources disagree, then you need to include both sides of the story, attributed to the relevant authors. I'm not sure why the reflist didn't display. I looked at the code and there seemed to be quite a few texts referred to, some of which might not be fully scholarly. Remember that we prefer English language sources for verification but if there are major works in Spanish that haven't been translated, they are also likely to be relevant. I can read enough Spanish to be able to comment on the quality of the source and on the content of short passages; we have excellent translators around if we need to call on them. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not practicable
"Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being the name of something. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint "for" or "against" something, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticism of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."

This policy has been very difficult to put into practice as seen here. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Abu Ratib
Praise-laden bio or autobio of obscure Arabic musician that's had some court trouble in the U.S. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not stub it? --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AS noted on the Talk Page, the text is ripped off this blog here and anyone of a number of places. It appears to be a straight forward copyright violation or advocacy using a standardised text.  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Issues regarding Shakespeare Authorship Question
The overall neutrality of the article Shakespeare Authorship Question is in considerable dispute on the article talk page and, although there are more comments spread out both here and at the Peer Review , including specific instances where WP:WORDS, WP:ORIGINAL SYN and questionable claims of academic "consensus", "scholastic consensus" and views of "the academy" or "scholars" have come into play, the latter of which seem to be violations of this policy. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has been archived due to the archiving both being inexplicably changed from 30 days to 5 days by one of the involved editors.

The article desperately needs attention from uninvolved editors as WP:OWN may also be present. and.

I should say that I am a new editor who would like to edit with information that represents a minority/alternative viewpoint, which I admit is problematic as there is a clear bias on the talk page against any editor who wants to add minority view information. As a result, I have been berated, attacked and warned off, along with other minority view editors who have made similar attempts. What few edits I have attempted in order to achieve neutrality, such as and  have been reverted.  In addition, the NPOV tag I placed on the article has been removed without any resolution of the many disputes.,

I feel the opening line of the Neutrality Pillar is being seriously violated: “We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

In addition to the numerous specifics listed on the talk page, please examine the following:

1) The article contains over 2 dozen footnotes that have been extended and filled with ad hominem attacks, deprecating comments and POV quotes, all from one point of view.

2) The article uses references that only represent one point of view. Actual views, quotes, or data from the minority viewpoint have been edited out of the article, leaving only incomplete or incorrect characterizations of the minority view coming from the pens of partisan sources.

I would like to hear comments from editors with this particular expertise (Neutrality issues). There appears to be no neutrality among the regular contributors on the Stradfordian Shakespeare side of the question. The usual pattern seems to be to ignore the work I have put in, with the most minor exceptions, maintain a silence for some time, and then consider the points dormant on grounds that there was no relevant issue raised. Happy New Year! Zweigenbaum (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV, especially WP:DUE, states that the article should be weighted to reflect the relative support for the various POVs in reliable sources. As you yourself admit that the "minority views" are "minority views", the article needs to reflect that the majority view among academics is that Shakespeare did write his own plays and that a substantial number of the academic adherents of the majority view regard the adherents of contrary views as cranks and have written in reliable sources to that effect.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Zweigenbaum, I don't want to do too much to dishearten a newbie but, as Peter indicates, Wikipedia strives to be non-cranky (even if it doesn't always succeed). If you seriously want to represent an alternative point of view here, then I would suggest that making (IMO) inadequately explained changes to the wording of an article and adding POV tags is not the right way to go about it. This article seems to me to be a perfect playground for adding properly researched information about disputes as to the authorship of Shakespearian works, so get your Google out and fill your boots. Personally, I don't see why it matters whether what we are dealing with here is an "argument" or, synonymously, a "proposition". --FormerIP (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's something afoot (again, pardon the pun) with those Leviathan (which definitely wasn't by Shakespeare) references, though, and that should be dealt with. --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When I say "again, pardon the pun", I previously wrote that alternative views on Shakespeare authorship were not "barred"(!), but I must have re-written. Oh well, please yourself. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * About the voluminous quotations: those were added because when this page was a battleground a lot of the statements and sources were challenged by some editors who didn't have access to the references cited, and the exact quotations were demanded for statements that happened to be the most controversial for anti-Stratfordians. After a while I and other editors began including the quotations from the sources for any statement that could conceivably be challenged to save having to go back and forth defending them, and so we ended up with a boat load of what anti-Stratfordians consider to be radical quotes. I would have no problem removing them except that new editors come along and make the exact same arguments against the statements as the old editors did, which in fact has happened and is happening.
 * I would also like to add that although I personally believe Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him and that no evidence indicates otherwise, I have striven to make this article neutral and balanced, and have invited criticism from the opposite POV and tried to give their suggestions the benefit of the doubt whenever they didn't violate WP:NPOV. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing who you are [Cohen and Former IP] and what you think you know, I do not understand the use of the term "Leviathan references"--what is this supposed to be about? Are you trying to say "Neanderthal", which also means nothing? My changes simply sought some neutral terminology and a disinterested attitude. There is ample reference material to back what I and others have said; however, these have been improperly discounted because they are not considered majority-approved reference material, a perfect example of circular reasoning being used to serve the self-interest of the majority approach. This along with punitive threats. Don't try to dismiss my objections with stupid labels. You do not have to be an "oldie" to recognize bias contrary to rule. I want a fair hearing of competing views and sources. The response is willful ignorance of my efforts and references. Stonewalling is not exchange. Neutrality has nothing to do with "cranky" or "non-cranky" thinking, which is just another example of biased projection, i.e., the proverbial reasonable 'us' and wacky 'you'.

If these responses represent experienced neutrality editing, they are useless, a travesty, like Tom Reedy's ideological tract. His claim, presented above, to be neutral is demonstrably absurd when in effect each and every competing suggestion is run through his belief system and disapproved as though he owned the Wikipedia site and there were one and only one acceptable view. There has been a good deal of personal invective along with it, directed toward Nina Green, who has more than enough sources to represent her minority view.Zweigenbaum (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Zweigenbaum, Leviathan just means big. I wasn't trying to be snarky, but agreeing with you (I thought) that there is too much text in the footnotes. It's also a book, hence my poor attempt at humour (and, looking up the page again now, I admit it was pretty poor).
 * Looking at the talkpage, I think the nub of the problem might be shown by your statement: "If your authorities have been getting it warped and wrong for generations you will obviously have a plentiful corpus of statements on the wrong side of the analysis". Wikipedia is not an investigative project, so there is no analysis to be undertaken and no wrong side to be identified. we are just meant to reflect what the experts think. They appear to think that doubt over Shakepeare's authorship of his works is WP:FRINGE, so it is not for us to examine that question further and/or give credence to any such theory. If you don't agree that experts do consider those theories to be fringe theories, there is a noticeboard where you can ask for a discussion about it: WP:FTN. --FormerIP (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that the article is about the debate. It's not about, say, Anti-Stratfordian authorship argument.  If it were, then properly it would be mostly about that argument, and would only give a thorough mention to the mainstream POV.  It wouldn't go into more detail than necessary to outline that POV.  But what you have here is Shakespeare Authorship Question, which would naturally explore the question from the standpoint of the entire field, and thus give most WP:WEIGHT to mainstream sources. So do you see how the focus of the article has influenced the way it's written, and how it must be written on WP?  "Leviathan references" means, "huge." BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A noticeboard like this needs succinct examples of the claimed NPOV problem. The walls of text (above, and at the given links) do not help. Would anyone claiming there is an NPOV problem please provide two examples of text in the article which breach NPOV, and then briefly explain why that is the case. This noticeboard is not the place to talk about other editors, or indeed to talk about anything unrelated to NPOV. I have participated in discussions at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question so am not an uninvolved editor, but I think the request for precise examples of the claimed problem are reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum In answer to your request for specifics, there are so many listed in the (suddenly archived) talk page, that I had hoped the links I provided would have been sufficient. But I can certainly bring them here one or two at a time if that is the preferred method. To begin:

1) In the lead paragraph, it states "Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3]"

The references cited in ref #3 amount to a series of personal anecdotes such as

a)"I do not know of a single professor ...", "Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon ... ",

b)"I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him. "

c)"any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise."

d) and one statement of opinion from a non-academic: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings."

How do these anecdotal references support "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider..." All but a few consider...?? Where is the representation of All in 'All but a few'? How on earth would that be citable, short of a major survey? The only survey we do have does not even support it. and   Note that this survey would support "most Shakespeare professors say there is no good reason to question the traditional attribution" or  "most Shakespeare professors consider the topic a "theory without convincing evidence", both of which are neutral statements. But to write that "all but a few" consider it a "fringe belief"? I would not call that a neutral assessment of the information.

So can we examine this one line and its supporting references and determine if the current phrasing is NPOV? Zweigenbaum (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Zweigenbaum, when specifics are asked for it is customary to provide links or diffs, that way they can also get an idea of their reliability of the sources they came from. Here's the link to the sources you partially quoted: Tom Reedy (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @Zweigenbaum: Is there any simple statement in the article that violates NPOV? Something which at least in principle could be examined and resolved at this noticeboard? The problem with your example is that it encompasses the whole issue and can only be resolved after verifying everything else in the article (that is, after deciding whether relevant academic consensus is that the issue involves "a fringe belief with no hard evidence").
 * Re the points you make: You describe the statements as "personal anecdotes", but these are the considered views of relevant authorities (see the supporting footnote). Is anyone named there not an authority on the subject? Are any of the statements quoted out of context? Also, the statements are entirely in accord with what an authority would say regarding whether something was a fringe belief.
 * Re the survey you linked to: That survey asked professors who teach undergraduate English classes to choose a preselected answer for various questions. Those surveyed were not specialists who research and publish in the field, and the author of the survey is known as a promoter of "it wasn't Shakespeare" views. Given the questions, the author, the preselected answers, and those sampled, the survey results do not conflict with the cited footnote. The 6% "yes" for whether there is good reason to doubt Shakespeare's authorship needs to be read alongside the stated sampling error of ±5% (and it is not 6% of those who research the field). The questions about teaching the SAQ in class give no useful results because someone may choose to use the SAQ as a teaching hook or a stepping stone, with no endorsement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

I see my specifics were just not specific. Try looking at this, from the original statement:

"1) The article contains over 2 dozen footnotes that have been extended and filled with ad hominem attacks, deprecating comments and POV quotes, all from one point of view."

Choose any of these and we'll discuss it. As far as my characterizing the Stradfordian put-downs as personal anecdotes--are these scientific analyses backed by data or aren't they, if they are where is the data, or are they spouting off the top of their heads a bunch of self-serving polemic statements, no doubt vaguely fearing how damaging the Oxfordian theses would be to their lesson plans, articles list, and class bibliographies, not to mention how out of date they would look at conferences and guild gatherings? I rather think the latter is closer to the reality behind your "authorities" and their statements. Call them "considered views of relevant authorities" by "authorities on the subject" or whatever you wish. Where's the evidence? One paradigm is quite inadequate judging its potential replacement. Already the point-counterpoint approach has been sabotaged, so there appears to be no hope of a side by side summary of the "question". Nevertheless, if you are sincere about examining POV problems, look at this reference and we will start there. Zweigenbaum (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been explained that the SAQ topic has been subject to extended POV battles, and new editors keep arriving at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question and demanding that some text in the article be justified. A solution was to provide footnotes with extracts from the cited pages so editors could see the source. The evidence is that these are statements by reliable sources who have researched and published in the field. Is there a significant contrary view missing from the article – a view supported by academics acknowledged to be published researchers in the field? Wikipedia is not like a forum where the for and against views are listed by their enthusiastic supporters; see WP:FRINGE. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum I see that a query that asked of me for specific examples of objectionable language and approach, which I have answered above with reference to two dozen footnotes characterized by bias, which reference has now been responded to by the statement that this is not a for or against forum, but these referenced statements are representative of a view "supported by academics acknowledged to be published researchers in the field." Yet I do not see representation of Hugh Trevor-Roper's highly critical analysis of the field's bias on this very question of the Stratfordian model. (Realites, Nov. 1962,reprinted in 'Brief Chronicles II', 2010) He was a respected member of the academic establishment. Thus, it appears there has been a selective bias in portraying the academic establishment's position on the issue. To hide behind a doctrinal consensus in a field where there is fundamental uncertainty even on basic historiography, and which supports legend in lieu of documentation, is to avoid inquiry and repeat error. It is like pulling teeth for the Stratfordian contingent in this discussion to even admit there is scholarship contrary to their bias. So don't lecture me that this is not a for or against forum. It is plain what you are for. Circular reasoning [academic reference required; if demonstrably wrong, academic reference still required; it is academic] won't help solve the main issue, a neutral approach to competing theories of inquiry in an uncertain field. Next pretext please.Zweigenbaum (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you have written too much on this topic (here and on the article talk page). May I suggest that you take half an hour to write a summary of one issue in the article which you think violates WP:NPOV (check the NPOV policy first). Then take another half hour to delete all text from the summary which is not directly addressing the point. Then post the result. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Interesting. I had humorously asked for a further pretextual argument, and damn if you don't provide one, i.e., the charge that I have written too much on the subject but nothing specific. The charge is manifestly incorrect. When I went through the entire article and suggested numerous specific changes of language to approach a more neutral tone, that effort was systematically ignored, ("Man, I hate that you went to all this work...") except for the more concise formulation of the Prince Tudor theory. Tom Reedy landed on that like a fly on jam. It had discrediting value from his perspective. Now you prate that I write on a single subject for a half hour and take another half-hour to eliminate that same half-hour's waste--from your a priori point of view of course. The comment is not good faith discussion but a further indication of stonewalling the topic at hand, perhaps without even realizing it. I call. You choose a paragraph. I will show you its bias and re-write it so that bias is gone. Zweigenbaum (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one's going to do that. In your original post you made two specific objections. The first one was about footnotes. I shall look at them to see if there may be a problem and post back here soon. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there are too many, and too long, quotations within the footnotes. You should discuss this amicably with other editors on the article talk page. If you think that there is a WP:BLP violation within a footnote you must take this up, although no such violations were apparent in my view. The relevant policy is at WP:IBID (quotes in footnotes should be brief). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been explained above, the quotations were added in accordance with policy because editors questioned whether the cited sources supported the statements. If removing them could be done without new editors demanding that some text in the article be justified, I'd love to delete them on aesthetic grounds, but Zweigenbaum's complaint is just the latest in a long string from Oxfordians, and I doubt it will be the last. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @Itsmejudith: Normally of course you would be correct: the long quotes in the footnotes are very unusual. However, as Tom Reedy has mentioned, interest in the topic is also very unusual, and full explanations of many of the references are required. It may be possible to move the expanded footnotes to a FAQ subpage (Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/FAQ; see for example, Talk:Evolution/FAQ). However, there are many interested semi-educated people such as myself who read this article, and I know that I greatly value the detail in the footnotes. Nevertheless, all that is not relevant on this NPOV noticeboard as I do not see any suggestion that the extracts (which are from scholarly and highly reliable sources) violate NPOV. No one has specified a footnote and suggested that it is out of context, or cherry picking, or an WP:UNDUE or red flag problem. No one has specified an opposing footnote that meets similar sourcing standards and which has been removed from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum]] Good; we have established by default that no one wishes to subject even one paragraph of this article to examination for possible bias. And we have established that the article's major if not single writer Tom Reedy would not mind cutting down the footnotes on condition of no contrary scholarship in the process. This fits the description of Catch-22, stonewalling, or denial. No problem. Then we will take a not extensive footnote (I personally am not offended by extensive footnotes if they are factual) and see if there is bias involved, as opposed to a scholarly explanation that the Oxford challenge to the authorship of the Shakespeare canon is a "fringe belief", i.e., not a fact-based proposal at all. That is the box into which Reedy and company seek to confine the Shakespeare question, 'us' with knowledge, versus them Oxfords with their quirky belief. Quoting below from early in the footnotes in support of the claim that Oxfordian scholarship is a fringe belief:

Nicholl 2010, p. 4 quotes Gail Kern Paster, director of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record."

If we dignify this statement as rising from any scholarship at all, the best we can say is that it is an argument from analogy. The paleontologist has the training and methods of inquiry to arrive at verifiable Knowledge. The creationist has a presumption of truth based on belief (in Bible language). The analogy compares the knowing versus the lowly uninformed.

How comes it that Hugh Trevor-Roper, a distinguished historian and scholar with impeccable academic credentials, cannot be accessed regarding this dismissal of non-experts studying the traditional 'Shakespeare', so succinctly expressed by Ms Paster? Perhaps the following remarks for example:

"As far as the records go,[Stratford Will] was uneducated, had no literary friends, possessed at his death no books, and could not write. It is true, six of his signatures have been found, all spelt differently; but they are so ill-formed that some graphologists suppose the hand to have been guided. Except for these signatures, no syllable of writing by Shakespeare has been identified. Seven years after his death, when his works were collected and published, and other poets for the first time claimed to have known him, a portrait of him was printed. The unskilful artist has presented the blank face of a country oaf. Such is the best the historians can do." (Trevor-Roper, Realites, Nov. 1962, reprinted in Brief Chronicles II 2010)

The self-congratulatory high knowledge claimed by Ms Paster turns out to be in the studies of Trevor-Roper no more than conjecture, conclusions derived from a pre-ordained premise. Shakspere of Stratford could not have been the author; only his name is similar. Which leaves all interested historians and literary detectives to search both inductively and deductively among the available facts and parallels for evidence of the true author, and for the involvement of Shakspere in his concealment.

Mr. Reedy and company will not allow Trevor-Roper into the matter except as a fringe believer, and they would employ revertive means to forestall it, claiming only scholars and/or experts in the field are reliable sources, {which is the general standard in uncontroversial fields).

Thus, through selective use of the Wikipedia "experts" provision, Trevor-Roper will never be quoted in this article's documentation toward the identity of the Shakespearean author. Yet he admirably qualifies as a scholar and an expert in the field of historiography. Such is bias both in this article and in the distinguished Ms Paster's arrogant quip. 'Neutral point of view' under such exclusionary terms won't happen.

Mr. Reedy's comment, that I am not the first to object to his terms of 'inquiry' and I won't be the last, is of course a badge of shame placed on his/their methods and biases. Maybe he will die before changing the terms, denial being a formidable defense mechanism. But as Oxford wrote in one of his last letters, "...Truth is truth though never so old, and time cannot make that false which was once true." If that sentence sounds close to Isabella's words in Measure for Measure, "For truth is truth to the end of reckoning", there's a reason.

Next pretext please. Zweigenbaum (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to continue commenting on this as an uninvolved editor, but reading the above post I'm no longer minded to do so. This is just trolling. @johnuniq, sounds like putting some of the detail currently in footnote into an FAQ could be the way forward, because we don't need to use mainspace to demonstrate that sources are represented fairly. As you say, it's not an NPOV issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Call it trolling and prove it. The point does not change. No neutral point of view (NPOV) is forthcoming from entrenched interests, and tidying up the structure, footnotes shortened, et al, will not achieve it. Johnuniq made a challenge for specificity and got it. Towit,"No one has specified an opposing footnote that meets similar sourcing standards and which has been removed from the article. Johnuniq" Challenge taken. My response is right there above and stands ignored, except for being characterized by Itsmejudith as baiting. So labelling constitutes further avoidance of the central issue, selective use of sources to support one and only one academic viewpoint. Any other challenge or pretext? If not the point remains, neutral point of view absent from the article.Zweigenbaum (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Essence–Energies distinction
It appears that the article Essence–Energies distinction is being taken over by POV editors whom in numbers are distorting the article to not reflect the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox church (its dogma to the EO). Here's an example. Under the article heading Essence–Energies_distinction
 * 1) None of these editor are members of the Eastern Orthodox community. The article and several other Eastern Orthodox theology articles (including, theoria, Palamism, theosis) are being dominated by a group of editors whom admit that they have not actually read any of the subjects from Eastern Orthodox sources. They continue to engage in disruptive behavior bickering over details that they have speculated about from ignorance of the subjects. Speculations which are blatantly rejected by Eastern Orthodox sources. #They are also treating outside sources hostile and or not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox as equal in opinion and want to argue that the outside source are to be treated as equal even when those sources contradict Eastern Orthodox sources.
 * 2) It would not be acceptable for the Eastern Orthodox to got Buddhist articles and claim that our priest speak for the Buddhists and that even though we have much in common that our priests and monks know the doctrines and teachings of the Buddhist better then the Buddhist and that their objections should be ignored. As none of the editors can validate their Eastern Orthodox sources nor will they validate what they have read Eastern Orthodox wise that is motivating their behavior.
 * 1) As one side of the issue is cherry picked while the majority side is almost completely neglected. The Ecumenism of the editors as a POV is coloring the article to make assumptions that can not be backed up by official sources from either the Roman Catholic church nor the Eastern Orthodox church. And some of these theologians are not accepted as voices for either community and their opinions are being put into a Wikipedia article as if they where "facts". LoveMonkey (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the article is about an Orthodox theological doctrine, there is also a scholarly theological debate over the question of whether this doctrine is acceptable within the scope of Catholic dogma, thus the claim that certain editors are "distorting" the doctrine with "ecumenical" re-interpretations of the doctrine. As I have commented here, the question is whether these re-interpretations are the opinions of the editors (which would be unacceptable original research) or the scholarly opinions of reliable sources who may or may not be Orthodox theologians.  I think it is reasonable to document the scholarly opinions of non-Orthodox theologians regarding the compatibility of Orthodox doctrine with Catholic dogma. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "whether this doctrine is acceptable within the scope of Catholic dogma" Would at best be the subject for someplace else other than the article under discussion. As that excuse is being used to justified other things in the article that are object-able. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the article is not about an Eastern Orthodox teaching. The title says it is about the distinction between essence and energies, and the first lines (and perhaps the capitalization of "Essence" and "Energies" in the title) indicate that the article is not about the distinction in general, but only about that distinction in God.  That is what the article is about.  So, in the case of God is this a distinction between two different realities?  Or, in the case of God, is the distinction only like, for instance, the distinction between a three-angled geometrical figure and a three-sided geometrical figure, which, though distinguishable in thought, are in reality the same thing?  Or is it some other kind of distinction not amounting to one between two separate realities?  Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)  In view of the reaction immediately below, I see that I should have indicated that my comment was in response to the statement by Pseudo-Richard above that "the article is about an Orthodox theological doctrine".  My comment was not at all a "primary response to LoveMonkey".  I agree of course that the dispute over the matter concerns a doctrine propounded in the Eastern Orthodox Church (and the subsequent opposition, initially in the East, but later in the West, on the grounds that by introducing a real actual division in God the doctrine taught what amounted to a form of polytheism).  All I mean is that the title of the article is not "Essence-Energies distinction in God as taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church" (a title indicating the dispute and practically equivalent perhaps to Palamism), but "Essence-Energies distinction", a matter that can be treated under more aspects than one.  For fear that, not only this comment, but anything else I write here might be seen as an interpersonal reaction, I think it best for me to withdraw from this discussion, with apologies for having misled about my intention and adding in conclusion that, apart from what he says of my comment, I agree with what Phatius states below.  Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree, Esoglou. I think that LM is being a bit silly by posting this complaint here, as if this were primarily a NPOV issue. (On the contrary, it is primarily an organizational and, increasingly, an interpersonal issue.) However, I can't believe that your primary response to his complaint is to claim that this article is not about Eastern Orthodoxy in particular. Let's face it: there would be no Essence-Energies distinction article on Wikipedia were it not for the concept's use in Eastern Orthodoxy. Until now, no one has seriously questioned that the article is about the Eastern Orthodox doctrine and various perspectives on it.


 * The real issue regarding this article is a disagreement about its structure and the criteria for editing and including material in it. As far as I can tell, LM has made 3 basic complaints about this article on its talk page, only one of which (#2 below) is really a NPOV issue:
 * LM has occasionally claimed that editors who aren't Orthodox and who, until now, weren't very familiar with Palamism and the Essence-Energies distinction (henceforth "EE distinction") aren't qualified to edit the article.
 * LM has complained that the article currently gives undue weight to non-Orthodox (specifically Roman Catholic) approaches to the EE distinction, particularly ones with an ecumenical agenda.
 * Most recently, Esoglou and I have questioned whether certain sections of the article (such as the section titled "the existences of God") should be there at all. In response, LM has argued that all concepts that are relevant to the EE distinction deserve to be included and even to have their own sections in the article.
 * Here are my responses to these concerns:
 * This claim directly violates the basic Wikipedian principle that anyone can edit Wikipedia as long as they are willing to follow policy and back up their claims with sources.
 * This complaint is partly valid. The article may give undue weight, in terms of space, to such views. On the article's talk page, Richard is currently trying to work out a way of reorganizing the article to address this concern. In the article's defense, it does clearly attribute non-Orthodox views to their sources, instead of stating them as fact. (In contrast, consider some of the parts of the article that discuss Orthodox views, which not only state these views as facts but also fail to cite sources at all.)
 * I agree with LM that all concepts relevant to the EE distinction deserve to be included. Unfortunately, the article doesn't currently explain how some of these concepts (I'm thinking especially of synergy and the existences of God) are related to the EE distinction. In response to Esoglou's and my concerns, LM has repeatedly insisted that we don't understand Palamas and that, if we would just study Palamas, we would understand the relevance of those concepts. The problem is that we shouldn't have to do that. The article should clearly explain how those concepts are related to the EE distinction, in a way that anyone (even someone who hasn't read Palamas) can understand. Moreover, it isn't Esoglou's or my job to read Palamas and then edit the sections to explain their relevance to the EE distinction. If LM wants those sections to stay in the article, then he should edit them to show their relevance; otherwise, they are fair game for deletion. Moreover, any information in those sections that is not directly related to the EE distinction should be removed. We don't need a whole section explaining the doctrine of the divine hypostases; that's what a separate article, namely Trinity (Christianity), is for.
 * By the way, LM's claim that "some of these theologians are not accepted as voices for either community and their opinions are being put into a Wikipedia article as if they where 'facts'" is simply inaccurate. I assume that LM is referring to the opinions described in the section on Roman Catholic perspectives. None of the opinions in that section are put forward as facts; they are all clearly attributed to the individuals making them ("According to X, blah blah blah"). The same can't be said for many of the opinions in, say, the section on Byzantine and Russian philosophy, which doesn't even cite sources. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet none of these editors responding here will validate that they have read the actual theology they are writing about which is the subject of the article. They are spending lots and lots of time pointing at me. Also note I have provided plenty of sourcing and these editors are ignoring the sourcing I provide in good faith and then asking for the same thing over an over again. This appears and attempt to frustrate to ignore my answers I provide in good faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Joell Ortiz, biography, American rapper
I'm new at this and it is late so I will be terse. The article once read, some time ago, like a snippet. It was lacking, but unbiased. It stated the subject's devastatingly bad record sales for a specific album, glaringly. Currently, throughout the section where albums are now discussed, there is an obvious bias towards omission of negative details about the artist's career. It lacks that same statistic above. So, I question the author's impartiality. He or she may likely derive material gain from Ortiz's success, or at least promoting it. Talented rapper Ortiz is, successful he is not, in terms of pecuniary benefit from music. Apologies for not strictly adhering to this place's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.71.30 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Mount Longdon
I wonder if the people appointed to keep an eye on vandalism can help. I've been accused of willfully engaging in war editing by adding information of "no relevance" regarding the Argentine experience in Falklands. All I did was re-insert valuable information about the actual food dished daily to conscripts in the lead-up to the battle for Mount Longdon during the Falklands War and the few luxuries often overlooked, using the testimony of ex conscript Jorge Altieri, who is well known in Argentina and British historians in the form of Martin Middlebrook, Nicholas van der Bijl, etcetera.--Malvinero (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Malvinero is edit warring on Battle of Mount Longdon and currently stands at 3 reverts. Apparently in an article on the battle, he feels the need to add details of the alleged diet of the conscripts and remove any information on the maltreatment of Argentine conscripts.  Based on edit summaries this appears to be on a crusade to prove the officers and professional NCO of the Argentine army did not maltreat conscripts during the Falklands War.  I have issued a 3RR warning and suggested he self-revert.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Changi Beach Memorial
Changi Beach was the site of the first of the Sook Ching massacres. Here, Chinese civilians were machine gunned by Japanese troops and then buried in mass graves by Allied POWs. Amongst these Allied prisoners were men from the 155th (Lanarkshire Yeomanry) Field Regiment R.A., some of whom spoke in later years of their horror at being forced to throw into the burial pits people who were still alive. A plaque denoting the massacres can be seen alongside the beach pathway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.156.84 (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This sounds really awful. Are you saying there is something wrong with a Wikipedia article, though? --FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Andre Geim
I am currently in a dispute with user Betsythedevine regarding the addition of an exchange between Nobel Laureates Andre Geim and Mario Llosa during the Nobel Prize symposium (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c8zb7/The_BBC_Debate_Nobel_Minds/ - the dispute starts at 19:00 and ends at around 21:00) hosted by the BBC. During the exchange, Geim praises the Chinese government and political system and criticizes the Nobel Peace Prize Committee as elitst although he does qualify his statements by asking for the unconditional release of the imprisoned Chinese political dissident, but prompting a critical response from Llosa in which he argues that the peace prize not only acknowledges China's extraordinary economic progress, but also it's brutality in the political field. Both of us agree that the statement by Geim deserve mention because it was picked up by a major news outlet (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/liu-xiaobo-wrong-man-for-nobel-peace-prize-say-laureates/story-e6frg6so-1225969772275) and that the exchange deserves only fleeting mention in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, but Betsy wishes to include the remarks only Geim but delete the remarks by Llosa on the grounds that "the remarks are not about Geim or about any major part of Geim's career." and further justifies his/her position by drawing to the parallel examples of Bush and Guinta and how because their views don't have any counterposing viewpoints, the remarks by Llosa should stay delete. I post a lengthy rebuttal telling her that just because counterposing viewpoints of Bush and Guinta's viewpoints on the axis of evil and social security respectively aren't written on their Wikipedia page "doesn't mean that criticisms about those views cannot be posted (as is the case of what you are trying to do by having Llosa's remarks about Geim's Nobel Peace Prize Committee removed)"  and how there is no "Wikipedia guideline that says statements of criticisms about the comments by the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia entry shall not be made if statements of other people do not have the viewpoints of their opponents." Still, she is adamant that the remarks stay removed, while I find her to be stonewalling, and this is where things stand at this point. It would be much appreciated if someone could give us an NPOV on this issue. Fellytone (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:NPOV is a pillar of our policies but disagree with the way Fellytone contends it should be applied in WP:BLP. I used the example of some other Wikipedia biographies to try to show that we often report in Mr X's bio what Mr X said on some topic, but we did not go on to balance or refute him with views of Mr X's critics in (for example) George W Bush, Lubos Motl, or Steven Weinberg. Geim's views on China are not very relevant to his notability or to his interests, and they generated little news coverage -- exactly one news story from Australia, written up in a way that distorted Geim's meaning, in my opinion. Llosa's remarks in response did not appear in that news story; Fellytone has transcribed them from the BBC interview online. Even including Geim's own remarks in the bio is a borderline issue w WP:UNDUE; editor JeremyMiller has suggested removing them entirely. After Fellytone added the Llosa remarks, editor Absolutef removed them, twice, and explained why on the talk page. As Fellytone continued to re-add them, I also removed them and urged him to seek consensus on the talk page before edit-warring them back in. Not one editor there has been convinced by Fellytone's arguments, so I suggested he seek further input from a wider circle, as he has done here. This is not a case of Betsythedevine stonewalling Fellytone, this is several different editors opposing his action, and I wish he would WP:AGF instead of accusing me of censorship and trying to shield China from criticism. My contribution history is long and varied but I have not worked on any articles about China; I have worked on a lot of WP:BLP where issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK frequently arise. betsythedevine (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The validity of two tests that you stipulate in judging whether an edit of a living person's Wikipedia entry violates WP:BLP is undermined by the existence of its practises on other Wikipedia biographical entries: the first one is the content-test where you argue that edits on Wikipedia biographies that report the criticisms of what Mr. X says on some topic on Mr. X's biography constitutes violation (or if not, then borderline violation) of WP:BLP, while the second one is the relevancy test where remarks the person makes which are not related to his interests or picked up by a lot of media outlets are irrelevant. The first one is untrue as there are plenty of examples where the criticism of X's views on some situation is reported on Wikipedia (examples: Bush's opinion of the existence of there being an axis of evil being critisized as "weaken the unprecedented levels of international and domestic support for Bush and United States action against al Qaeda following the September 11 attacks" War on Terrorism section Another is the criticisms about Ann Coulter's opinion on a multitude of issues under her Controversies and sections page The same goes for the second point: if that is true, then why are Weinberg's opinion about Israel on his home page? After-all, it is irrelevant to his notability and only reported by one media outlet.
 * But alas we shouldn't get too caught up in the subjective criteria that a person constructs in judging the legitimacy of editions onto another person's Wikipedia entry. What I want to know is whether any one of the two tests are institutionalized as an editing principles under WP:BLP, i.e. (or something to the effect of) Statements of criticisms about the comments by the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia entry shall not be made if statements of other people do not have the viewpoints of their opponents; Or the views about a person shall be reported insofar as: 1) they are views for which the person is notable or 2) the amount of news coverage they generate Fellytone (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason to include Vargas Llosas's comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please be a little more specific than a one-liner?Fellytone (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about leaving out Geim's comments as well? His Peace Prize comments were not very notable, as shown by general lack of media interest. It is true I had advocated for keeping them in the article, but I see that now Absolutef as well as JeremyMillier suggests removing the whole paragraph. Unless people here suggest otherwise, I think I will go along with their idea too.betsythedevine (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have expected his opinions on anything Nobel related to be notable, but if they really didn't get media attention then absolutely fine to leave out. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks so much for your help. I have reported your suggestions back to the article talk page, and will not continue to oppose it if one of the people there wants to remove the material entirely. Of course, if Geim were to start talking about China a lot, or if this incident got more press attention, the situation wrt the notability of this material would change. betsythedevine (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Deganga riots
I marked this version of the article 9 containing statements like "The Islamist mob desecrated and vandalized Hindu temples, a characteristic feature of Islamism") with the POV tag.  Some of the sources cited are not neutral or  reliable and much of the content is OR.  The references cited at many places do not verify the text.  One user reverted me with "persistent POV pushing by IP" edit summary and also slapped me with a warning.  He did  not responded to my messages showing the obvious POV in the article and continue to revert this article to the POV version along with another editor.  Someone please look this article and also the user conduct.  14.139.128.14 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Titles of articles & NPOV
Hy there, I don't know if this the right place to make this request for help. I'm currently involved in the discussion of two move-requests, namely Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) towards Kosher tax and Allegations of Jewish control of the media towards Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard). I think, but I'm not absolutely sure not being a native English-speaker, that the (antisemitic canard)-names are against NPOV and more specifically against WP:NDESC. IMHO 'Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)' and 'Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard)' pass an extremely explicit judgement on the subject. I'm right, aren't I? Are there other policies concerning this matter? Flamarande (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC) If this post was placed in the wrong noticeboard I would appreciate if someone showed me the proper one. Thanks.
 * Not wanting to hide anything (especially the arguments for and against these titles) I'm hereby providing links to the relevant sections: Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard) and Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media. Flamarande (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an article at Anthrax hoaxes, and it is not called 'Controversy over anthrax outbreaks'. I don't consider 'Anthrax hoaxes' to be an excessively POV title. To use a strongly-worded title like this requires meeting a burden of proof using reliable sources. Possibly the wording at WP:NDESC should be clarified to admit that genuine hoaxes can occur, which can be frankly described as such. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about NPOV or NDESC, but these titles do appear to be bringing a brand new innovation to Wikipedia of including an unnecessary two-word article summary in brackets after the title. We don't have Russia (big country) or Voltaire (dead Frenchman). I'm not sure what specific rule prevents this, but maybe it is the requirement to be concise in WP:AT.
 * From looking at the article, Kosher Tax does appear to be an antisemitic canard, and so we should clearly say so in the beginning of the lead, but that's sufficient to bring it to the reader's attention. I'm sure the editor who did it meant well, but anyone vaguely inclined to believe in Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard) is not going to be dissuaded by that article title - they're perhaps more likely to think that Wikipedia is part of the phenomenon being described.
 * Lastly, maybe the word canard it is in common usage somewhere in the world, but in England it generally denotes "duck" when English won't do for some reason. It seems an incredibly obscure and over-specific word to choose and it doesn't give a great indication that we are dealing with a quality article. People may just assume that Frasier Crane has been editing Wikipedia again. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so in your opinion I was right all along. Can you please give me any advice that I can use? Flamarande (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've added links above to ongoing discussions. My best advice would be join those discussions if you haven't already, and if you have then just wait for the outcome. --FormerIP (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad, a page documenting insults not criticism.
The Criticism of Muhammad page is written as a "history of" insults, slander and defamatory statements, not a page of criticisms regarding merits and faults of the work or actions of an individual. most of these statements don't specifically mention any incidents they simply are profane statements which do not enrich or add to peoples knowledge just that simply these people made these derogatory statements throughout history.

here are a list of some of these remarks,
 * "the madman" or "possessed"
 * "a devil and first-born child of Satan"
 * a "wicked impostor", a "dastardly liar" and a "willful deceiver"
 * "a terrorist,"
 * "tyrant" a "pervert"
 * a "demon-possessed pedophile"
 * a "mass murderer and a pedophile"
 * a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a narcissist, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a madman and a looter

[how can you offer an apposing point of view when dealing with these individually would require a page on its own, its little more than name calling]

This page is also in violation of the content spin out and forking policy which states "If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [Criticism of XYZ]]" Therefore, any content that wouldn't be allowed in the Muhammad article shouldn't be allowed there. As None of these remarks present an argument they are simply labels and this is the foundation of what a criticism is, It is difficult to find an apposing point of view since they contain no context and you don't know what they are referring to so you are left making assumptions. The POV:forks states "if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen if a "Praise of..." article was created instead)".

Compare the Criticism of Muhammad page with the Criticism of Noam Chomsky page and its obvious this page is sub par and not up to the standard of normal wiki content which often occurs when a page is primarily dedicated to documenting profane and defamatory statements as apposed to presenting a criticism which appeals to an individuals intellect.

I also don't think it meats the criteria of the "Criticism" page. i have posted on this notice board and was advised to come here. Ibn kathir (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this article, although it has the trappings of respectability in terms of images, citations etc, is a model of a bad Wikipedia article. It's wholly unbalanced and basically just a laundry-list. Wikipedia is not censored, but there is also no reason for it to be so mind-numbingly stupid. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My argument against its profane language is not interns of censorship, I've seen wiki policy regarding use of profane language and the way that it's worded is that it is allowed where it adds value to an article, it isn't referring to an article whose entire purpose is to list every profane statement in history and label them as criticism because they are passing judgment, which is pretty much what current editors have reduced the argument to on the talk page.Ibn kathir (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with FormerIP that this article is highly problematic. There seems to be an encyclopedic Christian views of Muhammad trying to get out of the earlier sections. After that is just miscellaneous "anything bad anyone has ever said about Muhammad", i.e. the article is based on the WP:SYNTH notion that there is a continuity from medieval Christian views of Muhammad through to recent writers opposed to Islamism. I have yet to see a good "Criticism of..." article and wonder whether we should ask WikiProject Religion to comment on whether any of the Criticism of religion articles are worth having. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article seems basically okay to me. I don't think we need multiple articles for different sources of criticism like Itsmejudith seems to be asking for. The sources for the criticisms are given and it is split into sections reasonably. There seems in the discussion to be a number of people saying the criticism isn't factual, that isn't the point. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what is factual or not. What is 'factual' is whether the criticism was made, what was said, who said it and in what circumstances. We should check if the criticism is described in a reliable sources and attribute it to the sources. Probably the one thing that is really missing is more sources in the article refuting some of the criticism as per NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with DMCQ. Like it or not, there is a lot of people saying bad stuff about Islam and Muhammad, and anti-islamic sentiments exists and are surely notable and deserve mention in the encyclopedia. I wonder if perhaps one could split antiislamism (now a redirect) from Criticism of Islam, since there is probably a case to divide anti-islamic sentiment and its vitriolic manifestations from what is more or less reasoned criticism, but I'm not familiar enough with Islam or the way these issues are usually dealt with. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  12:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) "Criticism of X" articles are for discussing serious criticism (positive and negative, see WP:Criticism), not for listing bits of polemical rhetoric that were never meant seriously. E.g. Luther did say that Muhammad was a son of the devil, and that's of course noteworthy and can be discussed in an article. But such an article may not be called "Criticism of Muhammad" because it's defamation (in the context of a Turkish military threat to Christian Europe), rather than honest criticism. By mislabelling the defamation as criticism we pretend to take it seriously. That's extremely biased, and very openly so, thus undermining our credibility in general. Hans Adler 12:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying Luther didn't mean that seriously and didn't believe what he was saying? And you say Luther wasn't honest? I think I'll have to disagree with you on that. Perhaps what you're asking for is more details on the reasons for what people said and then readers can judge whether they have any basis or not? Why did Luther think Muhammad was a son of Satan for instance and what does that mean? Or was he saying it purely as a pejorative with little meaning? Anyway as you can see in the article that bit is branded as polemical but is included as an introduction to the section on Evangelical Lutherism to give context for the historical bit that follows. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does need work, many sections need expanding.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see we already do have Medieval Christian views of Muhammad. I shall migrate some of the material there, if it isn't already covered, and summarise it in the Criticism of Muhammad. I would rather, though, that we had Christian views of Muhammad, so that we could follow through into Luther without having to create an unnecessary Early modern Christian views of Muhammad, and follow on from that to recent times when Christians have expressed more positive views of Muhammad. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, this is already done. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * i think we need to define what is or isnt critisism, how broadly will we accept remarks as purely critisism and not something else if thier intent was to defame or spread propoganda [some sections already establish this]. I also think if we keep reducing these terms we will end up writting the critisism for the indavidual while i would have thought they needed to state the argument or critisism specifically. Many of these remarks i think would belong in a different article, maybe societies views on muhammad as one editor suggested and not strictly a page called Critisism of Muhammad. Ißñ Ķãŧḣĩr  (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it turns out that you may be right and Luther did mean this seriously. I just learned from this article (in German) that he got his information about Islam exclusively from Italian sources, and that under the threat of Turkish invasions into the heart of Europe he apparently did think of him as the Antichrist. However, if that's true, then it is absolutely necessary to explain this context along with the quotation. A mere collection of negative statements without any explanations is ridiculous. And, by the way, in that case it's not so much criticism as fear. You can't "criticise" someone who is fulfilling a biblical prophecy. Hans Adler 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing i was reflecting on regarding this is where he was getting his information from since most of the medieval historians drastically distorted the translations specifically because of the Turkish threat so you cant say his point of view was objective or that he even had access to reliable information to form an unbiased opinion. How does it deal with the fact that his Antichrist was dead some few hundred years earlier or did he suppose he was living in the aftermath? Iβи Kᾱτhiɍ (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Imbalance in 'Further reading'
I've just noticed that the 'Further Reading' section in Political correctness is divided into 'For' (5 entries), 'Against' (14 entries after I removed an article link) and 'Skeptical' (2). I would have thought this doesn't comply with NPOV but I can't find anything specific on this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would assume that WP:NPOV applies to the entire article, including the further reading section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I seem to recall some guidance on links although I can't find it now, but not on sections like this. But without that I presume that the sections should be balanced (and in this case pretty equally). Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly "doesn't comply with NPOV"? Are you thinking that pro and con material must be balanced, with an equal number on each side?  Sorry, no, please see WP:WEIGHT.  But that is more for controversies, and I don't see that there is a controversy here.  If you feel that there are some important references that have been omitted, then you could add them. But shouldn't you really be raising any questions like this on the Talk page? I see that you mentioned coming this noticeboard way back in August; if there is a problem how come you guys are not discussing it there? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I was trying to find out if there was actually any specific guidance on this, that's all. If there isn't then at the moment I'm finished here and will give the issue more consideration before deciding what to do if anything. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But guidance on what, specifically? You did mention "balance", which is somewhat covered in WP:WEIGHT.  But NPOV is pretty broad, and you haven't really stated, specifically, just what your complaint is.  It seems that all you have is a vague feeling of "NPOV", and you are searching for some basis to substantiate that.  Which is backwards.  I suggest you discuss this on the Talk page, and see if you all can find any specific possible problems. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of the inane classification scheme, and removed all of the books that are not about political correctness. The selection of sources there is garbage though, and higher-quality sources should be found. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this acceptably resolved? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Warnborough College - libellous lead?
I seem to have protected this page indefinitely last year - which seems odd as I know that it is only in exceptional circumstances that a page will be protected indefinitely and this wasn't one of those. I can only assume either my mind or my mouse slipped. Anyway, an official of the college has complained on the talk page that the introduction is libellous and that the sources are no longer verifiable. This doesn't seem to be the case and there are more sources including recent sources calling this college a diiploma or degree mill. What I would like is help from uninvolved editors making sure that the article is npov. I've unprotected the article of course. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem libellous to me. I'll post on WikiProject Universities for more attention, and whether article needs to come into the project. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue certainly is not "libel." However given the overall history and impact of the college, it would seem to me that the lead currently does not meet WP:LEAD in providing a balanced overview of the subject as a whole. I see the issue as WP:UNDUE weight being given to one critic in the lead. The solution is to provide a more thorough and comprehensive lead which presents content in a WP:NPOV. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Need a second look
We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What seems really clear from your diff is that this is premature. Things in paleontology don't change that fast, and there hasn't been sufficient time elapsed to state a new scientific consensus.  BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 23:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pradip Baijal
Seems this subject (and some related pages) is subject to contentious edit-warring between his fans and his detractors. I had created what I felt was a neutral version, by cutting out both flowery praise and unsourced criticism of the subject, but the edit-warring resumed as soon as protection was lifted, so it was re-instated. I could use a few more eyes here to help keep this BLP in line. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

CounterPunch
User Bali Ultimate and Administrator RD232 have been deleting (Bali ULtimate's deletions:; ; ; ) (RD232's deletions: ; ) additions of criticisms of CounterPunch on it's Wikipedia entry on the grounds that either the sources are "biased" or that there is a talk-page consensus (it is not said what consensus is established on the talk-page, and even if a consensus about X topic was said to exist it is unlikely that it actually would have existed given my objection to it even though) even though:
 * 1) 1) I have disproven the unreliability of the sources based simply on their tendenciousness for which I have yet to receive from either the user or administrator;
 * 2) 2) There is no existence of a consensus about anything that can be found anywhere on the talkpage of CounterPunch except the websites from legitimate sources posted by administrator Fences&Windows that gives a balanced reception (both praise and criticism) of CounterPunch that they are legitimate.

Of course, Bali ultimate and RD232 will defend their actions as legitimate because (apparently) any criticism of CounterPunch is "biased" although anybody with common sense would call the removal of edits on CounterPunch cited from legitimate sources for no reason as nothing more than censorship. Fellytone (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would note that, from the looks of it, Fellytone is severely misrepresenting what is happening at Talk:CounterPunch. It seems that Fellytone is making personal attacks and accusations of bad faith (e.g. "Again, the usual typical left-wing crap: you lost the argument so you have to resort to character assassinations. ... Riiiiiight and asking me to read a Wikipedia guideline as if that supposed to help your argument takes a lot of effort too. Whatever helps you sleep at night." and "Cockburn and its followers (like you) simply because you et al. are left-wing Marxists and openly propagate left-wing viewpoints..") against the editors there (who are acting reasonably IMO), and has not "disproven the unreliability of the sources" as he/she claims. It seems like Fellytone is promoting the idea of writing an extensive "Criticism" section built from snippets culled from uninformative, unsubstantiated, name-calling op-eds, and several editors have pointed out that this is not how encyclopedia articles are written. The key is to use reliable sources, and non-notable op-eds that do nothing but name-calling, and provide no sources or specific criticisms, are not reliable. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An absolute one-sided sleezy hit-job comment from Jrtayloriv. Aside from correctly identifying my "personal attacks" (which the user failed to mention was written as a matter of self-defense against the ad hominems by Bali Ultimate in which he says, "Your assertions have little value." and "Some asshole calls someone an antisemite and gets it published doesn't mean you get to toss the smear into an encyclopedia article."), everything else the user writes are unsubstantiated falsehoods. Calling someone else an asshole is not a sign of a reasonable and rational-thinking editor, but going to length to explain how comments about CounterPunch from legitimate sources comply with Wikipedia guidelines are . Also, the websites listed by Fences&Windows are taken from reputable sources like The Los Angeles times, the national review and the new republic, written by reputable writers and sourced according to Wikipedia's citation guidelines . Fellytone (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the sections deleted was an opinion piece in the Washington Times quoting an unnamed soldier's opinion of Counterpunch. In no way does this opinion piece represent informed or notable opinion.  Neutrality requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".  Instead, these sources represent an extremist view, which may only be included, if at all, once proportionate coverage has been provided to mainstream views.  The approach editors should take is not, "I hate CounterPunch, now how much dirt can I find", but "How is the magazine perceived by mainstream sources".  TFD (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrally describing the capital status of Jerusalem
Copied from the talk page of the Jerusalem article:

"How should Jerusalem be described? The whole of Jerusalem is under Israeli control and, under Israeli law, Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel and is its capital city. Many Israeli government organisations have been moved to the city. Under international law, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any state and Israeli laws concerning it are invalid.

"There has been extensive discussion, running over a number of sections of the article's talk page, about whether it should be stated positively that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (the current description in the article's Lead) or whether this should be qualified and defined as the Israeli point of view."

Despite extensive discussion, no very clear consensus has been reached over what wording to use. I've raised RfCs on this issue at the Politics, Government and Law and  History and Geography RfC noticeboards in the hope of raising more participation. Since the issue concerns how to word the article neutrally, I've also brought it here.

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  01:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV at Death panel ?
The death panel article has a section on allegations that the Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence or NICE is a death panel which rations care by denying access to treatments. I felt that the original text repeated the allegation more than once and used the same reference in two different places to make the same point. I also felt that the section was unbalanced because it did not state the true consequences of NICE decisions. So I deleted the repetition and inserted a balancing counter argument with the following text, supporting it with reliable sources.

"Strictly speaking, a negative NICE decision on a new cancer drug does not deny access to that drug and are not necessarily a death knell for the patient. Patients will have two main choices. They can go outside the NHS for treatment, (paying the full cost themselves or their insurer's co-pays and deductibles if they have private medical insurance). Alternatively they can choose stay in the NHS and co-fund the cost of their treatment, again either out of pocket or through top-up insurance. Private insurance for coverage against having to pay for cancer drugs costs about £50 a year for a 50 year old man (about US$80, or double this for a smoker). The NHS actually funds 100% of the cost of most cancer drugs and the effect of NICE decisions is that this sometimes causes the coverage rate to fall below 100%. Not covering 100% of drug costs is what almost all insurance companies in Palin's America do all the time, although they do not call it rationing."

Another editor has undone my edit claiming that my own edit was "highly POV".

In my opinion, HIS (or HER) repeating the duplicated text and its reference and in particular the REMOVAL of the counter position defending the organization IS ITSELF a highly POV edit.

Clearly we cannot both be right. What is the right way forward? The edit has been inserted and removed several times and the article is covered by an article probation in an effort to contain edit warring. Therefore I seek guidance here from uninvolved parties. Hauskalainen2 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I took out the repetition and the word "noted" which is a classic WP:WTA. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 00:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that was just a small part of the POV problem. Did you read the counterview that the other editor deleted? The NHS in most cases provides total insurance coverage because most cancer sufferers in the UK pay nothing for their tests, surgery or drugs. No medical fees at all. Only when a NICE decision comes into play does funding fall below 100% and that just brings the NHS down to the level of the commercial insurers in America. Will you reinsert that text to provide the counterweight to the allegation that NICE is somehow a "death panel"? Hauskalainen2 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the text on that so I don't have to go through the history? BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the text again


 * "Strictly speaking, a negative NICE decision on a new cancer drug does not deny access to that drug and are not necessarily a death knell for the patient. Patients will have two main choices. They can go outside the NHS for treatment, (paying the full cost themselves or their insurer's co-pays and deductibles if they have private medical insurance). Alternatively they can choose stay in the NHS and co-fund the cost of their treatment, again either out of pocket or through top-up insurance. Private insurance for coverage against having to pay for cancer drugs costs about £50 a year for a 50 year old man (about US$80, or double this for a smoker). The NHS actually funds 100% of the cost of most cancer drugs and the effect of NICE decisions is that this sometimes causes the coverage rate to fall below 100%. Not covering 100% of drug costs is what almost all insurance companies in Palin's America do all the time, although they do not call it rationing."


 * The text adds balance to a section which, without it, merely repeats POV position often expressed in America that NICE is a rationing body which denies care to patients for example with advanced liver or breast cancer for example, leaving people with no choice but to wait to die. That is the death panel argument of course. That POV allegation is implicit in the text but it is explicit in the links which the reader is invited to follow as evidence. Its not just POV, its simply not true. The added text shows that this is not true. NICE does not deny care to people with cancer. All it does is to determine whether or not it will push some costs on to the patient. Which is what all American insurers do. My understanding is that copays and deductibles are the norm in all medical insurance in America, and not just for cancer. Co-pays and deductibles for cancer patients simply do not exist for cancer patients in England except in very unusual circumstances where the cost/benefit limit is exceeded. Top-up insurance for those wanting to cover that risk is quite modest. In the interest of balance, this text needs to be in. I am severely restrained by the Article Probation (see banners at TALK:Death panel from inserting the text now that someone has deleted it. Hauskalainen2 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That looks like pretty good text were it to be formatted right for the references, and assuming that the references fully support the text and the text doesn't go beyond what the sources say. I would suggest that unless you've already edit warred over this, that you simply insert it and start a discussion about it on the talk page.  Alternately, wait till I have more time to look at the sources and maybe I can do it. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 04:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand Hauskalainen's concerns. However, I have been trying to stick to WP:NEO, which states "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Unfortunately, I am not sure the sources above even use the term. That material, though, seems great for the NICE article. I made this edit, incorporating a NICE statistician's reply to the charge. I think Campbell and Nyhan offer balancing POV. My impression is that Hauskalainen is trying to fix misperceptions in ways that don't appear to be standard around here, namely, by adding content to death panel that belongs at NICE. Jesanj (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NEO is there to ensure that WP does not promote neologisms. In this case the article is OK because it has been widely commented on in the press and its use was widely criticized. You certainly cannot use text in policy (which is intended to require references from reliable sources to justify the use of neologisms) to justify NOT including references which do NOT support the tenets of the term just because those references don't use that term.
 * This is more to do with presenting a NPOV and WP:RGW has nothing much to do with it, though I do see why why you think it might.
 * POV comes in because the interpretation of medical rationing depends on which side of the Atlantic you live. Brits and Americans think about this differently. Brits seem to think that not getting all your costs paid for by the government health insurer, the NHS is "rationing"; Americans who regularly have to contribute to their health care costs through co-pays and deductibles do not regard this as rationing.
 * Because of this, Americans are therefore quite likely to misinterpret British sources and assume that "rationing" means an arbitrary "some get it and some do not". NHS choice of spending is anything but arbitrary. It falls over backwards to be fair to everyone and uses scientific knowledge and statistical analysis to make the get the best health return for government spending. Everyone is free to spend extra on private services to get more than the NHS provides. As with most things in life, there are more choices the more money you have.
 * Some references seem to mix up "denying funding" and "denying care". Some claim that the NHS denies access to cancer drugs or that denying to fund a pap smear for under 25s is a denial of care. This is just inaccurate. Declining to fund 100% of something is not a denial of care. People can pay a copay for their cancer drugs and can even insure themselves against being in that position. Young women have the choice to pay for a private pap smear test until they reach the age of 25.
 * Showing the alternative view is all that the NPOV policy asks us to do. Without my text the article gives a one-sided and misleading impression. Hauskalainen2 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh - the wording is fully argumentative and makes statements which are not clearly correct to boot. How much is "cancer insurance" for a person with a history of cancer in his family and other risk factors? I would wager it is well over 50 pounds a year! And a person who has had cancer in the past? Likely uninsurable even in the UK. Nor are "cancer drugs" the sole thing which NICE can deny coverage for - making all of this a bit like an ad for NICE, rather than an accurate review of facts avoiding SYNTH and OR (which abound in it). What might work is:
 * Patients denied coverage under NICE can use private medical insurance, or co-pay for the cost of treatment under NHS [at what rate? not stated]

which, if sourced, is properly neutral. The rest is simple argumentation, and states "facts" which are OR or possibly not even applicable to actual patients. Collect (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @User:Collect I am not so sure your opinion is as independent as it seems. I see that your fourth ever edit on Wikipedia under this user ID was to agree with User:Kelly at Talk:Sarah Palin. User:Kelly is one of the people who has been the most aggressive in defending changes to articles relating to Sarah Palin and it seems to me in ways which seem to defend Ms Palin. She (or he?) threatened me with sanctions for editing forthrightly at Death panel which I have done only in defence of NPOV or RS and she goes around acting like an Admin when in fact she is nothing of the sort. And you yourself seem to edit with a certain bias such as here and here. I came to this page to get the views of people who do not normally edit Sarah Palin related pages to get a view as to whether it was NPOV to remove text which I thought was providing another POV to that implicit in the original edit. The views of people who are clearly pro Sarah Palin are worth listening to but I don't think they should carry as much weight as other non-interested editors. Hauskalainen (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The rate of £50-£100 came from the article but I know for a fact that UK private insurers do exactly what their American counterparts do and discriminate against those with poor medical histories (personal or familial). Yes the text does makes the argument (quite properly) about cancer drugs. If it sounds like an advert for NICE that is because there is an alternative way of looking at the problem. That is what NPOV is all about. Putting the other POV. There are of course medicines which are in more common use that are also 100% NHS funded (for example levothyroxine for chronic thyroid problems and insulin for diabetes for example. ts not just cancer medicines that get full funding. As a general rule, if a drug is short term or long term but not life threatening you have the £8 co-pay; but if the drug is needed because it keeps you alive you get it without a copay.  Yes, there are treatments that are not available through the NHS (not very many) which, if you want them, you may have to get them privately. These you pay for yourself or get a private insurer to pay for you. About 10% of people do have private insurance of some sort. Overall then the same general rule still applies. People in the UK do not face ANY health care rationing IF their health insurer is the government AND it pays all their health care costs.  But if a NICE decision causes SOME costs on to the patient then this IS CALLED RATIONING. This is of course totally different to when Americans have to pay something towards their health care costs because their insurance company does not pay.  This of course is NOT CALLED RATIONING. That is so clear an explanation that I think it deserves to be in the article.  What do you think?Hauskalainen2 (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of asking a silly question, why is the Death Panel article anywhere near as long as it is? The term itself is one of pure political rhetoric. Whether one views the term as legitimately descriptive or not, I honestly can't see the value of expanding this article to a state where it merely serves to throw gasoline on the fire of Wikipedia's factional infighting. I would advise leaving the article at little more than the intro. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually would go along with that myself. The problem has been that some editors for reasons best known to themselves seem to have been expanding the article into areas completely unconnected with Palin's concept of a Death Panel (an imaginary Panel that she thought Obama might have to invent because to turn people away from getting help because with his new law there would suddenly be a lot more insured people seeking medical help and she assumed for some reason that Obama would start turning away the elderly and the mentally ill). They have turned to the IPAB (a body that does not even exist yet) and to NICE (a body which operates in the UK under UK law to ensure that public money spent on health actually delivers the best health benefits with the available money). Neither as far as I can see have ANYTHING to do with Palin's catchy phrase, but the slightest mention of them has triggered a justification in the minds of some for their inclusion. I can only assume that this is because the original idea was so ridiculous an effort has to be made to somehow bury the original idea and replace it with a new one which they think has more credibility. The article has to either counter those views (which are ridiculous and have to be countered if they are presented in order give the article a NPOV) OR, as you say, they really should not be in there because it is a stretch too far. I'd go along with you if you can persuade the team of Palinista's at work on this article to give up the fight. I wish you well!80.223.188.55 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a rather rough example of what I'm talking about. Yes, it has a cite error and I accidentally left behind a picture... the example is meant to display a more NPOV-manageable length and scope. This is just an example, and to that end I reverted it. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, it started as pure political rhetoric. But the term/controversy it inspired has been described as almost taking down health care reform. Physicians wrote letters to JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine. Brendan Nyhan published a paper in The Forum. The term/controversy it represented has been commented on by academics such as George Annas and Jill Lepore. PolitiFact named it "Lie of the Year". The term has moved from pure political rhetoric and has now been covered by serious sources, which is why we have an article. Jesanj (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with a chopping block approach. I think that approach tosses out the baby with the bathwater. There are plenty of sections that haven't been subject to all of this "infighting". I am sympathetic, though, to the idea that the article is unwieldy due to non-notable associations with NICE and IPAB. Jesanj (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jesanj. It is very clear that some people are using Wikipedia for nefarious political purposes. I have just gone through the Independent Payment Advisory Board article and have had to sweep it clear of politiking, filling Wikipedia with opinion and damning by association. I see that you have objected to my strong use of the edit summary to highlight how unacceptable those edits were. I have not checked it out but I suspect that you may have been behind at least some of it. Should I check this out? Your behavior in editing is not the same as your behaviour on the talk page where you try to exude reasonableness. Your claims that the term "death panel" has become more than what it started out to be is simply not borne out by the facts. As far as I can tell there is very little to justify what you are saying.Hauskalainen (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at removing the content that appears to be problematic. Jesanj (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is a POV being pushed by one editor, to the effect that references to "death panels" in published sources are presented as references to some sort of mythological creature like a gryphon or unicorn, and have no real-world reference point. This is clearly incorrect. Reliable sources link the term to NICE and IPAB. You may argue that they are incorrect in making the connection, but the fact remains that they did make it, so it belongs in the article under NPOV. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) NICE is British and IPAB is American. Not even in the same country.
 * 2) NICE advises doctors on clinical protocols. IPAB does not.
 * 3) NICE does not control doctors reimbursement. IPAB does.
 * 4) NICE has no responsibility for the NHS budget. IPAB's primary function is control of the Medicare budget.
 * 5) NICE has been running 12 years with broad political support. IPAB has not yet been appointed and is (perhaps) contentious

They are about as different from each other as it possible to be with the one exception that they are in the health care sector. If there is to be a comparison then NICE is much more like the bodies that exist in the private insurance companies that decide whether or not a particular treatment in a particular setting should be funded from the insurance pool. Similar because they both are concerned with clinical effectiveness for the patient, but dissimilar in that the insurer can choke off funding whereas NICE guidelines are only advisory to NHS trusts. There is only one area where NICE guidelines are not advisory. As the NHS Constitution for England makes clear, a treatment regime approved by NICE must be made available by all NHS trusts in England.

Does User:Angel's flight dispute any of this? If so what? And on what grounds does his reliable sources have for connecting these two bodies? I think we should be told.Hauskalainen (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal essays on how the health care system works continue to be unhelpful. The article is about a political term and its usage. Whether usages of the term are justified is not for you to decide, nor is it relevant to the article. Numerous reliable sources have clearly said that the term "death panel" has been applied to both NICE and IPAB, and for the purposes of the article, that is the one thing that counts. Angel&#39;s flight (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Numerous reliable sources" is your opinion, in my opinion. In the way of hard evidence, I've only seen the Sunday Times say it was applied to NICE. Sure, others (fringe/minority?) have tried to associate it with the IPAB, but this is also a weighting (WP:UNDUE) issue. I've made some edits to the page though. I surely don't think IPAB belongs under a header of "rationing". Reliable sources say it can't ration so I'm afraid you're on shaky ground there. Jesanj (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this reasonable?
Is this edit using a source from Fox News to say that Richard Falk is a "9/11 Truther" valid? The source doesn't even say this (it just says he wrote the Foreword for a book on alternative theories related to 9/11). Also, I don't think that this Fox News opinion article is really a useful source anyway, even if it wasn't being misrepresented. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, 207.118.98.18 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. To quote Falk, "To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one "a 9/11 truther" or an endorser of a conspiracy theory." That is from the Salon source in the Richard_A._Falk section. Also, the lead should just summarize the article content per WP:LEAD. It shouldn't introduce new statements and sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Interesting to note that if you look at the user's history, it seems that he had done something similar to the article Michael Walzer just prior to the abovementioned edit. 207.118.98.18 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely unreasonable, I was in the process of opening a BLPN thread when I came across the link to this thread. Not a single one of the cited sources calls Falk a truther. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/users
Someone created this as a "proposed" noticeboard, however it can be used in very negative ways against users as the generally bad reviews on the talk page show. Feel free to comment there. (Or even MfD it.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is a very bad idea, on the face of it. But SlimVirgin must have had her reasons, and I'd like to hear them as she's a very storied and capable editor. BE—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—Critical __Talk 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, there's a discussion about it at WT:ADVN. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Now with 4 for and 4 against, it's been "Consensed" to call it the Advocacy/Noticeboard. SlimVirgin's failed 2009 proposal to do something just on the Israel-Palestine issue is at Neutrality_enforcement. This time it was done with no community input up front and largely negative feed back afterwards. (The name change being the only thing with any kind of support.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice it is up for deletion

 * The article is now up at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy/Noticeboard . CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right

 * Radical Right

Should this article be tagged for neutrality, original research and synthesis? (Posted to both neutrality and OR noticeboards.)

The concept was developed in the book Radical Right, with contributors Daniel Bell, Richard Hofstadter, Seymour Martin Lipset, Peter Viereck, Daniel Bell, Talcott Parsons and others.  Lipset wrote a history of the Radical Right.  More recently books have been written about the Radical Right by Sara Diamond,, Chip Berlet, and others.

User:Collect says that "The references used are not checkable on line - zero...."

TFD (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:PAYWALL. "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries."  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is nice except that the claims made are not in the sources claimed!  The idea about RS sources is that once a source is miscited, it ceases to be a valid source for any claim - and that is true in spades here. Collect (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a different problem than what I was responding to - saying that sources have to be on-line is not correct, which was the point of my post. Misrepresenting sources is a bad thing, I totally agree with that.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect, could you please provide an example of a source that you believe has been miscited. TFD (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lipset entirely. The material on the pages listed barely, if at all, corresponds to the actual claims made. Collect (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have partial access to some of these sources and indeed this article does draw conclusions that are not presented in this source. In fact some sections grossly misrepresent this source, the article POVishly claims Republicanism is radical right, where as the source clearly shows that Republicanism is significantly to the left of the Radical Right. --Martin (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article does not in fact say that Republicanism is Radical Right. TFD (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It lests Republicansism and Federalism, as well as a slew of other groups. Meanwhile - the discussion is already on the article talk page - adding it to two noticeboards simultaneously seems a bit like forum shopping at best.  The other discussion includes my statements on this mishmash of a coatrack OR POV SYNTH article. Collect (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. You tagged the article both for neutrality and OR, hence the need to post to both boards, which is disclosed in both discussion threads.  The article does not list Republicanism and federalism as Radical Right.  By the way, the U.S. is a republic.  Small "r" republicanism supports the Republic.  Big "R" Republicanism supports the Republican Party.  When you comment on these boards could you please ensure that your statements are accurate and not misleading to other editors.  TFD (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainly because both problems are apparent to any xcasual reader. That is not the same as making multiple noticeboard posts.  When one lists "Republicanism" in an article on "Radical Right" it is either rational to suppose there is a direct connection, or that the section ought to be removed.  And kindly deal with my posts instead of making comments about me.  Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it your opinion that an article about the Radical Right should not mention influences upon them? TFD (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) You need properly sourced claims making the linkage. It is OR and SYNTH to make the linkage on your own without a proper secondary source doing so explicitly. And claims must be accurately reflected by the cite used, else the entire project collapses. At this point, so such source has been furnished for that article. Collect (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact all the groups identified as radical right in the book are identified as such in Seymour Martin Lipset's 1970 history of the radical right, and this has been confirmed by numerous subsequent writers, including Diamond, Berlet, Mulloy, Norris, etc., etc. Don't like it?  Get over it.  TFD (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for neutral party to submit article
Hal Blackwell “Secrets of the Skim” on Amazon

My name is Hal Blackwell and I use Wikipedia frequently. I have a somewhat embarrassing question/dilemma. After registering and reading the rules I understand it is not appropriate for me to do an autobiographical entry. I have written a book, “Secrets of the Skim”, which is a Hub City Writer’s project #5 selection for 2010 (even though the book was only available since the publishing date, June 5, 2010). The book is an expose’ of the US wealth management industry and recounts my employment at Merrill Lynch during the financial crisis. I have appeared on the Fox Business News as an financial industry expert and been interviewed by several other national media outlets. Business Insider has done a story about my work. I have lectured at the University of South Carolina Upstate and speak frequently about my experiences at Merrill Lynch. I am the president of HE Blackwell Advisors. I would appreciate very much an unbiased Wikipedia article regarding my work. Any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halblackwell (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some RS to establish notability please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is against the rules to edit your own article, and editors are not likely to bother writing an article about something they aren't interested in(most only editing within one small niche). While a conflict of interest is certainly present, if you write it neutrally and no editors raise a complaint then there should not be a problem. I will see if I can get one going which you can add to, but I'm not interested in financial analysts so don't be expecting anything to amazing.

Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have. AerobicFox (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to my Fox Appearance- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvuqcIaiXg8, This is the link to my Business Insider story- http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-wiki-leaks-have-on-bank-of-america-2010-12, Here is the link to my Amazon- http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Skim-financial-institutional-management/dp/1449946933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276223734&sr=1-1.


 * I would discourage you. Right now when I google your name the first hit is your website, followed by sites you control or are sympathetic to you.  If you create an article about yourself, then that will probably be the first hit and mirror sites, such as Wapedia, may take up many of the other top hits.  Anyone, including people you mention in your book, can anonymously put anything in it.  Although false information may be corrected, there is no one assigned to ensure that happens and even when corrections are made, earlier versions of the article and the discussion page will still be available (although you may request that libelous content be hidden).  If anyone complains about your editing of your own article, a permanent record will be kept, along with any comments anyone has made.  Once an article is created it may not be possible to have it deleted.  I can provide you with many examples of people who regret creating articles about themselves or using their real names for posting.  TFD (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with above. You would have absolutely no control over the content of the article, and would invite the addition of criticism, along with the positive aspects of your life and work. Maybe you don't have any skeletons in the closet to worry about, but I know that I would never want a wiki-article written about me (even if I were notable, which, thankfully, I am not.)  David Able 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification on my above point: You would, of course, have some measure of control by editing the article (as well as asking for libelous material to be removed as mentioned by TFD) BUT WP editors are notoriously unsympathetic to article subjects who push to have negative content removed (especially when the critical info is backed up by good sources), and you may find that it backfires.  See WP:BOOMERANG and Streisand Effect.  David Able 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

FN_Five-seven "controversy" section has a pro-gun stance
FN_Five-seven:

The Controversy section of this article reads like a pure one-sided rebuttal of the weapon's critics. Particularly glaring is the scolds within the quotebox and the text, the catty emphasis on how the legislation failed ("Once again, the bill failed to proceed to a vote."), and the general tone that portrays the weapon's critics as fools.

I intend to fix these problems in the days to come but I'd like to hear other people's views first.--Father Goose (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That section seems to use some primary sources, which require special care to work with in order to portray their content neutrally and avoid OR. For example the "once again" phrase isn't in the (primary) source mentioned. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're reading too far into the text. There is nothing "catty" about the bill statement. The bill did fail to proceed to a vote, just like the previous bills. The statement is factual and there is no better way to have said it. It's a bare statement. The "once again" part of the sentence isn't original research, because the previous cases cite sources. The bill first failed in 2005 (so says the source), so it is true that it once again failed in 2007 and 2009.


 * As for the "scolds within the quotebox," that is a direct quote from the NRA. You shouldn't expect a quote from the NRA to seem neutral on a gun control topic. That quote in specific was chosen because it's very effective in demonstrating that the subject is controversial. I would have preferred to include one quote each for both viewpoints, but there is only room for one quotebox in the Controversy section. Before you suggest a neutral quote from neither of the viewpoints, note that there are few, if any, such sources; let alone suitable quotes from said sources. For the most part there is only rhetoric from one side or the other. Regardless, if you just look at the article's reference list you will notice there are far more citation links pointing readers to anti-gun websites (e.g. Brady) than political pro-gun websites (e.g. NRA). So to be honest, it could be just as easily argued that the article leans in the other direction. ROG5728 (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Giving special prominence to a POV quote from one side is a violation of our neutrality policies, so I've removed the big blue box. The quote may still be referenced in the text itself. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 17:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've now studied the article in depth. I'd like to preface my comments by saying that I have no stake in the "controversy" one way or the other. The Five-seven seems like a pretty good gun, and the article is also pretty good, neutrality issues notwithstanding.

I'd say the most notable thing bout the gun is that it is the only widely available pistol that fires PDW rounds. This type of cartridge (small and fast) has inherent armor-piercing properties; it isn't just a question of special AP ammo being available. And while the article does mention these traits of PDW rounds, it also does what it can to play down the armor-piercing ability of the non-AP rounds. There is a plausible claim that even the civilian rounds have AP qualities. This claim should be presented neutrally, not denied at every turn.

Here are the problems in greater detail:
 * "Sporting ammunition" is used to describe both the sporting rounds and the jacketed hollow-points. Hollow-points are a common police round; calling them a "sporting round" is a euphemism.
 * "The National Rifle Association shortly countered the Brady Campaign's claim by pointing out that the gun control group may not have adhered to standard testing procedures, and that FN only offers armor-piercing varieties of the 5.7x28mm cartridge to military and law enforcement customers."
 * I have no problem with the counterargument regarding testing procedures. But the Brady assertion was that SS192, a non-AP round available to civilians, pierced a vest; the NRA's assertion about AP rounds (SS190) doesn't address the actual Brady claim, so it shouldn't be presented as a counterargument.


 * "it was claimed that the SS192 and SS196 cartridge variations were unable to penetrate various types of Kevlar vests in tests conducted by FNH USA."
 * The source given says that the SS192 does not penetrate level IIIA vests: this does not contradict the Brady assertion that a thinner level IIA vest was penetrated. It does contradict a separate Brady claim that a level IIIA vest was penetrated in a local Fox News report.  But this sentence is lumping in penetration tests for a round (ss196) other than the one Brady singles out (SS192), conflating which round was tested against which type of vest.


 * The ATF & NRA claims regarding armor penetration both derive from manufacturer tests. The following manufacturer statement that lends some credence to the Brady assertions should also be included:
 * "Company officials said that while the commercially available ammunition can in rare cases penetrate some body armor used by law enforcement, these bullets cannot pierce other models of bulletproof vests."
 * Second paragraph: "Both bills failed to proceed to a vote by either the House or the Senate."
 * 'Failed' is a loaded word; you could just say "neither bill proceeded to a vote".


 * "However, sales of the Five-seven pistol increased dramatically."
 * The way this is framed implies that sales increased in response to the legislation. The source that lists "increased sales" predates the introduction of the legislation by several months.


 * Third paragraph: "Some news reports stated that the weapon was used in various incidents to murder police officers or civilians."
 * We don't normally use such indirect language ("some... stated") for reliable sources unless the report is contested in other sources.


 * "In the United States, however, the Five-seven has never been used to kill a police officer."
 * It's not clear why this sentence is included; it is possibly a counter to the "cop killer" rhetoric, which isn't mentioned in the article in the first place. Regardless, it strikes me as an overly narrow superlative; it's been used to kill Mexican cops and has been fired against American cops (in the Fort Hood shooting).  I'd say it's not significant in the way that the 9mm round has been used to kill perhaps hundreds of American cops; it just reflects how common the round is.


 * "In March 2007, legislation was again introduced"
 * Coming at the end of the paragraph implies that the legislation was introduced in response to the news reports earlier in the paragraph, yet this legislation predates the reports.

--Father Goose (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)