Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 19

Endocrine disruption
has written the following over at endocrine disruption: "The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid." However, that is not what the source FellGleaming quoted said. The source examined and presented both sides of the debate, not one side as Fell just did. The New York Times article wrote: "Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health." The article goes into more detail about both sides, and it is neither neutral nor accurate to summarize the source in the way it is presented in the article by FellGleaming. I've asked Fell to revisit the source and fix it, but he refuses. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by FellGleaming.
 * Viriditas has posted me to three different messageboards in the past 4 days, as well as following me to various articles and filling talk pages with threats and personal attacks. I'll save that for an upcoming harassment case if it continues.


 * To respond to this particular edit, the diff is here . I reverted out an edit by Islandeden, restoring the article to its original state.   Why?  His text removed a text that stated there was valid scientific dispute, replacing it with a source that purports to claim "scientific consensus", basing this off a single paper.  He provided no link in the cite, but I went looking for it and found it here, at the advocacy site "endocrinedisruption.net": .  As everyone knows, primary sources like this can be difficult to use properly, as they require more interpretation than a secondary source.  And in this case, the editor's interpretation was severely flawed.  The paper claimed no consensus among scientists in general, but simply consensus among the participants in this particular workshop.   I thus reverted out the change as unsupported by the source.


 * The material Viriditas is referring to above was added to the article by a previous editor; my revert simply restored it. If Viriditas truly believed it was problematic, he could fix it himself.  Instead, he is demanding I acknowledge I "misrepresented sources", as he says he is "building a case against me".   Viriditas is, by the way, being discussed for sanctions on the climate change message board for battleground mentality tactics.  In fact, it was my posting an opinion against him there that led to his retaliation here.   Fell Gleaming talk  17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, a summary statement from an expert panel, synthesizing available literature, is a secondary source, not a primary source. The interpretation of existing data has already been performed by the experts on the panel, and our responsibility is to accurately convey their conclusions. I agree that "scientific consensus" is probably an overstatement based on this one expert body statement, but this is nonetheless a secondary source and probably worthy of discussion and inclusion in the proper context. Secondly, regardless of who added the material, this is pretty clearly an inappropriate, slanted, and cherry-picked summary of this New York Times article. It seems FellGleaming accepts this point, maybe - at least he isn't defending the edit content, saying only that he reverted on general principles, I guess. So maybe the involved editors could work out a more suitable and neutral representation of the New York Times source on the article talk page, ideally with a minimum of posturing. MastCell Talk 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A minor point perhaps, since Mastcell agrees the source was represented incorrectly, but an expert panel that doesn't cite or analyze any research or other primary source, but simply states the current opinions of the panel members, is probably best characterized as itself being a primary source. It's no different than had one or more of those experts directly written an article on the subject.   I would be happy to work with Viriditas on this page, but I fear he's more concerned with his retaliatory efforts than improving the content for any of the six article's he's currently trying to report me for.  Fell Gleaming talk  19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FellGleaming, please revisit the article and represent the source accurately, without introducing bias. I've already asked you to do this on the talk page, and you have refused, saying " I simply reverted a problematic change; I wasn't specifically restoring that claim. However, I don't see that the claim (which was already in the article btw) is inaccurate at all. One side does dismiss it as junk science, and -- given there are two sides to the scientific debate -- no consensus exist.". This is the same response you give whenever a problem is raised with the way you use sources. You deny there is a problem, and you refuse to fix it.  I've already used the talk page, which is why I'm posting at this noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea that endocrine disrupting chemicals don't exist is a fringe (and inaccurate) viewpoint. The New York Times gives this and other fringe viewpoints (e.g. climate change denial) equal weight in the name of "balance", because the same investors that own the corporations most responsible for climate change and toxic chemical production also own the New York Times (or are large marketing clients of it). They are simply protecting their other financial holdings such as petrochemical corporations. This is why we shouldn't use corporate newspapers, with a clear conflict of interest, to report on scientific topics. There has been plenty of high quality scholarly literature written on this, so we should use that rather than corporate press propaganda. The scientific consensus is that endocrine disrupting chemicals do exist, and the only debate is about which chemicals are endocrine disruptors. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. FellGleaming -- |++inpublisher:academic+|++inpublisher:springer+|++inpublisher:elsevier&num=100 These are the types of sources you should use for well known scientific topics such as this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

- Rabbi Yishayahu Yosef Pinto - Help in reviewing ? Far from neutral

Labour Party (UK)
OK, I'll state upfront that - unlike the issue above - this is an article I could reasonably be said to being "involved" at. I can't recall how, I suspect through WP:RFPP (I've certainly protected the article before now), but I've had the article watchlisted for some time now and I've previously raised an issue at ANI.

There has for sometime been "genre-warring" over this political party's ideology. The party itself claims to be "democratic socialist". Historically (back in the dim past of October 2009) "democratic socialism", "social democracy" and "third way". by to include "neoliberalism". This was removed at some point (after, I think May 2010). the article only includes "democratic socialism", so - obviously - "social democracy" and "third way" have been removed at some point. They don't, however, feature much in this report.

For the past few months there has been an up-tick in edit warring over the "ideology" field in the infobox, mostly with IPs adding uncited ideologies, however to be fair all additions could probably be cited from historical versions of the article. More recently, following semi-protection by your 'umble servant, a discussion has started on the article's talkpage. Riversider2008 has referred to several archived discussions in which sources of varying degrees of reliability had been provided in support of "neoliberalism".

I remain unconvinced by Riversider2008's arguments for inclusion, as I believe "neoliberalism" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary sources. However, Riversider2008 does make the argument that "democratic socialism" has only ever been sourced to the party itself.

So... what ideologies should be included in the infobox? TFOWR 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just democratic socialist. It was described as a socialist party in Klaus von Beyme's party categories.  While sources say it has adopted neoliberal polices, as have all major Western parties, there are no sources that claim it is a mainstream view that they are now a neoliberal party.  TFD (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the infobox that I am arguing for does NOT baldly state that Labour has a neoliberal ideology or is a neoliberal party, rather the much softer position that neoliberalism is one of several ideological currents within the party. TFD is correct that very few sources state that Labour has become an entirely neoliberal party, but many point to a strong neoliberal trend within its leadership, which the infobox should reflect. Other UK political parties (like the Conservative Party) articles list a number of ideological trends or influences, so this is not unusual or 'extraordinary'. Simply listing 'democratic socialism' is a gross oversimplification of the more complex reality that the published literature points to, and by oversimplifying becomes POV. I'd request that editors spend a little time studying the weight and breadth of sources cited in the discussion before reaching their conclusions. River sider ( talk ) 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most western parties of any orientation have to varying degrees adopted neo-liberal economic policies. This was true of the Blair years and the fact should be included in the main body of the article.  It is not however an ideology, and we are anyway past the "new Labour" period, post the banking crash etc. etc.  The information box needs to place a party where it sits in the political spectrum, more detailed analysis and description belongs in the main body of the article.  --Snowded  TALK  05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clause IV does indeed say "democratic socialist" (and I went to check), but the privatisation bent they went on betrays that somewhat. Still, they are seen as reasonably left-wing by their base, and indeed by most of the public. Sure, the Trotskyists aren't too pleased they moved closer to the centre, but there you go. That said, we could do well to add more than one ideology to reflect the factions: Conservative Party (UK) has 5 and Liberal Democrats 2. Sure, Blair and Brown aren't in charge of the party, but you still have people like David Miliband or Peter Mandelson, who continue the party's Third Way credentials. Sceptre (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could but those two down, information boxes are not really places for list of policies and practices; the article can provide context for those --Snowded TALK  07:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that, although it's designed to serve a useful and needed purpose, "ideology" shouldn't be in the InfoBox for political parties; in most cases, it's just too hard to compress the reality into a few words. A brief summary of a party's main ideological currents belongs in the introductory paragraphs. See a parallel edit war (or series of skirmishes) at Socialist Party USA and earlier ones at Social Democrats USA, both of which are as tadpoles to the whales of the SPD and the Labour Party. And at least all these parties, whatever their later evolutions, came out of a common heritage in the Second International. For a historically and consciously non-ideological party like the U.S. Democratic and Republican Parties, or the various Gaullist and Giscardien parties of the French Fifth Republic, the only label that would fit would be sui generis. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See Von Beyme's classification of parties in left-right politics. The Labour party is socialist, while the Republican and Democratic parties are liberal.  Also, some Americans have started to call themselves "right-wing" which in the rest of the world means fascist.  Do you think that articles about them should call them "democratic right-wing"?  TFD (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle and Libertarianism
In the midst of extended debate about the scope of this article, Born2cycle reveals that his intent is to limit the scope of the article to those views espoused by the US Libertarian Party, which of course has its own article. Are there any editors here who could comment on this proposal? See this section and this section on the talk page. Yworo (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This post mis-characterizes my view in two ways. First, I don't even mention the US Libertarian Party in any comments in those sections.  Second, my intent is not about limiting views at all.  It's about limiting content that is out of scope with respect to what is meant by the term libertarianism (unqualified) in English reliable source today. There is a huge difference.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See this comment where Born2cycle states "this article should associate the topic of this article with the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party". Yworo (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Born2cycle's point in the diff is that the article scope reflects the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party. I infer Born2cycle to mean that therefore the article lead should say as much, and that disputes about content of the article ignoring the (implicit) scope of the article are rather pointless.  My suggestion would be that perhaps the page name of the article should spell out that scope.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not correct at all. The article doesn't and shouldn't reflect the political ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party, so you are completely off-base here, 69. Yworo (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Four Major Rivers Project
A disagreement has been rumbling on The Four Major Rivers Project article. It seems this project is quite controversial in South Korea. Some editors have been accused of pushing government propoganda and other editors have replaced the article content with a different wording that seems to be entirely critical of the project; neither view is referenced. And so it goes back and forth for the last couple of months. I have tried to remind both sides of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and suggested there is room for both the official line and the criticism in the article. Maybe someone else can take a look at the slow-paced discussion on the talk page and make better suggestions (or correct me if I am the one in error), especially since I might soon be less able to visit Wikipedia as often as I have. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that the involved parties start by gathering some sources. As it stands now, neither version contains any citations.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism has to be called "idolatrous" three times in the main article?
The above article currently contains the word "idolatrous" as a description of Messianic Jews three times. This is because one group of outsiders to the movement, mainstream Jews, see the MJs as being this. I personally think the word probably falls within words to avoid as per WP:AVOID, and certainly I cannot see why the word has to be repeated three times in the article, particularly considering that it is the opinion of only one other outside group. I would appreciate any responses. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For starters, the claim is very poorly sourced. In the first instance it is used there is no source, and in the second and third it is sourced to this which is a website of a yeshiva in Jerusalem, Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem.  Hardly an RS.  If this is considered "idolatrous" then the first step is to get some better sources here.  After that I would suggest toning it down, but without good sourcing it should be removed altogether.Griswaldo (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought a source to the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're objections are solid. As an aside, you have your work cut out for you on trying to balance that article. Good luck. Sol (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There do seem to be serious problems with the article, but as I mentioned on that article's talk page, the word "idolatrous" does seem to properly denote the mainstream Jewish view of the Trinity, especially as per some sourcing that has been provided. However, there does seem to be a lot of repeating of criticisms in different sections of the article, which may suggest NPOV problems. Kansan (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of problems with the article. One of them is the fact that "idolatrous" denotes the Jewish opinion of pretty much every trinitarian Christian group as well, so there might even be a bit of a repetition factor involved. I'm going to try to consult the various religious encyclopediae I have available to determine how to balance it, but it does look to be a bit of a tough one. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Palestinian territories
After devolving into personal attacks and non-responses (see, for example Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_17), the discussion of the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories has resumed at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories. At issue is whether acts and attitudes of racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip belong within the scope of the article. Please join the discussion there.--Carwil (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a dreadful article and I'm embarrassed that a post at WikiProject Discrimination generated no responses. Racism in the United Kingdom, Racism in the United States are not great articles by any means. But at least we are sure they cover topics that have received a great deal of attention. I'm not at all sure that an article on Racism in the Palestinian Territories is needed. We already have a great number of articles on Israeli-Palestinian relations, and on aspects of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you Judith, but it's survived an AfD.
 * The effort to get editors' opinions on the "settlers and soldiers" question has generated almost unanimous support for their inclusion, but policy issues are raised by the one dissenter, who hasn't responded to a long list of questions. Maybe an outside editor can help with bringing the discussion to a close over the coming week.--Carwil (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on UNDUE at Wuxia
In the wuxia article, I've added information about the word's being derived from the Japanese term bukyo, a claim made by Stephen Teo in his Chinese Martial Arts Cinema: the Wuxia Tradition. Teo is a professionally published film scholar and academic who has contributed significant work on the wuxia genre, and thus should qualify as a reliable source, and as there doesn't appear to be anything contradicting Teo's claim, said etymology should be uncontroversial. However, editor Mythsearcher has deleted the claim, saying that as he can find no sources opposing the claim or apparently discussing etymology at all, that the etymology therefore falls under UNDUE. This seems to me to be the exact opposite of what Undue is meant to cover. Other arguments of Mythsearcher's (in Talk:Wuxia) rely upon his consulting unnamed dictionaries, his personal unfamiliarity with bukyo as a genre label, or insinuating ethnic bias on Teo's part, which I feel to be bordering on OR or NPOV. Ergative rlt (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would assume, naively perhaps, that a Chinese dictionary would be a better source for the etymology of than a film scholar. Whether that's true or not, it should certainly be possible to get more than just the one opinion on the origins of the word. What we can be sure of is that one source will not produce a neutral point of view. Perhaps better suited to a different noticeboard? But the easiest way to resolve this will be to find more sources. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing template display titles according to article placement
Short version:

Due to disputes like the British Isles naming dispute, does WP:NPOV allow the title of a navigation template like Template:British Isles to be changed using code, based on which article it is placed on, i.e., when placed on United Kingdom, it is called "The British Isles" (and linked to the article), but when placed on the Republic of Ireland, it is called "British-Irish Council area" (and not linked). I think this is a pretty obvious violation of NPOV, which calls for uniform neutral presentation of content on all articles for all readers, rather than changing what is presented to the reader on the flawed assumption that readers of particular articles hold particular views, and should be presented with a particular world view.

Long version:

Recently, after a discussion on the talk page of Template:British Isles, the coding of that template was altered, so that the diplayed title of the template changes if you put it on certain articles such as Ireland. Obviously, this is counter to the normal practice, the template's 'home' article is British Isles, which should be linked and displayed in the title bar on all pages where it is used.

This change is based on the dubious idea that the Ireland article is the property of Irish readers, and due to the British Isles naming dispute (which is itself a disputed article, of dubious accuracy or even reality), it was asserted that NPOV mandates that we present a different world view on those articles, one more palatable to the readers who supposedly make up the majority of readers of those article, rather than keep to the standard method, which is used on the majority of other articles the template is used. This is patently not neutral, and makes several faulty assumptions.

Nobody supporting this change wanted to prove their view was not a violation of NPOV by using outside input or any actual reference to the principles of NPOV, and instead just rehashed the actual naming dispute on the talk page, while in general, the supporting arguments given for the change were pretty weak, for example, that it had been like this for a long time, or that it should be like this otherwise people will make a fuss/remove it from 'Irish articles', or that the proposed alternate name(s) of the British Isles used in Ireland is an issue of WP:ENGVAR, like color and colour.

These weak arguments certainly do not outweigh the fact the template as is now violates NPOV, which does not mandate altering what the pedia says based on what article people are reading. (c.f. the NPOV resolution of disputes like what to call the city of Derry/Londonderry, which was that the city article is presented as Derry on all articles, and the county is presented as County Londonderry on all articles. Similarly, where there is risk of confusion, Republic of Ireland is presented as such on all articles, and where there is no risk of confusion, it is presented as Ireland on all articles.)

This is because the neutral point of view ensures that all articles are neutral, and instead of pandering to the controversy, it teaches the controversy, while presenting a consistent outlook based on logic, not emotion. This is already more than adequately acheived through the existence of the already aforementioned 'dispute' article, and its inclusion on the template. Writing from the NPOV quite obviously would not support a position where Irish readers reeading Irish articles will be presented with one world view, and presumably like that, and British readers reading British articles will be presented with another, and also presumably like that. And when reversed, Irish readers reading British articles, or vice versa, will then be presumably outraged. That's not the sign of a neutral reference work is it?

And while it cannot be disputed that some Irish people object to the term, they at least understand its current meaning outside of Ireland, even if they don't accept it, and there really is no commonly accepted alternative that could be used as a well understood universal replacement term for the displayed title of the template, that would best assist all readers in knowing what main article the template serves. (Not to delve too deeply into the dispute, but the commonly offered alternative of just 'Britain and Ireland' is not good at all - it is easily confused to mean 'UK and (Republic of) Ireland', rather than 'Great Britain and Ireland', and the fact that the entity of the 'British Isles' does infact encompass more territories, states, and topics, than just 'Great Britain and Ireland'.) And of course, the fact that article is actualy still called British Isles too makes it the obvious choice.

Before posting here, due to the fact this change could not apparently be reversed, therefore, according to Templates for discussion number 4, violation of NPOV, I put the template up for deletion. That was less than succesful, due to the fact I think most of the people misunderstood the nomination, and presumed I was asking to rename the template, which I am pretty obviously not proposing. Many of the rest believe that it can be solved through further discussion. Some thought there was no issue, but I think that is wholy wrong, based on all the above. So, here I am, seeking more feedback on its appropriateness w.r.t WP:NPOV.

In my view, NPOV does not allow this coding, and if the template cannot be deleted and is thus still to being used, it should follow the principle of least surprise, and follow the format used on all other templates - the title should be displayed as "British Isles" on all articles where the template is used.

MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Where as being able to adjust a templates look with the use of inputs is without doubt highly useful, the way it is utilised here is a case of pushing a point of view. Outside a very small group, namely the government of ROI and people wishing to remain politically correct the group of islands are known by the vast majority English speaking population of the planet as the British Isles. The only change to the title that to me is acceptable is the suggestion made by TFOWR, in that after the heading "British Isles" the optional parameter could add "- also known as X when Y applies". Codf1977 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When will these attempts to win a content dispute through the backdoor end? A template is just a method for putting text on an article. It is not a vehicle for overriding the local consensus at an article. If you want specific words to appear on the Ireland article, you must go to Talk:Ireland and argue for it there. Or are you banned from that talk page? It's just about time for a few blocks for continued disruption spread over many project pages. Hans Adler 18:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not be in the business of kissing up to special interest groups. If you think this is contentious, check the article history on Muhammad and learn about the constant complaints having to do with including thousand-year-old, primitive depictions of Muhammad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that article is also a problem. As is Jesus. There are currently 18 depictions of Jesus in the article, making the thing look like a Catholic church. Such depictions would make sense in the two sections Jesus and Jesus. However, these two sections have no images at all. Most of the images are purely ornamental. The Muhammad article has similar problems with ornamental images (7 of which show Muhammad), but in that case it's worse because it offends a lot of people and the images are transparently being pressed into the article by Christian bigots. (See here for some scientific research into the phenomenon of bigotry and its causes.) There is a point to be made for one image depicting Muhammad in Muhammad, and maybe there is a good reason for a second picture elsewhere. But the existence of a full 7 such pictures in the article cannot plausibly be explained with anything but the most dastardly motives. If that article were using one or two Muhammad images for encyclopedic reasons there would of course still be morons complaining about them, but probably not as many as now that the images are abused in the same spirit in which Guantanamo guardians have been reported to abuse the Quran. Hans Adler 08:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't got a clue what Hans is on about to be honest. This is an NPOV issue, and this is the NPOV noticeboard. It's the perfectly logical place to discuss it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is an NPOV issue. But your approach is totally counter-productive. Templates are a technique for keeping material on several pages uniform if that is desired by the local consensus on the pages on which they are used. They are obviously not a vehicle for overriding consensus at an article. If you don't like the way the British Isles template is used on Ireland-related articles you can discuss that on the talk pages of the articles in question or possibly in more central locations (such as here). What is not going to work is the short cut you are trying: Simply assuming as a supposedly undeniable fact that the same formulation must be used on all articles using the template, and that the only question is which one to use. The British Isles are a very weird political territory with confusing terminology that tends to change its meanings and connotations substantially when moving from one context to another, very similar and closely related context. That's precisely why we have WP:GS/BI. You are moving on very thin ice. Hans Adler 16:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is adherance to NPOV, not template practice. No local consensus can ever choose to ignore NPOV, a core, immutable policy - that's just not going to happen. And the way these templates are used is accepted universally, except here. Arguing for the supremacy of a local consensus in that regard aswell, is also not convincing. If that were true, the Manual of Style etc would soon fall apart. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many valid ways for attempting to get a global consensus that the British Isles may be referred to only as the British Isles, no other terms allowed in special contexts such as Ireland-related articles. Participation in WP:BITASK is the most obvious and potentially the most effective path for that. Attacking a technical feature of a template is just about the least acceptable and most disruptive approach. Hans Adler 19:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Better than the NPOV noticeboard? I doubt it. There is a clear disparity in numbers of participants for a start. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the Main Page be subject to NPOV?
As the Main Page is not really encyclopedic, should the NPOV principle be applied to it? One issue that leads to this question is whether to use a disclaimer warning before the appearance of controversial content (pictures of genitals, images of Muhammad, plot spoilers) on the Main Page. The main reason disclaimers aren't used is that whatever is controversial depends on the editor's point of view, and therefore adding a disclaimer violates NPOV, and so it cannot be used in an article.

Which brings us to the initial question: should the Main Page be subject to NPOV? Why? Why not?

The question can also be extended to censorship on the Main Page -- given the non-encyclopedic status of the Main Page, is it necessary to keep open the possibility of displaying a vagina on the Main Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 October 2010
 * Every page is subject to policies, including WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTCENSORED applies everywhere (however, note that the latter does not say that anything goes; it says that if material is needed for its encyclopedic value, we do not omit the material because of concerns regarding offense). Nothing helpful would be achieved by speculating here about what may or may not be desirable on the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And in any event it is absolutely false to say that NPOV disallows warnings, presentation that accommodates reader needs, etc. That's just a total nonstarter of an argument.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at 1977 Moscow bombings
After long discussions at talk User:Quantum666 deleted previously added info from the reliable sources as he believes only in official version of events by Soviet KGB, while he is sure Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov is not a neutral source. He deleted not only Sakharov's opinion about the events, but also the part about Moscow Helsinki Group official statement, information from Memorial's official site and reliable sources printed in USA (see, , ), as he believes noone of them made official investigations like KGB done. Another dubios edit with "Some people believe September 11 attacks were arranged by CIA" editsum, to support the version by KGB, while human rights activists in contrary made parralels between the 1977 Moscow bombings and the Burning of the Reichstag. Quantum666 made dubious statements like "We can mention this information later but according to WP:WEIGHT we should leave only the major opinions summarizing the article. They are the official version and Moscow Helsinki Group statement which represents most of the dissidents" (later he deleted MHG statement too), see ). An uninvolved admin's help is appreciated. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Quantum666 comment
 * After long discussions at talk User:Quantum666 deleted previously added info - this adding was disputed and after the dispute was stopped I returned the original version according to BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS
 * he believes only in official version of events by Soviet KGB - I am really surprised.
 * he is sure Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrei Sakharov is not a neutral source  - there is no relation between being neutral and being laureate
 * He deleted not only Sakharov's opinion about the events, but also the part about Moscow Helsinki Group official statement, information from Memorial's official site and reliable sources printed in USA, as he believes noone of them made official investigations like KGB done. - I deleted none of them. Andranikpasha is misleading again.
 * Also Andranikpasha deleted text about Sakharov's opinion which is not as simple as Andranikpasha tries to show. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicosia and Northern Cyprus - the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)
I've protected Nicosia because of a dispute as to whether it should mention/have the flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).. The argument against (copied from an editor's comments at my talk page) is that ". The TRNC is not a legal entity as far as the United Nations and all nations in the world are concerned (and according to international law). The only country that recognises the TRNC as a state is Turkey itself. Therefore, the flag of the TRNC should be removed from the article as this is in violation of international law and UN decisions. If one wishes to refer to the population statistics in the nothern part of the island he should refer to it in the following way: occupied territory/ nothern sector occupied by Turkey/ nothern sector not controlled by the sole internationally recognised government of the island which is the Republic of Cyprus." This dispute raises its head every few months. I'd appreciate comments here and/or the article talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the TRNC (1) is a government (internationally recognized or not), (2) has a flag, and (3) we customarily display the flag of governments, then it would seem to follow we would display the flag in the article, while acknowledging in the appropriate place that its legitimate status is disputed (perhaps a footnote could be added to the infobox).  As a point of wiki-logic, we go by what reliable sources say about the topic; we don't defer to authorities such as the UN or amateur interpretations of international law (such as the dubious notion that international law regulates Wikipedia, which is protected by the First Amendment). If reliable sources indicate the TRNC is indeed the de facto government of part of Nicosia, it should be covered in the article.  Recognizing the TRNC government's existence is not the same as endorsing its legitimacy.  Fletcher (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only issue is what flag one will find flying on government buildings in the city. The "flag of 'Red China'" was the flag of "Red China" (PRC) whether the UN recognized  it or not. Collect (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We on Wikipedia do not take sides in international disputes. We list the TRNC on the List of sovereign states although, it is also on the List of states with limited recognition. It is recognized that the TRNC is de facto independent and partially recognized. This pits an argument between the two main camps in international politics; those who support the Declarative theory of statehood and the Constitutive theory of statehood. Extensive discussion has already taken place on this subject; the fact that it is a de facto sovereign state negates any argument that because of it's partially recognized status (POV editors would argue that it is "illegal" and such), it should be excluded. We give equal representation on our pages, without taking sides. I strongly recommend leaving a note at Talk:List of states with limited recognition as well as Talk:List of sovereign states if further discussion here is to take place. I myself am currently involved in a mediation that concerns the incorporation of states with limited recognition into the project, albeit an unrelated state. I agree with User:Fletcher; by recognizing that a state exists, as the academic community does, we're not endorsing it. Outback the koala (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the foregoing and would like to further emphasize that instead of deleting interesting facts, we should present the issue as a dispute, identifying the point of dispute and the main proponents of each side (in this case, it sounds like the international community vs. Turkey). Of course, this should all be backed up with high-quality sources which probably aren't difficult to find. --Dailycare (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to minimize the lack of international legitimacy. The Manual of Style (lead section) says the lead should summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies. harlan (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Given this, can we move from full protection to semi-protection to allow editors to continue to make non-controversial edits to the page that improve it. Now there is a discussion open and edit warring is unlikely to start again, but if it does, than I would support fully-protecting the page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I realise this might have cause some degree of up raw, and many debate on the various aspects of this article, as of course they do with many geopolitical situations. But the facts should remain. Wikipedia endeavours to promote pure facts and nothing more. I bring reference to the following phrase (and any subsequent phrases containing the name):

Nicosia (IPA: /ˌnɪkəˈsiːə/, NIK-ə-SEE-ə), known locally as Lefkosia (Greek: Λευκωσία, Turkish: Lefkoşa), is the capital and largest city of both Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Should be more accurate and indeed consistent with other Wiki articles to present like so:

is the capital and largest city of Cyprus

Or, as an added option:

is the capital and largest city of both the Republic of Cyprus and the separate Turkish Cypriot political entity in the north

No International organisation or NGO makes reference to the entity in the north as a “Republic”, neither the UN, NATO or the EU. I am sure Wikipedia should adopt a similar position, remain neutral until the situation is resolved and uphold its integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikettg (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial
Hi! Before I stop editing this article (due to it being overly contentious for a me to be allowed to assist) I wanted to post a note on the neutrality of this article. It seems to be locked in a stalemate of sorts, with a single group of editors including (User:Hans Adler) keeping it from being improved. Now, I don't know all the circumstances or reasons behind all this, but what I perceive (and attempted to fix) was a strong WP:Systemic Bias against the subject in question. I would like the community to take a look at this article and see if it could be cleaned up and neutralized substantially. I am personally going to stop editing it, because certain editors involved felt that my efforts were to contentious, and I am currently dealing with an ANI report on my history and prior user accounts due to my interference in the "status quo". Good luck to all the editors who really desire to improve this article, and I hope it works out...-- Novus Orator 04:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think these kinds of controversial articles are doomed to forever be a battleground between opposing viewpoints. I don't know if we'll ever get a totally neutral and comprehensive article out of this as long as editors have their own viewpoints. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he missed the four month ArbCom case on climate change articles which just ended. :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Artical is being used to attack an individual and promote weblinks
Hello a wikipedia artical is being used to attack a living individual, notes have been made and suggestions have been given but the articial in question has not been cleaned up to give a neutral point of view, also a particular editor of the artical has been using this artical as a personal page to promote external web links and use them to attack the individual, why does wikipedia permit such behaviour, there must be a legal point to be considered upon the listed lack of neutral editing and personal attacks through defamation False_titles_of_nobility this artical needs to be cleaned up can someone help in making wikipedia a more friendly and neutral place to read and edit, thanks.Johnkennedy58 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quack quack. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fathers' rights movement
I'd very much appreciate some input on the Fathers' rights movement article. In particularity this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fathers%27_rights_movement&oldid=391552210 is what a user tends to revert the page to. It has significant and long standing POV problems. Some months ago User:67.170.133.232 using the name "CS" raised serious concerns in the talk section of the Father's Right article. Few of the concerns have been addressed since and other editors share the same view. CS states: "the FRM article is biased and doesn't have a neutral point of view. It seems like most paragraphs have a comment or citation from someone opposed to the FRM. Good examples are the "political and social views" section, and "Beliefs and Activities". More than half the paragraphs are peppered with attacks or comments about associations with violence and disorderly conduct (which is based on the actions of a few individuals that claim membership in the group). Honestly, in the "Demographics - Political and social view" section, do you really think it's appropriate to start a paragraph about transcending gender roles with "The movement has been described as part of a gender war in response to increasing female power in Western society", for example? This statement is used deceptively. It's source is an article in the Guardian that mentions that the idea was speculated in a book by Susan Faludi. Ultimately, when you track the statement down through these sources, it is purely the speculation of a Ms. Faladi. This is preposterously non-neutral editing. Every section contains mentions of the FRM's ideas followed by criticism and attacks, many of which are tenuous and from sources of dubious credibility. Another example is the section "Shared parenting" with the comment "Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children". Who on earth considers this scholarly? I can find feminist authors that assert that any heterosexual sex between men and women is sexual assault (Andrea Dworkin) or that maleness is a birth-defect comparable to blindness, that men are a 'biological accident' and the male sex should be destroyed (Valerie Solanas). In any other article, most of these criticisms would be included toward the end of the article in a seperate "Criticism" section, instead of being used to undermine the fair presentation of FRM's position in almost every paragraph."

Others have also noted the article is an attack piece in many sections and is "a coatrack for criticisms of the FRM" I agree with these views, certain sections of the article are especially problematic. My additional concerns are as follows:
 * A focus on activities of non notable, short-lived, extremist, non-notable fringe groups that no longer exist. E.g. The Blackshirts in Australia has one member who was convicted of stalking. The implication is that their conduct is indicative of the behaviour of all such groups when in most high profile cases Fathers Rights groups are peaceful or don't even protest at all. even those who do go on trial are usually acquitted of any charges therefore suggeitng they are peaceful and law abiding. This same focus on unknown/fringe Australian groups is also used to create the impression that all fathers' rights groups are fragmented, selfish and members leave as soon as they have achieved custody for themselves.
 * The piece suggested that Michael Flood was a supporter of father's Rights when in terms of academics writing on the subject he is surely most extreme critic of of the movement. It is also perhaps problematic to cite the most extreme critic of a movement to the extent that occurs in the article.
 * Attempts to downplay the roles of women and liberals within such groups. The piece goes out of it's way to criticise groups for emphasising the small number of female members they have. Anyone reading the piece couldn't possibly believe that the likes of Fathers4Justice Canada (a very visible and successful group) was run by a woman. Similarly the involvement of grandparents and children in the groups is ignored. The effect is to suggest the groups are highly undiverse whereas I don't recall feminist articles emphasising their total ban on men in many such groups.
 * An absence of positive material/quotes complimenting the movement and it's achievements.
 * A further extremist view attributed to FR groups is "if a man does not wish to become a father, he should be able to require a woman to have an abortion". This comment is attributed to one source and one person namely "Michael Newdow" rather than any group and he fact didn't even go as far as saying it, merely implying the idea. To suggest it might be some sort of fairly widespread belief is ridiculous. Even more so given the way the article implies that most Fathers Rights campaigners are Conservative and therefore anti-abortion. Even the source itself states "that the belief in a man's right to compel a woman to have an abortion is not widely held".
 * An attempt to simplify and polarise the movement into good liberals and bad conservatives., with an implication that only those who believe gender is down to nurture can be in favour of equality. I.e no recognition of the more usual "equal but different" stance a typical Conservative might have and no recognition that the nature/nurture argument isn't necessarily an either/or issue.

I should add that I haven't yet identified who has added all the problematic material or issed any guidance. Others have attempted to make changes but these have mostly been reverted by user/administrator User:Slp1. She has contributed extensively to the piece and acknowledged one or two concerns but generally problems have been dismissed in the talk page with the defence that they're "cited to scholarly, academic books about the topic". As yet I haven't attempted any edits due to the attitude of denial of the problem in the talk page. Sorry this is so long and many thanks for your help.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Every so often supporters of the FRM come to this article and are surprised to find that it isn't doesn't represent their personal views of the subject. In fact a few years ago, FR activist meatpuppets were asked to come to WP to do the job.. They would like to remove the views/opinions/actions of FR activists that they don't personally agree with, despite the fact that these have been widely reported in academic and other mainstream media. They would like to insert large chunks of opinion, sourced to their particular guru (note how Stephen Baskerville's personal opinions are spread liberally throughout the article.) Other editors also complain that the article seems to be bias towards the FRM and it seems written by supporters.. Shakehandsman makes several inaccurate claims above, but he is right that I believe the key is to rewrite the article using the highest quality sources about the FRM, per policy. But as can be seen there are already attempts by another editor to discount a scholarly text,, published by a University Press, because various FR activists don't like it. According to this editor, only members of the FR movement should be considered "reliable source for the goals of the movement".  Many of Shakehandsman complaints are also about material sourced to scholarly texts, but not all, and I agree that in a rewrite some of the material (for example about the Blackshirts, should probably go). But many of the specific complaints above are inaccurate; e.g. the sentence about the the fact that fathers' rights groups are unstable and shortlived is actually sourced to scholars in several countries, including Australia, Britain and the US. --Slp1 (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered that people are almost certainly coming into the article and actually been surprised that several section have constituted an attack piece for at least four months? If the sections even slightly balanced the types of articles complaining about the bias which you cite almost certainly wouldn't even exist, yet you just dismiss all critics instead. I don't doubt that perhaps some editors might be adding unsourced opinions too and there is are too much Stephen Baskerville but these are tiny issues and a total smokescreen when numerous sections are so fundamentally flawed. There are blatant breaches so many Wikipedia polices such as NPOV, coatracking, notability, and even content when the source contradicts the claim. Despite this you still refuse to acknowledge these issues and make the assumption that because an attack is sourced it is somehow ok. I think this truly illustrates the scale of the problem.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You have grossly mis-characterized my statements on the book "Defiant Dads." What I objected to about that text and others, was the intellectual dishonesty inherit in using it and works by authors like Michael Flood as sources for the putative goals and beliefs of the FRM.  These books, and the authors generally, are both critical of the FRM and are both criticized by it for likewise mis-characterizing its goals.  Every Ivy League school in the world can publish scholary texts on what I want to have for lunch but the only definitive source for what I want to eat is me.  It's one thing when these works criticize the methods, demographics, rhetoric or achievements of advocates of fatherhood and father's rights, it's quite another when they purport to define what their "true" goals are.  Even worse is when, as I stated on talk, critics of fatherhood and the FRM are cited without attributing and clarifying that they are, in fact, critics.  Flood is a vociferous critics of the FRM who was clearly identified in the article as a "notable supporter" and significant writer for the movement.  Not only does Flood criticize the FRM, but he also denigrates the importance of fatherhood and the broader movement for men's rights.


 * Going back to your aspersions on Stephen Baskerville for the moment, he is widely well-regarded and respected by the FRM. He holds a PHD in Political Science, was the president of a respected non-profit organization on father's rights and sits on the board of many others.  He has probably written more about father's rights than any other single author alive and is, himself, a father who, like many father's rights activists, feels that his rights and those of his children were violated by the existing legal and social structures.  It is extremely telling that you hold up as doctrinaire a "scholary text" by a women's studies professor on the FRM who is criticized by FR activists while delegating the work of Stephen Baskerville to being "personal opinion" that may or may not actually correlate to the believes of that movement because his books weren't published by Cornell.--Cybermud (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you think I have mis-characterized your comments. But I don't actually think I have; you are still arguing that we should use FR sources only for the goals and beliefs of the FRM, which is simply not the case. We need to use the highest quality secondary sources available. You'll understand the practical problem when you consider the differences between these groups; whose goals do we highlight? You correctly state that Baskerville has written extensively on FR issues; and I agree that he is certainly a good source for his own view. But are his views held by other FR activists?  You say yes, but would activists from other countries agree?  How do we find out and confirm this? Luckily for us, Crowley researched the FR movement and its members for years, has written extensively on the subject, and has published the results in a scholarly book that has been well-reviewed in multiple journals, , . Crowley has done precisely what we need, and has made a synthesis and summary of the movement. That FR activists on blogs and Amazon book reviews don't like everything she has written is beside the point.
 * I agree that Flood should not have been listed as a supporter. He is, however, a prominent writer about the movement. I tried to fix the problem by changing the heading level so that is wasn't a subheading under notable supporters.  However, you just deleted the correction and removed Flood's name again. Now only supporters are listed. Not a very NPOV action in my view.--Slp1 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There can be no doubt that the article is biased toward the FRM movement. And the article has the same problems as other articles about men's and fathers' rights. Fathers' rights activists show up in great numbers and revert all edits by experienced editors. Slp1 and another editor have made almost heroic efforts to respond with research and reason to several editors who are intent on deleting all incriminating material about the FRM. There are far more credible sources that are critical of the FRM than supportive. Editors like Shakehandsman and Cybermud have a history of reverting perfectly justified edits.
 * Shakehandsman, when 80% of all available credible sources "attack" the FRM, then it follows logically that the article should represent that. Descriptions of other very controversial movements (tea party movement, white-supremacy movement, certain religious movements) include so may "attacks" because this is what sources tell us.
 * The article needs a rewrite. Fathers' rights activists must accept that they can't delete information based on their wish to present the FRM as an entirely benevolent force.Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cybermud's comment examplifies the problem. He demands that all critics of the FRM be silenced (thereby silencing about 80% of all commentary) and argues that fathers' rights activists are more reliable than credible sources ("Every Ivy League school in the world can publish scholar[l]y texts on what I want to have for lunch but the only definitive source for what I want to eat is me").
 * Cybermud, please, there is no reason to attack Susan Faludi and other "women's studies professor." You've already conducted a character assassination of Anderea Dworkin and ranted about her "politically motivated rape" and how her victimization deserves to be met with suspicion because she is "nasty" and resembles Jabba the Hutt. Enough. The point is that Ron Hubbard has probably written more about scientology than any other single author alive and is, himself, a scientologist who, like many scientologists, feels that his rights and those of his fellow scientologists were violated by the existing legal and social structures which bans scientology in many countries. But his expertise doesn't mean that we let him write an article about scientology. Where would that leave NPOV? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Sonicyouth86. I actually don't agree that 80% of the available secondary literature is negative to the FRM, though concur that there is some. I suggest that interested editors actually look at the article. In fact, 53/121 references currently come from FRM writers/websites. There is only a very small criticism section compared to the length of the article. I find it telling that two FR supporters think it is biased against FR while another editor who may oppose the movement thinks it is biased towards them.  Personally I think it is fairly balanced given the sources, but hope we can get some opinions from uninvolved editors too.--Slp1 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SonicYouth didn't even read the article, just jumped in to disagree with me. I have opened an SPI for him and you should really consider his support of you as meaningless at best.
 * Anyway, I object to you repeatedly calling me, and people who disagree with you, "father's rights supporters" while referring to yourself and my sockpuppetering wikihound as "editors" -- all while hypocritically talking about NPOV.--Cybermud (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * People are missing the bigger picture here. Quite simply it is not acceptable to focus on extreme fringe non existent organisations, delete mentions of well established groups nor is it acceptable to cite sources in a misleading way when they actually refute the POV which the editor is trying to impose. It is not have extremist views listed which aren't even attributable to one single person. All these things taken together means the article constitutes a clear attack piece and these needs to stop. Most sources I know of tend to be very supportive of the father's rights movement as do the general public and the fact you're comparing such a movement to racist extremist groups such as the tea party movement, white-supremacy movement, certain religious movements really suggests a staggering amount of bias. There is nothing remotely controversial about a good many established fathers rights organisations such as families need fathers and the article isn't' reflecting this fact--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Still with the ad hominem attacks against me Sonicyouth86? Is it now also wikihounding too? Who are you a sock-puppet for? You have come to WP with no edit history exhibiting an amazing alacrity for wikilawyering and an uncommon willingness for hostility towards people you disagree with. As I stated in the talk page for Dworkin your characterizations of my comments are disingenuous nonsense. Anyone interested in this diatribe, by someone interested only in disagreeing with me, and who has never edited the FRM article, or even, by their own edit history, edited WP, can continue to pay attention to Sonicyouth86. I'll be ignoring him until he exhibits a willingness to discuss articles above and beyond attacking me personally (won't hold my breath though.) Here's a novel idea SonicSpoof, how about we make this debate about the article and not about Cybermud and his "agenda"?--Cybermud (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally like all your analogies the Scientology example is specious but, in this case, also illustrative. L. Ron. Hubbard certainly is the definitive source for the doctrine of his own religion.  It's not for others to say what the religions ostensible aims are (or in this case holy texts) even if others can criticize it for being poorly founded using dishonest rhetoric or methods or just being bogus, they can't define what its goals truly are.  Some might take issue with your comparing FRM to a religion and Baskerville to its prophet (but since User:Slp1 called him a FRM preferred "guru" I suspect he/she is not one of them.)  To take this, silly, example further, I would also object if critics of Scientology were being cast as, simultaneously, believers and sympathizers whose opinions were not coming from a critical standpoint based on religious views that are fundamentally opposed to the core foundations of that belief.  (we're also talking about sources, not authors btw... it's Baskerville as a source vs. your "Hubbard as author of Scientology article.)--Cybermud (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I already told you once that you should familiarize yourself with the concept of ad hominem.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin&diff=391239980&oldid=391160250 This way you might learn the difference between focusing on a comment and focusing on a person. I have been doing the former. You, on the other hand, have called me a vandal, troll, and "spoof" because I pointed out to you that talk pages are not to be used as outlets for your unsubstantiated theories about "politically motivated rape" and your diatribe about how mean the world is to you with all its "blatant misandry" and "all men are rapists" and "politically motivated rape" (yes, those are the things Cybermud keeps ranting about on talk pages). Okay? Learn the difference. Everything is possible. Notice how this user writes "SonicSpoof" at the end and displays his tendency to insult other users because they point out his misconduct.
 * If someone let Hubbard write the majority of the article about Scientology, the result would be more than non-neutral. It would be a farce. Hubbard would depict Scientology as a wonderful thing through and through. The problem with that is that the majority of credible sources don't agree with Hubbard's view of Scientology. They are very critical of Scientology. The same goes for the fathers' rights movement. This is the reason we can't let Stephen Baskerville write the majority of the Wikipedia article about the fathers' rights movement. It's the same reason why articles about the tea party movement, for example, can't be written exclusively by supporters. Because they will say that the tea party movement is the best thing that's happened to mankind while sources like the New York Times say that it's just a conservative and populist outlet for collective discontent. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked the bulk of your first post here consisted of lauding Slp1's supposedly "heroic" efforts in editing the Fathers' Rights article whilst deriding myself and Cybermud as having "a history of reverting perfectly justified edits." That's at least twice as bad as anything you've accused Cybermud of as you're focusing on the personalities on both sides of the argument. On top of that almost all your claims are entirely false too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Help Required With Source
Hello. I am a new editor and I'm not all that familiar with practices yet. I've previously posted a request here but if you read it you can see that I'm not happy with the logic which is being displayed.

The issue is this: the article [Ulster Defence Regiment] contains a substantial number of references to Major John Potter, the author of "A Testament To Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment)". Although these references are attributed there is nothing in the article to suggest to a reader why this author has the authority to comment or state facts about the regiment. I wish to change this by reducing the number of comments attributed as opinion to the man and placing an informative paragraph to tell readers of the article why he (Potter) is qualified to make factual statements on the grounds that:

1. He compiled the official history of the regiment which is now held at the British Ministry of Defence under a time dependent release policy. 2. His book was vetted by and approved (although not endorsed - as is common) by the British Ministry of Defence. 3. His invitation by the Colonels Commandant to compile the official history entitles him to be referred to as "Official Historian". 4. His own extensive experience with the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment (22 years with the latter) and his rank of Major make him a qualified person to comment on aspects of the regiment's history as an informed and reliable source.

I am aware that in his own preface he informs readers that some of his opinions are his own and are unsupported elsewhere, although his text does contain many third party references. I believe I am sensible enough to avoid using his personal opinion as more than just that and properly attributing the opinion to him.

I need to advise anyone who wishes to assist that there is a long, detailed and at times very daunting, archive of previous discussion where the same names keep occuring over several years. This appears to have resulted in some people being banned from Wikipedia and others leaving. The article has been the result of at least one arbitration and is currently on editing restriction. I personally do not want to get drawn into the horrible and counterproductive bickering which seems to be associated with this (and other) articles on the Irish Troubles but I do think that sensible editing could improve the (already excellent) article.

I am also posting this request at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability to try and get as many neutral opinions as possible and avoid doing anything which is going to look as if I am trying to ram a point home and cause upset. All sensible comments appreciated. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Something to consider... we do not require that our sources be neutral... we require that we maintain a neutral point of view in reporting what they say. So... there is nothing wrong with using Major Potter to present a particular view on the regiment and the Troubles... but if there are contrary views (and given the subject I would expect there are) we should present them as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * John Potter is not a historian, official or otherwise. The book he wrote is a completely separate project to the work he did on behalf of the Colonels Commandant. This is simply forum shopping because the first answer was not acceptable. What was that answer? Generally it was reliable for uncontested points, but not usually for anything self-serving, disputed or contentious. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * While the book was not published by an academic publishing company, and therefore does not meet the highest standards for historical sources, it is nonetheless a reliable source for this article and there is no need to attribute facts in the text, rather than in footnotes. For example, the sentence:  "According to John Potter, 25% of the new recruits in 1970 had no previous military or Special Constabulary experience."  That is a fact, not an opinion and if it is wrong or in dispute then other sources are required to show that.  TFD (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not believe some of the "according to Potter"s in the article are merited at present. But that seems to be a separate issue to what is currently being argued. Things like that do not need attributing, but anything sourced to Potter would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket "no attribution needed". O Fenian (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is getting somewhere. Some of my own points are highlighted here, particulary the over attribution of Potter when he quotes facts. What I would like to do is remove those attributions where relevant and to include wording which attributes the compilation of the official history to Potter but which points out that the book is a NOT that official history. To me the sensible thing is to call Potter the "Official Historian" or "compiler of the official history". Am I on the right track? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When we use a source we make a judgment on its reliability and should not have a separate section questioning this. If you think his facts are wrong then find a source that proves this.  If you think any of his opinions have been given undue weight, then correct this.  TFD (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Google scholar results as a measure of the most common term used by scholars.
During the dispute on the Communist terrorism talk page many editors argued that in actuality the article tells mostly about Left wing terrorist groups, therefore, the article name should be changed to the more general Leftist terrorism (which currently is just a redirect page). Their opponents argued that the term "Communist terrorism" is frequently used by various authors. To check what term is more frequently applied to the terrorist groups described in the article I made a systematic google scholar search for each article's topic. I found that the words "left wing terrorism" are applied much more frequently to these groups than the words "Communist terrorism" (for details, see : I demonstrated that much more articles use the words "Left wing terrorism" and do not use the words "Communist terrorism" to describe leftist terrorist groups, whereas the amount of the articles that use the words "Communist terrorism" and do not use the words "Left wing terrorism" in the same context is much smaller)). Obviously, this my activity cannot constitute original research because I do not propose to create a new content, just to find out what terminology is the most common among the scholars. Obviously, the search result demonstrate that the article's name does not reflect the opinion of majority scholars, and therefore is not neutral. The neutrality issue can be easily fixed by switching redirects (instead of Leftist terrorism -> Communist terrorism to do vice versa). In connection to that, do I need to wait for consensus to rename the article, or, per WP:NEUTRAL the consensus cannot take precedence over neutrality requirements?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact reliable sources say that "Left-wing terrorism" is the term most commonly used for "Marxist-Leninist terrorism", while few academic sources use the term "Communist/communist terrorism", and even those that do primarily use the term "Left-wing terrorism". TFD (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP does not use google to decide on article titles. Collect (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No but Wikipedia does use WP:UCN, and google scholar is one of the useful tools at our disposal to help understand what the most common name of something is.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse this non-controversial statement. --Tenmei (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct. The policy states: "When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." Using google scholar I have demonstrated that a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources use the name Left wing terrorism for terrorist groups discussed in this article, and noone has demonstrated so far that that the search was done incorrectly, or that this name is not common according to other neutral criteria. In connection to that, I do not think we need consensus for renaming of the article, because the policy takes precedence over consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this bland restatement helpful?
 * WP:Five Pillars takes precedence over a straw poll ≠ Consensus? --Tenmei (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD and BCE/CE and bias/neutrality
BC and AD have been accepted abbreviations to refer to periods of time before and after the birth of Christ for hundreds of years. Proponents of the absurd BCE/CE, which supposedly stands for 'before the common era' (common to whom we may ask) and 'of the common era' may claim that they are being 'neutral'. However, the decision to introduce these abbreviations is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention.

Where now does the argument of 'neutrality' lie?

Incidentally, these abbreviations can equally mean 'before the Christian era' and 'of the Christian era', hardly an escape into political correctness. If we wanted to be culturally neutral, we would have to introduce a new term with unambiguous abbreviations, such as OTR (older time reference) and MTR (modern time reference). See how that catches on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see the very extensive recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 130. This can be argued, but it's not to my mind a question of Neutral Point of View, since BCE and CE (Common Era) are now very common in scholarly literature, although little known outside academic and religious contexts. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me also point out that the structure of the argument is peculiar. Compare However, the decision to abolish slavery is in itself biased as it makes a huge departure from accepted convention. At you leisure, substitute "introduce female suffrage", "abolish child labour", "introduce a written constitution"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He's posted to my talk page - I'm not sure what this means: "This is tosh. You can't for a start 'revert' an edit. You can 'reverse' it though. Is it not, then, a pre-qualification of the Wikipedia police that they are educated and can write correct English? T A Francis(talk) 9:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)"  Somehow I don't think we are going to replace 'revert' with 'reverse' however. My only contact with him was last March when I left a notice on his talk page about using article talk pages as a forum. I guess it could be a response to something at the top of my talk page that says "Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit?" Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Academic bias
"[We should not] unreasonably make mainstream academic opinion the highest authority and set it above all other criteria such as moral and ethical considerations.... (1) mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories, and (2) in the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories just as previously it had allowed itself to be dominated by racist ones. This demonstrates that the objectivity of mainstream scholarly opinion cannot always be assumed."

Could editors please comment whether the above statement, which is part of the discussion at Talk:Communist terrorism, fairly represents the policy of neutrality. TFD (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would add that in the early and mid 20thC mainstream accademia often allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories. So yes I think itsd a fair statment.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP policy says: "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." In other words, if in "the 20th century, scholarly opinion allowed itself to be dominated by socialist (pro-Marxist) theories", then the only neutral way to write an article is to follow this "bias". The situation may change in future, however, noone can predict the direction of this change. One way or the another, it is not our goal to predict this change. The only thing we can do is to follow the opinion of scholars' community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the argument is about the idea that scholerly spooures have some special level of authority that make them superior to all other sources. O)ften justified by the arguent that none accademic sources refect bias, which is no different to many scholerly sources themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is not in the bias of academic sources but in the superiority of "moral and ethical considerations". The scholarly sources are superior to all other sources simply per WP policy, and if they are biased, than WP should follow this bias. Re moral considerations, let me point out that XIX century moral was also dominated by racist views...--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The scientific community is not equivalent to the scholarly community. There is also something called editorial judgment. The Milgram experiment might be something to remember.  Yes there is a good side to WP:IAR. Lambanog (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The scientific community is not equivalent to the scholarly community" Yes, because "scientific" refers mostly to exact and natural sciences. Re editorial judgement, please, can you be more specific? Why concretely IAR can be applied here (by contrast to overwhelming majority cases) and how concretely will it lead to improvement of Wikipedia? Why moral consideration of some WP editors should dominate over the opinion of scholarly community in this particular case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting in general Paul should it be necessary. In this specific case brought up regarding Communist terrorism?  Don't know.  Probably not, but the social sciences cast a wide net and journalists and politicians with less academic experience may be suitable sources as well. Lambanog (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that an RfC was instituted and almost immediately removed (due to answers obtained there?) by the person asking here. See also, etc.,  is particularly apt. The number of edits on the article talk page is getting absurd at this point as well, with only two editors accounting for over 420 edits to the talk page, it is time to simply say "basta". There is really a limit as to the number of forums used for essentially the same issues. Collect (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? Do you support the idea that the opinion of a scholarly community (which theoretically can be biased) should not be set above moral considerations (which also change with time, and, sometimes also justify quite weird things like slavery)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Posing such questions is non-utile as the issue is the use of this board catenated with multiple other forums regarding the existence of an article, and a section therein. I specifically suggest that it is not up to editors to "know the truth" about anything, but rather to simply report what is in reliable sources (using the WP definition thereof).  Collect (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, you support the idea that if majority reliable sources seem to be pro-Marxist biased, that cannot be a reason for rejecting what they say?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you're asking (basically) if most scholarly sources present a view that you consider to be pro-Marxist (obviously they just consider it to be the established norm), you want to reject the established norm as pro-Marxist, and (assumedly) use something else? On what grounds would we do that, and how does that benefit the encyclopedia?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am stating that if most scholarly sources present a view that someone considers to be pro-Marxist one has to accept that fact, and not to claim that, since scholarly may be biased, its opinion should not be taken into account in this particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this sounds suspiciously like you are claiming that a mainstream viewpoint has to be labeled or contextualized in a way that it does not label or contextualize itself, in order to satisfy your personal understanding of the issue. obviously, if there is a notable source that labels the mainstream view in this way, then it should be included with proper attribution (assuming it passes wp:undue), but we do not present mainstream views as anything other than mainstream views.


 * Since this is a historical issue, of course, you may find modern sources that express the viewpoint you're expressing as a historical fact. If those modern sources are the modern mainstream view, then obviously we want to include that.  But we need to include them as a historical perspective, not as a fact about the material itself.


 * I'll add, the term 'Pro-Marxist' is polemical and ambiguous. Scholars are rarely 'Pro-' anything.  There was certainly a lot of Marxist ideation in US academic circles from the turn of the century, but that would be Marxist theory (not Marxist ideology or Marxist politics, which are very different birds), and there was a lot of that theory floating around because it was (and is) a very effective and fruitful theory for explanations of certain kinds of social phenomena.  One doesn't say that a physicist is 'Pro-Newtonian'; physicists simply use Newton's theories.  likewise...  -- Ludwigs 2  20:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem not to understand my point. The initial issue was with the position of another user, who claimed that scholarly sources "whitewash Marxism" and therefore are "apologists of terrorism". He further argued that, since, as "mainstream scholarly opinion in the 19th century allowed itself to be dominated by racist theories", it may equally be wrong now regarding Marxism, which implied that the scholarly opinion could be rejected in this particular case. Obviously, I myself do not share this POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know what the original problem was (that wasn't discussed here). I'll I was working with was your description of the abstract problem.  Are you still having difficulty with that particular silliness, because I can put that to rest in short order, if you like (that's just obvious OR).  -- Ludwigs 2  21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some editors insist on interpreting writings by Marx concerning his views of terrorism - all the terrorist groups in the article are post WW2 - rather than rely on secondary sources. Also, while all the academic sources classify these groups as "Left-wing", they insist on calling them "Communist/communist".  The implication in Justus Maximus's view is that we cannot rely on modern scholars of terrorism, because they are all pro-Marxist, and must therefore compensate for that by making our own analyses.  TFD (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * well, that sounds ludicrous to me, but there's no point discussing it here if it's article specific. let me look over the conversation there.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to point out that the reason that we give scholarly sources a higher level of credibility is not because scholarly sources are right, but because scholarly sources (unlike most of the rest of the world) are self-reflective, reasonable, and cautious. Yes, scholarly sources in the early twentieth century had some decided racist qualities - but they learned better. yes scholarly sources in the mid twentieth century had socialist leanings - but they have progressively eliminated the radical, unsupported elements of marxist theory and refined the useful elements of it into better theories. Scholarship is marked by the willingness to advance an opinion while retaining an open mind. I don't know what the conflict here is, but with anything in the 'socialism' topic area, one needs to very, very carefully distinguish between scholarly theory and the problematical uses that scholarly theories get put to by others. the classic example of this, of course, is the fact that Marx never advocated for revolution. He merely stated that he thought revolution would be an inevitable outcome of the capitalist system (as it was practiced in his time). other people read that and decided that if revolution were inevitable they might as well go and start one. People are inane. If you present the theory for what it is and separate out the politics of it, things should be less confusing. -- Ludwigs 2 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
Please assist cleanup of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishayahu_Yosef_Pinto Propoganda and other useless materials - Whitewash many negative truths. His role in the death of Obstfeld not mentioned despite countless media references Lebron paid $1 Million for meeting - Whitewashed Users are solely joining WIki for this purpose and should be banned

American Academy of Financial Management
This dispute concerns an article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that discusses the American Academy of Financial Management. It accused the AAFM of being a credentials mills. Some editors think that if this article is included, then all articles from the WSJ that mention the article should be included. They also insist that a number of statement that I have removed were well-sourced; they did have citations, but the citations say nothing to the point (e.g., having the address listed in government directory to support that only the US version AAFM can grant certain credentials). The two different versions of the article this and this.

Some background. This article has a long history of COI, NPOV, ARTSPAM, and SOCK problems. The article was originally an advertisement that survived an AfD. I trimmed the advertising puffery and removed the advert template. Then there was a dispute within the AAFM that got fought out on this page (some members thought it had become a credentials mill and formed the International Academy of Financial Management, both sides claiming to be the "real" voice of the organization and thus lay claim to ownership of the page). In the meantime, the puffery that I had removed crept back in. The person who initially added the WSJ criticism of the AAFM was almost certainly part of the splinter IAFM, happy to embarrass his former colleagues, but the source was reliable and the criticism notable. This article needs regular policing, and I would appreciate some help.  RJC  TalkContribs 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The WSJ article appears easily WP:RS so the views it contains should as far as I can see be presented in the article to comply with neutrality. The views should be presented with accurate paraphrasing, naturally. --Dailycare (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I am dealing with a tendentious editor who wishes to push a POV. He is not going to say that he thinks he is presenting the article in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Reverting tendentious or spam edits is still considered edit warring, so I really do need help here; otherwise it is just the two of us going back and forth.  I was hoping to get an opinion on what the application of the policy in this case is.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration images
Several images have recently been added to this article in the Transportation Security Administration section. Two of the images I've got no problem with - they illustrate what the TSA agent will see on their screen. One of the others I don't think should be in the article. One of the images is from 2007 and shows the backscatter technology, but it's not what the TSA uses. There is no blurring algorithm. I don't think that image is an accurate portrayal of what the TSA uses and pushes a POV. For the main Backscatter X-ray article it's absolutely helpful, but on the TSA article, it's misrepresenting what a TSA agent can see. The other editor and I have gotten in a WP:LAME slow edit-war on this. We've had one other editor comment on the talk page that the image should not be included, but I'd like more comments on this issue. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland - Undue weight?
This section may have NPOV issues. Someone is out to make a point; I removed numerous instances of bold syntax that were inserted to put emphasis on negative coverage, as well as unrelated images with undue weight captions, some potentially libelous, others obviously provocative. If someone who knows the subject a bit more can check it out... diff. [CharlieEchoTango]  18:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Same issue here : Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority... diff [CharlieEchoTango]  18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the very serious economic difficulties that Ireland is suffering (with knock on effect for all of Europe) it is envitable that the Irish banking sector and the serious regulatory failings this organisation is guilty of, will generate adverse comment. The facts are not in dispute and are accepted by the new management, all politicians in the country, the media, the European Commission and its ultimate parent the European Central Bank. The article is well referenced and while damning is unfortunately true and accurate. Great things are expected from the new management and in time they should be able to generate positive content to balance the article.

Glic16 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Analytical engine - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
The lead sentence of Analytical engine is "The analytical engine, an important step in the history of computers, was the design of a mechanical general-purpose computer by English mathematician Charles Babbage." (Emphasis added.) There are two problems, as I see it, with the unattributed subjective statement in the middle. (Actually three, the third being that it's just non-substantive filler that keeps the reader from getting to the important stuff, but that's not an issue for this forum.) The first problem is that it's not in line with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guideline. (We would never permit an article to begin "George Washington, an important U.S. president..." or "Tom Hanks, an important American actor...") The second problem is that it's not true, or in any case could give a false impression in that it could lead a reader to think that the analytical engine was diligently pursued and led eventually to the creation of modern computers, or in some way inspired the inventors of modern electronic computers, when the reality is that the machine was never built and was more or less forgotten until rediscovered by historians looking for anticipating work in the wake of the success of modern electronic computers. My suggestion is simple--excise the offending phrase from the lead and describe any controversy fuller and with proper attribution later in the article. This proposal has been met with resistance. The relevant talk section is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Analytical_engine#Discussion_of_whether_Analytical_engine_was_an_important_historical_step. here]. Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can rewrite it. I don't think your objections are quite right, but the existing phrasing is not ideal.  71.141.88.54 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an 'influence' section in the article that explains about its influence and the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Also the lead is supposed to establish notability. I'm sure there's citations enough to justify it and since there has been a complaint I guess one should be stuck in, however I get the feeling the OP is sort of saying for some reason one should not say something is important in the lead even when it evidently is. Dmcq (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a contextual thing. 1978 Burke's Connections didn't even mention Babbage in the "Faith in Numbers" and it wasn't until The Machine that Changed the World (1992) that Babbage was even mentioned and the focus was on the concepts of his engine.  In fact according to that series Babbage's concept really d0dn't get looked at until after 1935.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Death Panel (again)
I am sorry to report that Death panel is again giving problems.

Some editors have been rather selective as to which alleged real life "death panels" the article can mention. An editor (not me) added text sourced from this article] from the journal Foreign Policy. As with my previous complain about POV pushing at this article, this time again the editors have again tried to edit IN reference to Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence as "death panel" identified by the authors (which they scored as only 15 out of 100 for meeting the criteria of being a "death panel"). They also included several others that were rated. But missing from the WP article was reference to Foreign Policy magazine's TOP death panel, which they identified as government ordered executions in cases of murder and treason (which only 2 out of the OECD's 34 countries still endorse). So I added it to the article. Now two editors have deleted this on the grounds that FP magazine's definition of "death panel" does not meet their own preferred definition. The argument about this can be read [here].

Palin was not exactly trying to get us to think about the complexities of medical ethics when she conjured up an image of her elderly parents and her disabled son having to beg for their very existence before "Obama's death panel". She wanted the emotional recoil of a death squad to be associated with the new law. Now I am NOT arguing that THAT argument be inserted into the article. That would not be right unless there is a proper source for that. BUT including SOME alleged death panels from the FP article with a LOW rating but excluding the TOP rated death panel with the highest rating does seem to me to be a little bit like POV pushing. I think we have to include FPs top death panel.

There is a good deal of POV pushing and something of an editing cabal at work at this article. I am therefore asking, VERY KINDLY for comments ONLY from experienced editors who HAVE NOT previously edited Death Panel or Sarah Palin, excepting of course the two editors who deleted my insertion into the article. Others who HAVE edited these two articles can by all means leave your comments in the appropriate section of the TALK page. I am sure NPOVN reviewers will wish to see your comments there. If anyone breeches this request I will simply flag up their comments so that independent reviewers are aware of which comments may potentially be from Palin followers or opponents. Hauskalainen (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As the article points out, "Death panel" is a term coined by Sarah Palin. The article should be about that and should not be a coatrack for what is wrong with government run health insurance and/or health care.


 * Agreed. Unless reliable sources explicitly use the term "death panel" in reference to a specific incident, including that incident in the article would be original research by synthesis, and thus prohibited. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Julissa Ferreras article, NPOV?
This article definitely needs to be tagged for NPOV, but I don't know how to do it, and I don't know enough about the subject to fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.239.157 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

{pov} but with is the general tag. Before tagging an article, you should take your issue to the discussion page or editors responsible for most of the article's content. See WP:TAGGING for clarity. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Non Neutral point of view

The article as written is non neutral giving the reader the assumption that Thomas Jefferson agrees with a modern interpretation of “Separation of Church and state” attempts to give a balanced version of Jefferson’s view has been censored, and I am told the Library of Congress is not a valid source to quote from.

Also no one wants to discuss the obvious slanted “Father of a university” statement “specifically one free of church influences” which shows a non neutral point of view that is opposed to historical documents. -Markglad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - From amazon.com product page on a book, Thomas Jefferson And The University Of Virginia by Herbert Baxter Adams, we find
 * Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia. As an architect, he designed the campus. He created the university to be free of church influence. Usually, the church would be situated at the center of the Academic Village, but Jefferson placed the library at the center to reflect his highest-regard for learning. Religious structures were excluded.
 * I'm sure there are other sources, it is clear Jefferson intended to found the University of Virginia to be free of church influences. WikiManOne 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Prior to the University of Virginia many institutions had a Professor of Divinity who taught a specific Christian sect. Jefferson wanted all Christian sects on a equal footing.

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why would he then establish the duty of the Professor of Ethics to teach Christian values in a way that does not hold one Christian sect above another.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefRock.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

“In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics; to which adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, a basis will be formed common to all sects. Proceeding thus far without offence to the Constitution, we have thought it proper  -442-“ _________________________________________________________

Further prove religious study was taught…

It was not, however, to be understood that instruction in religious opinions and duties was meant to be precluded by the public authorities as indifferent to the interests of society. On the contrary, the relations which exist between man and his Maker – and the duties resulting from those relations – are the most interesting and important to every human being and the most incumbent on his study and investigation.

Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, p. 414, Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822. http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ___________________________________________________________

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why didn’t he object to this prayer being said at the laying of the cornerstone for the University of Virginia?

“May allmighty God, without invocation to whom, no work of importance should be begun, bless this undertaking and enable us to carry it on with success -- protect this College, the object of which institution, is to instill into the minds of Youth principles of sound knowledge. To inspire them with the love of religion & virtue, and prepare them for filling the various situations in society with credit to themselves and benefit to their country”

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Jef1Gri.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=47&division=div1 ___________________________________________________________

If Jefferson wanted a university “specifically one free of church influences” why did he order the University Rotunda be used for several things including religious worship and why was it “expected” that students attend religious worship services of their respective sects?

Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIX, pp. 449-450, “A Meeting of the Visitors of the University of Virginia on Monday the 4th of October, 1824.” http://books.google.com/books?id=MMEgAlSQ4GgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) ____________________________________________________ -MarkGlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markglad (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you please summarize that in neat little paragraph or two so I can read through it? Thanks. Looks to me like you're adding primary sources and creating original research though. Maybe publish a book on it and it can be added to controversies? WikiManOne 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So since I proved your wrong your argument is I didn’t write it right? Still claim to be non bias? Citing someone who’s cites others with the same bias and not historical documents related to the point in question is a self fulfilling prophecy, which is probably just what you wanted.--Markglad (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some attention seems to be needed. The idea that Jefferson supported separation of church and state is in the introduction and is supported only by an original document. I'm sure that very many political scientists and historians have discussed exactly how Jefferson's views relate to the principle of separation of church and state in the USA. Our article should cite those academics. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?
A user recently put the neutrality dispute template on Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia article beacuse of the infobox,. Can a infobox violate the neutrality rules on wikipedia? Spongie555 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It can, if the infobox contains sufficiently misleading information. what is the specific complaint that s/he made?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He contests that a proposed state that never actually came into existence does not deserve an infobox, and has subsequently gone to other articles of proposed states and removed their infoboxes. Yes, that is his argument.AerobicFox (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please realise I edited in the the other article since long time. I'm also the main author of this article in German Wikipedia (de:Vereinigtes Baltisches Herzogtum - There were also some guys who failed to establish there a state info box). The Infobox Former Country makes no sense in both articles, because is suggests there have been some kind of state, which is wrong. Do you realy want to create hoaxes in en-WP? --Otberg (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see a neutrality issue here, so long as the infobox makes it clear that this is a failed state from its inception. There's no hoax involved, so far as I know - the people in question did in fact try to establish a kingdom in this place under this name, they just didn't succeed.  it's not like we're using the infobox to assert that an imaginary thing (Narnia, or even Camelot) is a real world state.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It never have been a Sovereign state in reality. There were just some guys who made courios proposals. But the infobox Former Country suggests is was a former country: named Reino de la Araucanía y la Patagonia - Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia, with a flag, Coat of arms, with a capital, a "Capital-in-exile" in France (LOL). With this infobox, in spite of the text is telling an other story, the article looks like a hoax. --Otberg (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a user who has a reliable book source that calls the kingdom an Unregonized state, Talk:Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia. Spongie555 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The book which is not mentioned so far proves nothing ... It just tells the story which is already written in the article. --Otberg (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the problem here essentially that the infobox for a former country implies a prior existence, when in fact such never was? I think that is a problem. (Perhaps not as POV, but as fact.)  Could that be remedied with an infobox for proposed countries?  Or could the issue be resolved with the country infobox by adding "Proposed" (as was done with Cascadia (independence movement))? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that's the point. I think your suggestion can be a solution of the problem. --Otberg (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to put too fine a point on things, but we are all remembering that readers do not see the names of infoboxes or other templates, right? Rreaders just see the box itself; only editors see the name of the template.  we could just as well call the template template:xdFe23y!!r3_3_3.  Neutrality is for information that appears in article space, meaning things that will be interpreted by readers as article information; it's not for things that are never seen by the reader.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! The information contained in the infobox is backed up by many reliable sources, that's the point! Diego Grez (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the infobox-text as suggested to a proposed state. That's what is backed up by many reliable sources. So neutrality problem is solved already. Regards --Otberg (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

National Democratic Party (Egypt)
This article reads more like a lecture or rant against Egypt's political system in general than a neutral, encyclopedic article about a political party. While this page abounds in notes about how corrupt Egypt's system is, it fails to even have a section on the party's ideology - something even authoritarian parties like the Communist Party of China include. <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki <font color="green" face="Mistral">05  23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article and the section called "Electoral system in Egypt" has a strong POV and a tone that is not encyclopedic. It should be tagged, discussed and re-written including the section title. Much of the current content may need to be moved to a more appropriate article topic as it appears to be info not directly related to the current topic. Also agree with your point that the a description of the party's platform, mission etc should be front and center in both the lead and the first section.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Double standards by the admin Horologium
He deletes information from one certain article, but when is reminded that this information is also in another article - he does nothing about it, he only doesn't like it when it's in certain article as if he's guarding this article from "unfavored" information. Later on, here (the case was closed before I could reply to the latter posts), I proved that the link, on which this information is based, is reliable (comment signed at 17:07, 28 January 2011). A blame can't be laid on a simple user for not following the neutral policy (aka not applying double standards), but when an admin, who while acquiring admin rights also acquires the responsibility before wikipedia, violates this policy - he (an admin) should be hold accountable, but if you're ok with a hypocrite admin, ok then.

tl;dr the admin deleted one info from Palin's article, and when was told that the same information is in another article and that he should first delete it from there, as it first appeared there, he did nothing, nor he did anything after 7 days lasted since he was reminded about it and the info is still in that, another article. I told it already, it's not a problem for myself to delete it from there, but I didn't do it so that it will prove what I said, the admin Horologium is hypocrite. He didn't like this info to be in Palin's article but he's ok with being it in another article. Userpd (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't bother to try and fathom other editors' motives. Life's too short. You fixed the problem yourself, now you can move on, lots more still to do before the encyclopedia's perfect. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But he's an admin, not just some usual user. Userpd (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted in the OP, this was considered at ANI and should not be rehashed unless new evidence is forthcoming, and this noticeboard is not the place to discuss editor behavior.
 * The first diff given above shows that Category:Anti-Islam sentiment was removed from Sarah Palin with edit summary: "This is an exceptional claim, and needs exceptional proof". Removing a silly category like that is exactly what NPOV requires, and the edit summary encapsulates the situation perfectly. That was just over a week ago and I see that the category is still not in the article. The category should not be applied to anything, but particularly not to people, unless there are really good secondary sources with an analysis of exactly what is involved, and which unequivocally support the category.
 * Admins are supposed to be sufficiently thick skinned to not object to occasional misguided abuse such as is apparent in the OP. However, I object to an attack on an editor in good standing, particularly since the matter was considered at ANI. Userpd should strike out the negative comments about other editors above, and refrain from repeating them. We discuss content not editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the header of this page is written: "This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated". Userpd (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "silly category"? I backed up this category by providing an info which states that she supports the organization Stop Islamization of America - you can go and look up the people in the category anti-Islam sentiment, and you will find that most of them are opposed to Islam as a whole, such as this organization. And erm, let's not discuss whether this category should be added or not, what is to discuss - why the admin removes the content based on this information only from Palin's article? If he's to remove it from that article why he does nothing to it in another article? If these aren't double standards, then what? Userpd (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (Thank you to Johnuniq for notifying me, since Userpd still thinks that the established norms on Wikipedia do not apply to him.) This is nothing more than forum shopping, and it borders on harassment. Userpd, I am under no obligation to edit any article in any way, shape, or form, despite what you think. Geert Wilders is not on my watchlist, and I have never edited it (and I don't plan to start now). Further, the RNL article cited there has a direct link to Wilders, but not to Sarah Palin. It can (arguably) be used to cite anti-Islamic sentiment on Wilders' part, but not for Sarah Palin (which is on my watchlist) or Newt Gingrich (the other politician cited by the newspaper). You have been told that I haven't done anything wrong (repeatedly) on AN/I, and now here on NPOVN. Get off my back, and don't ever question my motives without even bothering to attempt to discuss the issue with me (and no, the template you dropped on my page doesn't count as discussion). Once again, you failed to notify me about a discussion you initiated about me on one of the noticeboards; I would think that if you do it again, you will get blocked. You have violated several policies with this post (WP:NPA, WP:FORUM, and a failure to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or my user talk page before running straight to AN/I and now this noticeboard.) Further, your post casts aspersions upon every Wikipedia editor who does not edit articles in a manner which comports with your views, which is risible and tendentious. You need to step back and reassess your recent contributions, which overwhelmingly concern a single editor who reverted you once and who has never edited any other article you have.  Horologium  (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Norms" have nothing to do here, it's a clear case scenario which was closed. It wasn't intended for discussion. Just a notification how one admin treats the same subject differently in either articles. If you didn't understand, the link is about Wilders, but the information about Palin's support for the organization is cited in Wilder's article. To Wilders this category can be applied to, as he himself possesses himself so. This is irrelevant here. What relevant, is that the information about Palin's support for the organization isn't disputed by you in Wilders article (I'm okay as long it's not written in Palin's article, right?). Userpd (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything you specifically want as a result of this report? What? Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is as clear a case of edit warring as I have seen. Four long-time editors at the Sarah Palin article reverted this biased, prejudicial, completely unfounded and unverified slander with clear edit summaries in each case, Userpd never once thought to bring the matter to the talk page. Rather than do this silly dance, one of the admins should transfer the matter to ANI:Edit warring or wherever is appropriate. Why WE waste our precious time with this purposeless "hiugu" is beyond me. This is not the first time an explanation has been provided. Horolgium has better things to do than defend himself against hanky-panky when there was neither hanky nor panky. Further, the fact that the editor fails to strike out attacking language when requested to do so shows a true non-collegial point of view. I support a ban...or a block...or whatever it takes to send a clear message>Change or move on! <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To the first editor I provided the source, then he backed off. Then you along with the other guy (who you notified about me (who didn't bother to read the source carefully, as it's written in the beginning of the text that Palin supports the organization, and it's a evidence which backs up the category that I had added to her article), reverted my edit using blurry arguments as "look up WP:cat" or claiming that my source is unreliable. Well I lated provided a proof that it can be passed as reliable per WP:Notability, I brought some reliable sources (such as BBC) in which Radio Netherlands not just mentioned but is given a special attention. Now, you're not obliged to be neutral and treat equally two different articles as much as the admin. No need to be parroting and be all emotion-like, well... I'm not expecting you to follow this advice, rather than basing your accusations on emotions why don't you base it on facts? Like me. Yes, he sure has "better things to do", but here I think I should be encouraged in being exacting to his action (or no action), in other words it's for good if someone whips up an admin so that he won't forget that he has more responsibility here than average user. And looking up at Palin's history page it's not hard to notice how you're often removing / reverting stuff there, and you do it explicitly in regards to this article, you're not monitoring no other article as much as this one, apparently you have special interest here. So speaking of neutral point of view, I don't think you're one in this case. Now, I'm trying to canvass for adding the category to Palin's article, even though it's based on a reliable source. Here I'm addressing an issue where an admin being aware of this important information being in another article - leaves it that way. What if I for some reason disappeared from wikipedia? This information about her support for the organization would be left in Wilders' article while it was so strongly opposed by the admin Horologium in Palin's article? I only see him being capricious, he's an admin, in questions about neutrality and equal treatment of two different articles he shouldn't conform with his personal temper. You should be interested in removing a controversial information based on unreliable source from all articles you know / aware of. You see it as unreliable, why are you removing it only from Palin's article? Why aren't you removing it from Wilders' article as well? That's unfair! Userpd (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am one of a number of editors who find categories that label people to be problematic. If Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is applied to an article about person X, what does that tell us about X? X once said something that someone interpreted as expressing anti-Islam sentiment? X frequently makes such statements? X has devoted a significant part of their life towards expressing anti-Islam sentiments? Once we settle that, what is an "anti-Islam sentiment"? Essentially, a category like that is meaningless (or has such a wide range of possible interpretations that the result is unhelpful–would the Pope qualify for this category?). Also, there is no useful technique to decide which people should get this label (because it is a category invented on Wikipedia and so cannot be verified by reliable sources, meaning that applying this category would always involve OR where an editor interprets what a reliable source says as meaning "anti-Islam sentiment").
 * If it's meaningless then it doesn't belong to wiki, however you're not bothering to list it for deletion. So your argument that it can't be applied to articles is irrelevant. I more believe in actions than to puffy words. Userpd (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been watching Geert Wilders for some time, but have ignored it for a couple of months. I see that it has some text mentioning Palin. The text looks like it needs a cleanup, but seems essentially ok (assuming it is sourced) because it simply describes facts: a certain organization is supported by certain people. If the information satisfied WP:DUE, it could be mentioned in Sarah Palin. However, adding this category would not be helpful.
 * How it's not satisfying it? A one sentence to describe such an important information (so what that it could be controversial?) would do the trick. Userpd (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you are aware that the Palin article is under probation (I think that is mentioned at the top of the talk page). Further consideration of this issue should take place at that talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FACT: I see no reason to respond to what comes from a horses ass. Should this matter move to another venue I will happily waste my time and provide diffs w/timestamps, etc. Also, once again, for the fourth time, userbs has NOT informed a fellow editor (in this case Editor:FcReid)and given him ther courtesy to be a discussant. But all this is re-hash and repetitive response to meaningless drivel. I'm moving on!<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  12:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would I call FcReid in the first place? I have barely discussed him, if I give a link to something in which 10000 users involved, do I have to invite them all to a notifying information section in admin noticeboard's page? Besides, nothing of value would be lost as he isn't a key individual in subject. Just random user who you notified and reverted my edit. Userpd (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On The Way Out The Door...you have it backwards. Fcreid reverted. Seeing that I let him know that I had left you a message. What I did was called ...courtesy. It is obvious that possibility eludes you. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, you invited him especially to engage in my case (Wilders/SP), knowing he's opposing to me. Userpd (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to discuss the content issue with you on the Palin talk page. For the second time, I ask you to note the time stamp on my revert and retract the accusation that my revert of your silly, poorly sourced category insertion was in response to Buster7's or anyone else's beckoning.  I think for myself. Fcreid (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm, if you read what I posted you'd notice that I suggestively criticized his notifying you to engage in our ... I dunno debate? Userpd (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Would someone in charge use this teaching opportunity to inform a certain editor NOT to interject his reply WITHIN another editors comments. While those of us watching will know that editing eti1uette was NOT followed, future editors will be confused. They say that experience is the best teacher. Sometimes I'm not so sure. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Elaborate, who are you implying? Userpd (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

left wing UAF
A problem has again risen at the Unite Against Fascism article. This is over inclusion of the phrase “they have been represented as left wing or far left by certain elements of the press” [].Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it is at WP:RSN where the issue is how many reliable sources are needed to suggest that the UAF is "left wing" (including the AP, The Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, International Business Times etc.) Anyone - feel free to join in. Collect (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would point out that there is no question of the sourcing (its been repeatedly said that the sources are RS), its the wieght and POV thats in doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article and quote "Officers formed cordons to separate about 2,000 supporters of the English Defence League from 1,000 members of left-wing group Unite Against Fascism"  is the only source --than the sentence over states the source and may have POV issues.  A more accurate and neutral rendering might be something like: "An article in the Canadian Press referred to the UAF as a 'left-wing group'".--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of sources.


 * ABC (AU) News - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/05/3131007.htm?section=world


 * Atlanta Journal - http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-police-on-alert-828713.html


 * Northern Echo (contentious) http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4426947.Left_wing_group_to_meet/


 * The Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6790067.ece


 * For a start.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This has long since been resolved in prior discussions at RSN; there is no serious question that there are multiple, reliable sources that describe UAF as "left wing". What NPOV requires is that the Wikipedia article accurately reflect what reliable sources say on the subject. It is appropriate that the article state, with attribution, that these reliable sources characterize UAF as left wing; it is also appropriate that, in counterpoint, and with sources, that UAF simply characterizes itself as anti-fascist, and claims support by politicians across the political spectrum (excepting fascists, I would guess). This should not be controversial in the least, and I confess to being utterly baffled as to why this debate should slog on month after month across multiple noticeboards. Fladrif (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources provided the sentence seems fair (though awkwardly worded) except that I did not notice the term "far left" being used in the sources. Did I miss it? Based on what I have seen an appropriate and simpler wording might be: "some press reports have referred to the UAF as left wing".--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible NPOV violations: Cambodian–Thai border dispute
Now, I am not saying that all the edits on this page are meant to tilt the POV one way or another, but in the last week or so (of the last 500 edits on the page dating back to Feb 2009, about 300 are from the last 7 or 8 days) there seems to be a lot of changing and removal of sources and changing/removal/rewriting of recent events (notably the casualty count, including something about '10 Thai military bases [being] destroyed' that keeps appearing and disappearing, and back-and-forth rewriting of a a part about Cambodian soldiers occupying contested ruins. I tried to revert what I felt were some suspicious edits by an IP user yesterday (the edits made seemed to inflate the Thai casualties, without sources), but this was reverted by another user who seems to have a contribution history consisting of focusing on this article and Cambodia-related items. I'm not going to stick my nose in the article again, but I felt that I should let someone know that this should probably be looked into, and possibly get stricter enforcement on this article (especially since its linked on the recent events on the main page).--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. The article now appears to have been placed into a 'semi-protected' status.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue section at Ishmael Khaldi?
Possible WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS issue at the above article... background: Last week subject (a notable Muslem Israeli politician) was scheduled to give a speech at Edinburgh University, but the speech was interrupted by protesters.

Discussion of this "incident" currently takes up over a third of the article, which I think is excessive given the context of a bio article. I removed the section as giving Undue weight to what I view as a relatively minor event ... and because it happened so recently that mentioning it amounts to a NOTNEWS violation. Unfortunately, I was reverted with the usual NOTNEWS rebuttal of "discussed by reliable sources" (ie a few newspapers). Second opinions are requested. 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vang Vieng
I'm having some trouble with a dispute with User:143.188.101.65 (IP seems to be stable) at Vang Vieng. Over the past several weeks, he/she has repeatedly (six times I believe) tried to add this text to the article:


 * The main street is full of guest houses, bars, restaurants, internet cafes, tour agencies, and western tourists nursing their hangovers from both alcohol and opium.


 * Due to the recent influx of backpackers, the natives of Vang Vieng have seen a drastic change in their community. It was once a quiet and peaceful town, rarely visited by western tourism, except by the most adventurous of hiking and caving enthusiasts. However in recent years, Vang Vieng has become a milestone stop along the South East Asia backpacker tour and the main street is now littered with guest houses, bars, restaurants, internet cafes and tour agencies. Backpacker numbers have skyrocketed and the place has changed drastically - for the worse. Inconsiderate behaviour such as walking through the town without a shirt, or in a bikini (both are VERY disrespectful to the locals), drinking to excess, and smoking opium in public means Vang Vieng is no longer a magical place, and the senior locals, once so friendly and hopeful for the future, have now become distant and disillusioned. Crime has increased markedly as local youths attempt to imitate western culture and battle substance abuse. Compared to what it once was, Vang Vieng is now a rather depressing place, especially for travellers fortunate enough to have seen it previously as it once was.


 * All visitors to Vang Vieng should be respectful and observe local custom by dressing modestly in public and drinking only in moderation.

It is my opinion that, without reference to any sources of any kind, describing a town as "full of western tourists nursing their hangovers from both alcohol and opium," having "changed drastically - for the worse," "no longer a magical place," and "a rather depressing place" is a substantial violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Essentially none of this is encyclopedic. Portions could be included if they are backed by citations to reliable sources (e.g. news reports of increased crime statistics, published academic papers on the disillusionment of locals in the face of increased tourism, etc...), but without any sources, it's simply an opinion piece and a derogatory one to boot.

I made some efforts to discuss the issue with the user on my talk page at User talk:Zachlipton. I attempted to explain the basics of NPOV and encouraged the editor to look for reliable sources that address these issues, as they could then potentially be woven into the article. His response is that he has spent a lot of time there and the information is accurate based on his own experiences, and that (apparently referring to me) "But then you cant educate a fool, because they just dont listen."

Several other editors have also mentioned this issue at Talk:Vang Vieng and reverted this content, but this user continues to add it. I feel I've done all I reasonably can to educate, so I'm hoping other editors here have other ideas. Zachlipton (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How about a block warning from an admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'd support that. Zachlipton (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like this actually happened, though I did give notice of this discussion on the user's talk page. In any case, the user is back under a different IP: User talk:118.107.150.244. Given that this IP's only edits (minus one) have been to revert the removal of this NPOV content, and the fact that both IPs resolve to Southeastern Australia, they are most probably the same editor. I spent a lot of time assuming good faith here, but it's obvious this user has no intention of stopping or making the slightest effort toward neutrality. I have given a strong final warning and ask that the user be blocked if there are any more such edits. Zachlipton (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Standard for labeling organizations and individuals
Is there a policy or guideline that applies to labeling of organizations and individuals? For example, the American Enterprise Institute is labeled as "conservative." Should it be if multiple prominent reliable sources label it as such? Should it be if a majority of reliable sources label it as such (I know that is virtually impossible to determine, but one way to loosely gauge this is to consult Google News results)? Or should labeling in Wikipedia's voice be avoided entirely? Labeling is fairly common in WP, but not with any consistent standards. Drrll (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's WP:LABEL but the examples listed are "cult", "racist", "perverted", "sect", "fundamentalist", "heretic", "extremist", etc. so I'm not sure if it applies to "conservative" or "liberal". Of course, if we had a rule barring the labeling of groups and individuals as "conservative" or "liberal", it would certainly end a lot of WP:LAME POV disputes.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly support WP:LABEL as having some applicability to the question, while not quite as implication-laden as, say, "cult" or "heretic", "conservative" and "liberal" are (like *many* adjectives, not just those we think of labels) somewhat imprecise and sometimes subject to contention. For the AEI, a quick glance at sources I see in sources that I tend to think of as liberal *and* conservative have labelled it that way, and I don't see suggestions in reliable sources that that's disputed, so if a deeper look into those sources left me with that same impression, I'd likely be comfortable using the term conservative in the article. Both "liberal" and "conservative" have a useful expositive value. In my view, the level of sourcing and consistency required depends a fair bit on the particular label and usage, too. If the label is stronger, nastier, more connotative (e.g., "cult"), I want greater sourcing as well as care in the wording, I'm more likely to use direct attribution to quotations. If we're dealing with a biography of a living person, I'll want a higher standard of sourcing as well. But for a basic label like "conservative" or "liberal", I'd usually find one or two reliable sources in an environment without significant sources-to-the-contrary would be enough, although the precise level would depend on other factors such as the frequency of usage and perhaps the breadth of sources using it. To the extent that those labels are contested in reliable sources, well, WP:LABEL's advice is pertinent as well, as well as WP:UNDUE, etc. I'd add that I suspect that either word is often best used not as a stand-alone description but at the beginning of, or summary of a description, with greater detail provided further in the article. The beginning or summary of a description, not as a whole description (e.g., what is meant by "liberal" when applied free-speech advocacy organization may be different in part than what is meant by the term when applied to a an organization focused on taxation), and it would be appropriate in most such articles to go into further detail about the positions that "liberal" (or "conservative") are being used to summarize. --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion in Canada
The section titled "Crisis Pregnancy Centres" is terribly biased, based on opinion, not fact. This is it in its entirety: "Crisis Pregnancy Centres and other offices provide counselling to pregnant women. They have been established by organizations such as Birthright. These organizations, as part of their "counselling", they often use fraudulent means to convince women not to have abortions, and neglect to tell women that they do not offer abortions[34]. Under government legislation, the counsellors are not permitted to directly advise an individual to not obtain an abortion, although many Crisis pregnancy centres will not train volunteers who believe that abortion is acceptable. They are known for giving women false information[35], using scare tactics[36], and making false promises[37] to convince them not to have abortions. After a woman has had her baby, she will often never hear from the crisis pregnancy centre again, despite any help they may have promised her. If a woman chooses to abort after visiting a crisis pregnancy centre, she will often be stalked or harassed by the staff"

The citations are all to sites that, again, are horribly biased and this article clearly has an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.162.110.34 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Cuba
This article is in urgent need of improvement. It was proposed for deletion, which I declined, but despite definitely being notable (books, scholarly articles) it appears to be non-neutral and to have sourcing issues. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible NPOV issue at Israeli_animal_spy_conspiracy_theories
The addition of the following is being contested: In The Wall Street Journal, columnist and deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens commented that the Arab world's proclivity for believing in Zionist conspiracy theories like the Mossad shark to explain their problems points to "the debasement of the Arab mind."source.

To me, there appears to be a number of issues, "the debasement of the Arab mind." has been characterized as racist by at least 2 editors, the writer of the piece seems to have a strong predisposition which is not made clear, and the factual accuracy of his statement seems to be undermined by other sources; it is unclear if the "Mossad Shark" was ever seriously subscribed to. A small edit war (necessarily so as the article is under 1rr) is brewing involving a number of editors. Comments invited. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#673">u</b><b style="color:#572">n</b><b style="color:#472">☯</b><b style="color:#372">m</b><b style="color:#272">i</b></i> 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've come to this issue as an admin who's protected the page and blocked one editor (who removed the contested content twice) in reaction to the edit war. In my capacity as an editor, I think that it is an incredibly bad idea to add editorial comments of this sort to the article, and strongly recommend that it be removed. In every nationalist dispute of this sort, there is no shortage of commentators opining that one party to the conflict is a bunch of depraved idiots. Reporting such off-the-cuff political commentary does not help us write a neutral and informative article that helps the reader understand what this issue is about. Instead, any analysis of the topic should draw on reliable academic sources not associated with either side, not primarily news reports, and least of all op-eds. For this reason, I have doubts whether the entire "Reactions" section, which is mostly also merely journalists expressing their opinion, is helpful at all, and recommend that it be deleted.   Sandstein   18:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors who re-added the information to the article, my reasoning for including it was to note the range of reactions that the media reports of these theories generated. I had previously added a comment by James Bamford, who reacted much differently than Bret Stephens. I guess Sandstein does make a good point that including the opinions of political journalists in an article about such a contentious issue might not be a good idea in general though. I wouldn't protest the removal of the reactions section since it seems destined to cause more trouble. I do think that the reaction of Bandar bin Sultan to the Vulture incident should remain in the article since he is a high profile figure in the Arab world. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there's any NPOV issue at all (it is an opinion piece and clearly stated as such), and I do not believe the matter should have been brought to this board. It could have been dissuaded at the article's talk page as well. I also believe that opinions of notable journalists (the ones that have their BLP on Wikipedia) should be allowed in the articles. Having said so, I would not mind removing the whole section As Sandstein suggested leaving only opinion of Bandar bin Sultan as Qrsdogg suggested. After all the facts presented in the article speak for themselves. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is probably best to merge/add official reactions from the involved governments into the reports (where possible) and get rid of the section. There should probably be a generic "criticism has been raised that..." paragraph with some references grouped at the end. The only NPOV issue here, though, I must stress, is that some people are awfully sensitive and call the muqawama related cultural issues "racist" when they are not. Opinions about this culture vary and it is always strange to see editors do this when the issue is the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the same editors have no qualms about promotion/insertion of "THE FACTS™" style writings by notably anti-Jewish commentators. On top of showing a lacking in understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is poor editorial conduct and a POV-vio. Bret's article represents a notable opinion and such an opinion should be grouped to the people who write about it and presented in a proper manner -- I do agree with sadnstein that the current section where editorial comments are presented in a singular non encyclopaedic -- assortment-style -- manner is ... well, a bad idea. That said, I reiterate that there's no NPOV issue by presenting a notable perspective (there is an issue with trying to censor it on false grounds) and if someone wishes to present other notable views they are not prevented from doing so.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
There is a dispute at the Jerusalem article over whether Wikipedia can describe it as "the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such." It is stated in many RS that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, or not recognized as the capital (everyone agrees on that), and thus the question is whether Wikipedia can state that it is the capital even though these RS contradict that statement. An alternate text has been proposed, which says "Today Jerusalem is controlled by the state of Israel, which claims it as its capital. That status has been rejected by the international community, which considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory held by Israel under military occupation." Please comment. 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 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In going through the articles related to this subject, I'm finding that the UN. org PDF links to appropriate UN resolutions are dead. My first reaction is that the "capital but not recognized" language seems to be factually correct. Logically a country has to have a capital, and that seems to be a question of bricks and mortar, not legality. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with you. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  But that's not what the RS say consistently. It's not about our opinion or logic or original research.  There are a lot of RS that say it's not the capital of Israel.  "When Israel took steps to make a united Jerusalem its capital,

the Security Council on 30 June 1980 adopted resolution 476 (1980) urgently calling on Israel, the occupying Power, to abide by this and previous Security Council resolutions and to desist forthwith from persisting in the policy and measures affecting the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem. After Israel’s non-compliance with the resolution, the Council, on 20 August, adopted resolution 478 (1980), in which it reiterated its position that all actions altering the status of the city were null and void, and called upon States that had established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw them." . So in other words, RS contest that Jerusalem is capital. It's not just a matter of non-recognition.  That's how I understand it anyway, I came to the article only to respond to an RfC, and I'm not an expert on the sources.  But look at how Britannica deals with it: First, it gives historical context.  Then, it says "Israel claimed the city as its capital after the Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and took the entire city during the Six-Day War of 1967. Its status as Israel’s capital has remained a point of contention: official recognition by the international community has largely been withheld pending final settlement of regional territorial rights." We are clearly doing this wrong by saying unequivocally it is Israel's capital . 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 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, there are very few sources that say it is not the capital of Israel. There are many that say it is not recognized though. Neither source you provided says it's not the capital. That's just your interpretation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not reading those sources as saying that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel, but that Israel's action is illegitimate. In fact, it's illogical to say otherwise. If Jerusalem wasn't the capital of Israel, there wouldn't be such a fuss. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "If Jerusalem wasn't the capital of Israel, there wouldn't be such a fuss." That's a great comment!--Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

LightSquared
As mentioned by another editor on the talk page, this topic is contentious and vulnerable to POV edits from both those with an interest in GPS technology and those with an interest in the company. At this point probably just increasing the visibility of the article on uninvolved watchlists and getting additional editors involved may be enough, but it does appear to merit attention. VQuakr (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - deletion of referenced, neutral material
This material, in various forms, has been repeatedly removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article:

"More than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation."

This line is supported by four references:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/ http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Here is a diff of the latest deletion:

Here is a link to the latest discussion on the article talk page:

The previous extensive discussion from the talk page archive is here:

Here is the recent discussion from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which was apparently archived without resolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_23#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories

It is not neutral point of view to omit this highly relevant material from the "World Trade Center collapse" section of the article.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * that depends on what they are asking it for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My recollection is that this was resolved previously, including on this board. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We discussed it for 4 months on the article talk page, again starting last month, again on the Fringe theories noticeboard and now here. At some point, Ghostofnemo, you should probably let it go.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the conclusion of many of those was that the material was to be kept and mentioned, the last round was regarding the lead, where it may not have a place, but it has been considered mentionable in the article proper. At some point it would be nice if the people insisting on removing it would 'let it go'. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#769">u</b><b style="color:#668">n</b><b style="color:#568">☯</b><b style="color:#468">m</b><b style="color:#368">i</b></i> 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, every discussion so far has failed to gain consensus. Misstating these results is not helpful  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments against have been of the order of "It is undue weight to include one petition and not others", they are generally low quality stonewalling. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#621">u</b><b style="color:#520">n</b><b style="color:#420">☯</b><b style="color:#320">m</b><b style="color:#220">i</b></i> 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument sounds legitimate. What's special about this alleged petition that it's deserving of special attention? Keep in mind that posting stuff like that is an effort to confer artificial notability, counting on wikipedia's high visibility to help spread fringe theories. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that it's not notable that 1,000 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation into the building collapses, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories? Ghostofnemo (talk)
 * No, but the source of that number, 1,000, is a conspiracy theorist (a Truther) not an objective source. If you dig into the sources, you will see that they are reporting a Truther claiming that 1,000 have signed a petition.  This is not at all verified that 1,000 have signed; it is a claim emanating from a very unreliable source.  The veracity of the source's statement is exceedingly dubious. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Presentation is indeed important, how about:
 * "In 2010 The Washington Times reported that a petition by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has been signed by more than 1,000 architects and engineers requesting a formal inquiry by United States Congress to investigate the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center. " <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#526">u</b><b style="color:#425">n</b><b style="color:#325">☯</b><b style="color:#225">m</b><b style="color:#125">i</b></i> 14:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it notable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Information in articles does not need to be 'notable', it merely needs to be relevant to the article and supported by references. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#739">u</b><b style="color:#638">n</b><b style="color:#538">☯</b><b style="color:#438">m</b><b style="color:#338">i</b></i> 16:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories are not to be given undue weight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure where to start, with the notion that people having signed it is unlikely to be a fringe theory or that the article where this is considered for inclusion is 9/11_conspiracy_theories. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#961">u</b><b style="color:#860">n</b><b style="color:#760">☯</b><b style="color:#660">m</b><b style="color:#560">i</b></i> 16:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BB, how is a newspaper reporting that a petition has been signed by so many people a "fringe theory"? SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Uomi, that is not what the source says. 9/11 truther group claims that 1,000 engineers and architects has signed its petition. (cite Washington post). Now, we apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE: who cares if a fringe group claims that 1,000 imaginary architects and engineers have signed their petition? (Flat Earth Society claims that 1,000 physicists have signed their petition. Yeah right.)  This fact is only relevant to an article about the truther group, or possibly in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, to demonstrate the delusional nature of the claims. Nobody has verified that 1,000 engineers and architects have signed the petition. Quite likely this is pure posturing by a fringe group. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'll click on the fourth reference, it lists all of the signatories, with their titles and license numbers. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times source refers to the signatories in two instances:
 * 1. "How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center."
 * 2. "Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry."
 * The article under discussion is 9/11_conspiracy_theories. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#536">u</b><b style="color:#435">n</b><b style="color:#335">☯</b><b style="color:#235">m</b><b style="color:#135">i</b></i> 15:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be mentioned, it is relevant and a brief mention would be giving it due weight. Several reliable sources report it. It should be attributed, i.e. "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth say that 1000 engineers and architects have signed their petition" etc. I can't find any criticism of the petition in reliable sources. The reasons for keeping it out are really people's own opinions of the petition - but we don't use our own opinions of things when editing articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a WP:NPOV issue. There are hundreds upon hundreds of articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  We should look upon all these articles in totality.  The fact that someone can find a few articles about something is rather unimpressive considering we have hundreds to choose from.  Thus far, no one has presented any evidence to indicate why this petition is important.  The only evidence that anyone's presented is that it can be sourced. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in an article.  BTW, it is mentioned in the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth which I think is more appropriate.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it's notable because the signatories are architects and engineers. It's not your average "in front of the supermarket" petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How many members does American Institute of Architects have?Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the view of a Landscape Architect notable for a building collapse? The organization is mentioned in the article (see the proponents section).  This is about the various theories, without getting into the various petitions, lawsuits, etc from the various groups.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you get 1,000 accredited astronomers to sign a petition suggesting more research is needed to determine if the earth is really round? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghost has a valid point in my view, and it is also my view that this is a notable petition and the information should should be included in the article. I must add that although I have the article watchlisted, I have failed to see this noticeboard listing or I would have commented here.  I submit that more eyes would be helpful, and that it appears that this information is being censored by those with an agenda.  This is an article about theories, and this is a quite notable theory. The references prove that, yet there is an ongoing attempt to wikilawyer the information out of the article.  I'd call that flat wrong.  Jusdafax   08:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine calls the 9/11 Truth Movement a "mainstream political reality" giving their views notability. A press conference to announce the petition was held in major cities in countries around the world. The petition itself as far as I know is not promoting any conspiracy theory but is simply a call for an independent investigation, an action that is supported by the majority of the public not to mention some of the members of the 911 commission which makes it undue not to mention it. The petition is signed by notable people speaking in their area of expertise which is notable. Despite the large number of engineers and architects, the vast majority have not taken a position on 911 and it is quite possible that the signers of the petition form the majority of engineers and architects who have have commented on 911. I have not read the petition but if it does not promote any specific conspiracy then I cant see any legitimate reason not to mention it.Wayne (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:UNDUE in mind. We can't possibly cover every obscure group with one or more notable person(s) in it.-- Terrillja talk  02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the petition with the signatures of 1000 architects and engineers that is notable, not the group. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1000 isn't a notable number any more than 500 or 50 is. Therefore, the group and thus its petition has to be considered for notability and undue weight.-- Terrillja talk  19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, the news sources cited thought the petition was notable enough to give space to. In my view, this argument is an example of WP:WIKILAWYER with the goal of excluding information.  This is not what Wikipedia is all about.  In this case it is my observation that the use of WP:UNDUE is incorrect.  The information is notable, well-referenced, and being censored out of this article.  This does not improve an article on conspiracy theories.  Something is very wrong here, in my view. Jusdafax   08:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are even about the petition. Most only mention it in passing.  Again, you have to look at the big picture.  There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Cherry picking a couple sentences here and there is a classic example of WP:UNDUE.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the sources are about the petition. I have to agree with Jusdafax that this information seems very relevant and notable for this article, and that the repeated deletions seem to be attempts to keep this neutrally worded, reliably sourced information out of the article. Considering the expertise of the signatories, I don't think it is undue weight to mention the petition. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or just attempts to keep the article neutral and not give preferential treatment to one of thousands of petitions. Ms. Cleo is notable and considered to have expertise in her field, but that doesn't mean everything she says is notable. -- Terrillja talk  20:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And here again is this tired "thousands of petitions" argument that in my view is wikilawyering. This is a highly notable petition, and the sources reflect that. Again, this is an article about conspiracy theories.  Censorship does not improve the article, as I see it. Jusdafax   10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, despite your continued assertions of notability, consensus is against including it. That isn't censorship or wikilawyering, it's following policy. The problem with conspiracy theories is that people think everything everyone else does is some conspiracy. There is no conspiracy here.-- Terrillja talk  16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your take on what policy is and your belief that consensus is against inclusion. I see a number of differing viewpoints. Jusdafax  18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How many of these "thousands of petitions" have recieved worldwide mainstream press coverage? Thousands? hundreds? one? So far no one has presented a cogent argument for exclusion. The thousands claim and questioning the number of people who signed and their qualifications, the only arguments given so far with any merit, can be rejected as both are documented. No one can claim POV pushing because the petition is not promoting any conspiracy theories. What's left? Wayne (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ICANTHEARYOU isn't helping. I note that you have not even bothered to address my concerns.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've answered and shot down every point you have made unless you are replying to someone else. Wayne (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Bunga bunga"
Somewhat hesitantly, I created the article "Bunga bunga". (I comment on my hesitation here.) An inexperienced user slapped a "Neutrality" tag on it and commented in its talk page, but didn't mention the matter here. Unsurprisingly, nothing much has happened since. So perhaps one or two people reading this could come along to the article and take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For what its worth. I see no issues of neutrality in the article.  The mention of Berlusconi, which, I think, is what the placer of the tag objected too, is unavoidable as that is simply how the term has (re)gained notability.  The article in no way unduly casts Berlusconi in a negative light or uses WP:OR.  All claims are backed by their references.  Ravendrop 08:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing politics definition issue
Two possible edits for the lede are afforded by one source. One possible choice is:
 * Stephen Fisher, defining "right(-wing)" for The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, states "The opposite of *left. As with the term left-wing, the label right-wing has many connotations which vary over time and are often only understood within the particular political context."[11]

The other using the exact same source has:
 * Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."[11]

The first was rejected by one editor as a ''That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the source. I am 'absolutely certain' of your good faith, of course.'' I ask totally disinterested editors to examine the cite "^ McLean, Iain; McMilan, Alistair, eds (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Stephen Fisher, contributor of entry for "right(–wing)." (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5 (Paperback). http://books.google.com/books?id=KQXLgP6CZBkC&pg=PA465. Alternate ID for this edition: ISBN 978-0-19-920780-0 (Hardback). "  and see if the first represents the entry fairly, if the first is a "ridiculous misrepresentation" of the entry, and similarly of the second presentation of the dictionary entry. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing to remember is that you are not confined to making one single definition in the lede. You can have a separate section on "definitions". It's intrinsically difficult to define the subject because it stretches so far across time and space. And luckily it's not our job to make a single definition because we're not a dictionary. It sounds like you need to take sufficient space to summarise the various points made in this source. The first extract you give above, about the variation in meaning, seems to be essential in the lede paragraph, in the first sentence even. The longer explanation from the same source could go in later. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia
Marcus Qwertyus and I have stated on the article's talk page that, per NPOV, the article's title is not neutral and should be changed. I also pointed out that the article content needs to change to include both positive and negative views of Wikipedia. IanMacM opposes these changes, apparently wanting the article to be considered an acceptable exception to NPOV. I would appreciate any feedback you could give. Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. We have a pretty bright line violation here. I would be glad to assist in making it neutral. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad pages suffer from much the same issues and according to Wikipedia criticism their shouldn't be any page on wiki with the words criticism in it. I think more explicit guidelines should be established for how to write "criticism of" pages. Iβи Ķᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all a bit puzzling. I did not choose the name of this article and there have never been any complaints before. The NPOV tag was removed by another user in this diff.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what was said above, the little known essay WP:Criticism (about 30 page views per day) does not say that there should be no articles with titles of the form "Criticism of X" but merely discourages them and stresses that such articles should be about positive and negative reception. Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Muhammad have the same problem that Criticism of Wikipedia has and must also be fixed, not taken as examples. The fact that articles of such relative prominence can have this POV problem for such a long time (I couldn't even find corresponding articles on positive criticism), suggests that perhaps we should make "Criticism of" titles illegal just to be clear. While combined articles of positive and negative reception might become too big, there are usually other, better, ways of splitting them. Hans Adler 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, please, please, let's have a clearout of Criticism articles. In this case, what's the logic for the article? Say it were renamed Responses to Wikipedia, a bit ugly but in line with renaming Criticism sections in articles Responses. Well then, responses to Wikipedia represent virtually everything we know about Wikipedia, except for a little bit of primary-sourced description of what WP says about itself. Therefore, article length notwithstanding, we should consider merging Criticisms of Wikipedia back into Wikipedia parent article, allowing of course for non-POV forks, which already exist. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Critiques could be used instead of criticism in a lot of cases and sounds more highfalutin. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Critique is a great concept, but I don't recall seeing a single "criticism of" article that actually was full of critique. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's the central issue. These articles are only ever good for anything if you actually like audacious POV forks. They tend to escape AfD on the grounds that it is possible to improve them, but it never is and it never happens.
 * For this article to conform to NPOV, it would need to cover all noteworthy criticism of Wikipedia, both positive and negative, and then all significant commentaries and objections to those criticisms. In other words, all encyclopaedic opinion in one article and, presumably, stripped from the other articles where it is meant to be per WP:SS. By which point the article would be so huge it would be well overdue splitting and merging. Why not cut to the chase and just split and merge it now? --FormerIP (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think many of the Criticism articles have been split off from the main article because of size concerns, not POV fork. If you have a controversial topic, having a large amount of valid, notable criticism goes hand-in-hand.  When the article gets too large, that's a section that commonly gets split off.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But it shouldn't, because it is not possible for such a standalone article to conform to NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. Difficult yes, but impossible?  Nope. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me an example of a "criticism of..." article that has grown to be balanced and uncontentious... --FormerIP (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When an article gets too long the quick and easy solution is to turn whole sections into sub-articles. When one of those sections is "Criticism", then we end up with a new "Criticism of" article. Take Criticism of Noam Chomsky, a particularly pointless article because Chomsky is known for two distinct sets of writings, 1) on linguistics, 2) on politics. There is plenty of proper academic "critique" of both. We could work up NPOV articles Responses to Chomskyan linguistics, Responses to Chomsky's political theories or some such. But actually that critique ought to be in the main article(s) on Chomsky. Yes, critique can be, should be, balanced, but also critique ought to be in the main articles, not in separate articles. Itsmejudith (talk)


 * I beg to differ from FormerIP in regard of any need (NPOV or otherwise) "to cover all noteworthy criticism ... all significant commentaries and objections to those criticisms", etc. For sure, to do such an article an editor should, properly, examine all that, and then weigh it in order to determine the proper balance.  But the extent to which that should be covered in the article itself depends on the scope of the article.  A short article would not go very deep, but as long as what it includes is reasonably balanced (in accord with WP:WEIGHT) I wouldn't see it as NPOV.  A longer article would be expected to go deeper.
 * But possibly this comes back to the point FormerIP subsequently makes: Should criticism of a topic (and assuming proper weight/balance) have greater length and scope than coverage of the topic itself? I suspect this really comes down to whether "criticism of" topics are properly topics in and of themselves. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a new title for this article which would lead to consensus? Incidentally, I don't support splitting it up into separate articles, it is fine as it is.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Until a decision is made on a new title, Template:Criticism title should be re-added. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Judith: FWIW I don't actually think that is the process by which most of these articles come about. Perhaps editors at Talk:Muhammad saw one day that the article was a bit long and decided the most sensible and least contentious thing to would be to create Criticism of Muhammad. On the other hand, perhaps someone wanted there to be a Criticism if Muhammad article so they created one. Criticism of Israel was created by a user who had failed to get consensus for a section under that title in Israel. It's under AfD, which it will probably survive because predictable ITEXISTS and IMPROVE arguments have been made.

The impossibility of NPOV isn't the only problem, although its a big one. NPOV applies to all articles and it is one policy, so it won't do to say, as JJ suggests, "well, this articles a little different because we've restricted its scope". Negative criticism always needs balancing with positive criticism, per NPOV. What if the subject of the article is a genius and has led an exemplary life, but have five points of noteworthy criticism on which he bang-to-rights. To the extent that any attempted defence would be WP:FRINGE? Would it then be okay to create an article which was a pure character assassination? Negative criticism should be balanced by positive criticism. Trying to balance it with defence against the negative criticism doesn't give neutrality, because the defence may be genuinely weak. Particularly a problem where BLP is concerned. The other problem is with divorcing criticism from context by putting into an article which does not give an overall picture of the subject.

In Criticism of Noam Chomsky, nearly all the criticism is divorced from the relevant contextual information which is contained in other articles, so that all we can ascertain is that this laundry list of people have had a pop at Chomsky at some point, but we don't know why. Various people have had trouble with "Chomskyan linguistics", but what is this? What aspect of it did they object to? Because the "Criticism" article is obliged not to spend any time on these details, we're not left any wiser about very much for having read it. In 1969, Chomsky wrote a book it seems and someone suggested that he misquoted someone and maybe he did but it may not have been very important anyway. But what was the book about? How did it fit with his other work? What was the particular issue and why might it have mattered? Again, the article requires economy as far as details go, so it is not very enlightening. Steven Pinker is presented here amongst Chomsky's critics. The reader won't appreciate from this that Pinker is one of Chomsky's foremost acolytes and they have one really significant point of disagreement. Again, because the context is stripped away. These articles seem to me to focus on laundry-listing POV. They're just not good for encyplopedic writing. --FormerIP (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is no longer a debate about Criticism of Wikipedia, but about "Criticism of" article titles in general. The best way to resolve the issue at Criticism of Wikipedia would be to suggest a new title, tagging it would achieve very little.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did use it as an opportunity to raise the question of "Criticism of" articles in general, which discussion ought to be migrated to the talk page of NPOV policy. As far as a better title for Criticism of Wikipedia: Responses to Wikipedia, Views of Wikipedia, but also see whether there further opportunities for forking. Reputation of Wikipedia? Wikipedia as a resource for students? Also see how much of the material currently in the article should be migrated back into Wikipedia. Also look for well-sourced positive comments about Wikipedia to include. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC):
 * In the case of conspiracy theory articles (JFK assassination conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories) the controversial stuff has generally been deleted from the main article and segregated to the "conspiracy" article, but then the "mainstream" position is AGAIN given in the conspiracy article, to "balance" it, while the main article is unbalanced by any criticism (or perhaps a minimal amount is allowed in passing). Ideally all the material on a topic, both "pro" and "con", would be in one article, but if that's REALLY physically impossible, the "conspiracy" or "criticism" article SHOULD NOT have to be balanced if all or most of the criticism as been removed from the main article (IMHO). Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In their efforts to sweep conspiracy under the rug, the truthers (no relation to the 9/11 truthers) have created a mess. This does not mean that we have to break the rules of NPOV. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1 Thanks for the feedback so far! Here is one proposal for how to name the article, how to scope it and how to deal with the overlap between this article and three related ones: Wikipedia, Reliability of Wikipedia and Wikipedia in Culture. (There's also an Academic studies about Wikipedia article with overlap that needs to be dealt with.)


 * Title: Assessments of Wikipedia
 * (Similar titles include Critiques of Wikipedia and Evaluations of Wikipedia. I chose assessments because that word is already used by the Reliability of Wikipedia article.)


 * Content: The article would include topic-by-topic analysis of the characteristics of Wikipedia, so the structure would be somewhat similar to the current article. Additional positive views of Wikipedia would be added for balance.


 * Related articles: The "Satire of Wikipedia" section would be merged into Wikipedia in Culture.  Any content related to Reliability of Wikipedia would be moved to that article.  The Assessments of Wikipedia article would have a brief summary of and a main article link to the reliability article.


 * Within the Wikipedia article, four "Nature of Wikipedia" subsections (Coverage of topics, Quality, Reliability and Community) would be moved to the Assessments of Wikipedia article and then replaced by an Assessments of Wikipedia subsection with a brief summary and main article link.

I might also develop a second proposal which would involve additional splitting up of the Criticism of Wikipedia content. Let me know what you think. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The recommendation that I made was Reliability of Wikipedia. This would not require major article rewrites or splits, which would be controversial and set off separate debates.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This renaming looks like an attempt by an organization to dilute or divert criticism of its actions and policies in order to protect its image, instead of accepting the criticism as feedback and making appropriate changes. "Assessments" can be positive or negative. "Criticism" is negative. "Satire" is criticism that is supposed to be humorous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * i:JTSchreiber's suggestions are in the right direction. I suggest go ahead with them but remain open to other ideas as the work progresses. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IanMacM, it's not possible to rename Criticism of Wikipedia to Reliability of Wikipedia because there already is a Reliability of Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting that Criticism of Wikipedia be deleted and the contents merged into Reliability of Wikipedia?  If so, I would point out that the delete/merge process requires a separate debate and is more likely to be controversial than what I have proposed.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * FormerIP: let's say I'm reading a book (let's even say it is a scholarly book), and I come across a particularly significant criticism of a particular subject - therefore I mention it in the relevant article, but actually add it to a subarticle titled "Criticism of...". Let's say, however, that there are responses to this criticism which I was unaware of. Am I therefore unable to add this information to the article? No. I am not required to do a full-scale literature review to edit Wikipedia. So I disagree that these articles must conform to NPOV. Ideally, yes they should. But that's a long-term goal. When someone brings the other side, we add it. It's a work in progress, like everything. We could, I suppose, change "Criticism of ..." titles to something which seems more balanced like "Reception of ...", but I don't think that makes a real difference and could be a slightly confusing/misleading. I think these articles can important and cover encyclopedic information which don't fit neatly in other articles.  II  | (t - c) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * II, if you think that Criticism of Wikipedia can "cover encyclopedic information which don't fit neatly in other articles", could you please provide a couple of examples from Criticism of Wikipedia that would not fit neatly in the article structure in Proposal 1? Also, please explain why you think the examples would not fit well.  Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. One could put that Wikipedia has fringe or inaccurate information under "Reliability..." - however, criticisms about Wikipedia's governance, user culture, effects on society, financial stewardship, technical capabilities and complexity (or lack thereof), etc could fit neatly in the articles you listed (Wikipedia, Reliablity of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia in Culture). The information could be balkanized into several different articles - and perhaps in the long-run that is the solution - but I'm not convinced that this is absolutely necessary. The information could also be summarized in summary style, at the expense of leaving out possibly important information. The fact is: titles don't always fit neatly into how we conceive them. The title conveys a certain topic, and criticism of a topic is in some people's minds (including myself) a legitimately encyclopedic and useful grouping of information. After looking at the article Criticism of Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia, I think the Criticism article should be consolidated into the "Reliability article with the balance into the regular Wikipedia article and its assorted subarticles. I might boldly work on that here... II  | (t - c) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * II, thanks for looking into that. It sounds like your suggestion includes the deletion of the Criticsm of Wikipedia article, right?  I realize that the content would be saved by moving it to other articles, but I just want to be clear about the article deletion.  Thanks, -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Go ahead, be bold! :) II  | (t - c) 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I had been hoping to avoid article deletion, since that will set off a whole new round of controversy, and FormerIP talked about the trend of Criticism articles usually escaping deletion. However, if you wanted to submit the AfD request, I would support it.  If it's up to me, I'm now thinking about a rename/rescope to "Wikipedia community", since that section is large to be merging up to the Wikipedia article.  The non-community content of the criticism article would move to Reliability of Wikipedia, Wikipedia in Culture and Wikipedia.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article should certainly not be deleted, but should be merged and redirected. Existing large articles like these always needs to be redirected. Technically an AfD is not required - redirecting is sometimes used as a sneaky way to avoid the hassle of AfD, but it doesn't seem like this one would be controversial. II  | (t - c) 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll think about going ahead with the merge/redirect myself.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus and I have completed the merge and redirect, except that I decided to use a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. Since the Criticism of Wikipedia content was split up among four articles, it seemed that a disambiguation page should be used to guide the readers. Although Reliability of Wikipedia would probably be the most common choice, I don't know that it would be more popular than all the others combined. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While I don't necessarily have a problem with the disambiguation, I do have a process problem with the fact that there seems to be only the briefest mention of a discontent with the article in an archived note, and no link to this discussion for editors of the original article to come to. Please be more careful in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a link to the discussion on the Criticism of Wikipedia talk page. The link is in this section, which is not currently archived.  At least one article editor did follow the link to this discussion.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, QuackGuru wrote the following complaint, which I copied here to keep as much of the discussion as possible in one place: "There is clearly no consensus to essentially delete (or merge) Criticism of Wikipedia. This topic is extrememly notable." For the consensus issue, I would point out that WP:CONSENSUS says that "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions". In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, II was the last person to oppose the change, but later agreed to a change. There were no other complaints about changing the article for 28 days before the changes were made. Why wouldn't this constitutes consensus per Wikipedia policy?

For the notability issue, I agree that Criticism of Wikipedia is a notable subject. However, WP:N says that notability in and of itself does not necessarily justify the existance of an article. In the case of Criticism of Wikipedia, the issues that led to its merge and replacement with a disambiguation page were lack of neutrality and redundancy with other articles. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mind Sports world championship
Mind sports world championship has been flagged NPOV but without any comment left on the on the discussion page over an hour since it was tagged. I assume that this might be simply a problem with the wording of the opening sentence or naming, but I would like to know how to start a conversation to fix this issue?

I was using mind sports in its widely used sense such as for example the bridge (card game) official body who use it on their home page. There is the problem there is no other conventient term that distinguishes sports from games of skill without controversy as it covers more than just card and board games. The reason for creating a longer list was as a result of the world championships page.

Tetron76 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do RS call them mind sports or is this just synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The term mind sports has existed since the 1990s. The major board games and card games governing bodies have used the term for lobbying purposes, therefore, there are many references in RS such as in the independent chess column that uses it as a general term.


 * However, although, it is a widely understood term, it was originally a synthesis rather than an evolved term. Predominant current usage is by the World Mind Sports Games and so is applied mainly to the games of Go (game), chess, xiangqi, draughts and contract bridge. Their definition can be applied to a wider range of games and poker for example was in the news for lobbying to be treated as a mind sport.Tetron76 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But to be called a mind sport championship RS wuild have to report the evnet as that, that is where the synthasis may be comming in. Asl oyou wuold need RS that call all exmaples mind sports, not a users view that they are. Also the articel is (it appears) mis-named, this is not about A championship but championships.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are probably right that the article needs renaming. Perhaps I should have named it:


 * List of world championships in mind sports
 * which was the primary intent of the page to avoid inconsistancies prevalent on the world championship page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetron76 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which world championship page and what inconsistancies?Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tetron76 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system. In recent years, there has been a marked decrease in such terrorism, which has been substantially credited to the end of the Cold War and the fall of the U.S.S.R. However, at its apogee, communism was argued by some to be the major source of international terrorism (whether inspired by the ideology or supported by its states).

Bibleograpy

 * C. J. M. Drake. Terrorists' target selection. Palgrave Macmillan. 5 February 2003. ISBN 978-0312211974
 * David C. Wills. The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration. Rowman & Littlefield 28 August 2003. ISBN 978-0742531291
 * Brian Crozier. Political victory: the elusive prize of military wars. Transaction Publishers 31 May 2005. ISBN 978-0765802903

Comments
This has been suggested as a new lede for the Communist terrorism article as the current one has failed verification and citation needed tags on it. It has been suggested that this proposal is not neutral, so I would like the opinions of some uninvolved editors on it. Tentontunic (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Without even looking at the article (i.e., without being over-encumbered by data! :-) this topic itself seems to be an overrreach. E.g., "acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology", given the right's free and liberal application of "Marxist" to about everyone that might question free-market capitalism, is so broad and diverse as to include about all "terrorism" except that committed by right-wing groups. (So for "balance" we should expect to see an article on Capitalist terrorrism??) Even one of the reference titles ("The First War on Terrorism: Counter-terrorism Policy During the Reagan Administration") seem odd on its face, as I distinctly recall the Viet Cong (slightly prior to the Reagan administration) being referred to as "communist terrorists", and before that the British were having a similiar set-to in Malaysia.  So even before getting to the lede paragraph, the very topic of this article is problematical.
 * And upon looking at the talk page: wow. LOTS of talk, a dozen archives, and all this for an article that is little more than the lede paragraph.  (And quite properly tagged for multiple issues.)  Perhaps what the editors there need most is for someone to come in and take charge of the class.  The usual response ("take it up on the talk page") seems rather futile, as that obviously is not working (except to the extent of preventing publication of material with multiple issues).  It could be pointed out that the lede should summarize the article, but as yet there is (effectively) no article.  The problem here is not the lede &mdash; it is the entire article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entirely correct with regards to Vietnam and Malaya. The term has been used to describe actions by many communist groups, even the Nazi`s used it, they blamed the Reichstag fire on communist terrorists. The reason I am proposing this as a lede is so the article will have a focus to work from. Currently the article is, as you rightly say is practically empty. I would like to expand the body of the article with an historiography section, from it`s first usage in Russia during the revolution, then the German usage and work through to the Fighting Communist Organizations of the 1980s. But to get any progress on this article is, shall we say, not an easy task. Tentontunic (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Could you please provide direct auotes from the sources used.  Your suggest lead does not appear to correctly reflect what the sources say.  TFD (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may look at the sources yourself on Google books,   Tentontunic (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not proper to just point at at book and essentially say "It's in there." You should provide the text you rely on, as well as the specific location where it is found.
 * This "focus" you would like to provide: I take it this would be like the "thesis statement" our teachers repeatedly harped on. And that would seem to be a good idea.  But the proper place to do that is back on the article's talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. There may be confusion because Tentontunic's reflist is not showing properly. --FormerIP (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know how to fix that. Are you able to? Tentontunic (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me the page numbers and I shall link them. TFD (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * J. M. Drake page 19David C. Wills page 219 Brian Crozier page 203. Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. TFD (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) None of the sources can be used to support the first sentence of your claim, "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". The rest of the sources read as follows:
 * "Communist terrorist groups aim at overthrowing the existing political and economic system through the use of terrorism in the hope that violence will politicise the masses and incite them to rise up and destroy the capitalist system." "However, there has been a decline in left-wing, communist terrorism, which can be attributed in large part to the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union."  "At its height, communism was the major threat to world peace, and by far the major source of international terrorism: that is, communist-inspired and/or communist-supported terrorism."

It seems that this does not support a consistent definition - is it communist-inspired or communist-supported? Communists of course supported non-communist terrorism as well. Also, the third source, which was written by Brian Crozier, a military historian, for Transaction Publishers, may not be an ideal source.

TFD (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the first source written does not support this line? "Communist terrorism is the term which has been used to describe acts of violence committed by groups who subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology". I would have to disagree. The Brian Crozier needs to be discussed for reliability on the RSN board. Have you never used a book by transaction before as a source? They are a reputable publisher you know. Tentontunic (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Drake writes earlier in the section, "What is important is that ideology provides a motive - and possibly a formula - for action. His section on communism concerns terrorists whose motivation is to establish a communist state.  He does not include Marxist-Leninists whose objective for terrorist actions is to create a separate state, e.g., the ETA or Irish terrorists, which he classifies under separatism.  TFD (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those actions are still terrorist actions committed by communists. And I would argue that creating a separate state would also be supported by the current citation which mentions overthrowing the existing political system, which is what separatism is after all. Tentontunic (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Once an accepted degree of independence is achieved, separatist terrorists will end their campaigns and enter democratically-elected legislatures. Their organizations tend to be more broadly-based and they do not enforce ideological conformity among their supporters.  They are more likely to build mass organizations rather than cadre parties.  They will work with like-minded groups across the political spectrum.  They may even abandon Marxism-Leninism while continuing their terrorist campaigns.  Two very different types of terrorism, one considered left-wing and the other separatist.  The same issue exists with "Christian religious terrorism".  It does not refer to Christians who practice terrorism, but merely to Christians who use terrorist actions for Christian motives.  TFD (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * T: I wasn't aware that the ETA or the "Irish terrorists" (of either side) "subscribe to a Marxist/Leninist or Maoist ideology." That you consider them "still ... communists" suggests that you are using a definition other than the one stated above.
 * TFD: that is a pretty subtle distinction between "Christians who practice terrorism" and "Christians who use terrorist actions for Christian motives". Before you get all wound up trying to explain that, consider that such fine distinctions are often a vanishingly small point on which to stand.
 * At any rate, it seems to me that neither one of you is making much of a case regarding any definite NPOV problem in the article. It seems to me that this discussion should return to the article's talk page until you can agree on what the issue is. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

John W. Bryant
This page is currently stuck over a dispute on including how many wives Mr. Bryant allegedly has had (he is a member of a "fundamentalist" Mormon sect which may or may not practice polygamy). There is an IP with an alleged conflict of interest who is trying to remove the information; there is a question over the veracity of the source (which is provided by an admin BTW). I encourage everyone to take a look and post any comments directly related to the dispute there (comments not directly related to the dispute, I suppose you can post here). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Duke_lacrosse_case
The article Duke_lacrosse_case deviates substantially from anything close to encyclopaedic, a balanced or reasonable perspective, in short it lacks a NPOV and is substantially biased. It makes some outrageous claims that are unsubstantiated, for example it states that an allegation of rape was false as a fact. It conflates Stripper with Escort with Prostitute in apparent attempt to denigrate the alleged victim and imply a prostitute cannot be raped. Attempts to even make minor improvements such are removing the unsubstantiated claims have been repeatedly reverted by sock puppet with an apparent vested interest, attempts to raise a NPOV discussion was removed. Article needs to be investigated via appropriate policy/authority. 77.86.81.199 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Extensive use of autobiography text
I would appreciate another set of eyes on Letitia Youmans. The discussion at Talk:Letitia Youmans revolves around the use of large amounts of text copy-pasted from an autobiography. (I initially arrived at the page to investigate a G12 speedy tag, but determined the copied text was published in 1893 and therefore public domain -- so copyvio is not an problem.) The issue is whether the extensive use of autobiographical text alone constitutes a problem of NPOV. Additionally, whether the lack of any secondary sources referring to the copied text also is a NPOV problem as well as OR. — Cactus Writer (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, of course, and the other editor is mistaken; worth continuing to explain primary source and OR policy to him as you have already been doing patiently. I don't think it is a huge NPOV problem, because you can work out if and when the subject is being self-serving - actually the thing that really strikes me is that she is writing more than 100 years ago, and mores have changed. How about tagging for refimprove and shortening the article to factual biographical detail, keeping only one direct quotation of the subject's words for flavour? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. That is a good suggestion. I'll move forward with that approach. Thanks. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Come back again if you need to. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Willfults pushing SDA POV on Waldensians article
has been trying to push a SDA POV in the Waldensians article to make them appear older than they themselves claim they are.

Diffs: 1, 2, 3,

He has been using outdated and biased sources (Protestant journals and books from the 1800s), even something by Uriah Smith, trying to pass it off as "mainstream opinion" (see diff 2).

The Waldensians say that they started with Peter Waldo, contemporary sources say they started with Peter Waldo, modern secular academia says they started with Peter Waldo, it is only select groups such as certain Baptists, Methodists, and Seventh Day Adventists, who make any claim that they are older. As anti-Catholic bias has left English speaking academia, the idea that the Waldensians are older than Waldo has come to be rejected (because the only reason anyone pushed for it was such a bias).

We have discussed this on my talk page, and in edit summaries for the Waldensian article. When it appears I'm the only one, he's happy to revert me, but when I state that I'm going to get anyone else involved, he quits, which kinda indicates he knows that others aren't going to support his axe-grinding. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I welcome a third party. I actually took a vacation, I didn't get scared lol. I'm simply trying to add that the founding date of the Waldensians is disputed, however Ian has been well, somewhat angry at this. As he himself mentions there is two interpretations, Protestant and Catholic. Both are rather mainstream. Both opinions are still held by a large quantity of people in modern academia. It just seems more neutral if we can say that their founding is disputed, as it is disputed. Willfults (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like seeing a group's history hijacked for anti-Catholic reasons. It is NOT just "Protestant vs Catholic."  The sources are:
 * Waldensian - The Waldensians claim they started with Peter Waldo.
 * Secular (which includes many historians who happen to be Protestant) - Secular academia agrees with the Waldensians. You've failed to provide any secular sources that do not agree with the Waldensians.
 * Catholic - Although their stance on Waldensianism isn't balanced, they are a contemporary source. They do not mention the Waldensians before Waldo, and as quick as they were to complain about the Waldensians, they would have complained before him if the Waldensians were older.
 * Protestant - They do not qualify as a contemporary source. In some cases, such as Uriah Smith and Robert L. Odom, the sources are not even historians but theologians reinterpreting history to justify their ecuminical views.  Protestants who are not POV-pushing, but simply going along with what evidence is present historically, I've place under "secular."  If, for the sake of argument, I chose to not count them as secular, the WP:FRINGE nature of your edits would be more apparent.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So Catholic sources = valid.  But Protestant sources = invalid?  What? I don't understand.  There are Catholic sources in the article that are much older than the ones I placed in. For example in the article it says "Much of what is known about the Waldensians comes from reports from Reinerius Saccho (died 1259), a former Cathar who converted to Catholicism and wrote two reports for the Inquisition, Summa de Catharis et Pauperibus de Lugduno (roughly) "Of the Sects of Modern Heretics" (1254)"  I consider that a valid Catholic ancient historical source.  Sure it would be pro-Catholic but it is in the respective section.


 * Lastly, if all secular academia agrees with the Waldensians then perhaps you can add that to the article, with valid citations of course. Thanks.  Willfults (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of "contemporary" don't you get? Although the Catholic sources would have a bias, they were written at roughly the same time and are thus a valueable resource.  Allowing Smith, Odom, etc, into the Waldensian article because Inquisition reports are cited is like allowing the Da Vinci Code or the Aquarian Gospel as sources for the Jesus article just because it cites the non-Christian Tacitus.  And can you find any secular sources that give the idea of the Waldensians being older than Waldo any credence?  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want comments from uninvolved users, it would be helpful if you could reformulate the question. If you can keep user conduct out of it for the time being, that would help too. To me on the face of it it would seem that historians, of any religious background or none, would be suitable sources, and so would theologians from various Christian denominations. I don't know if that advances things at all. It might be worth contacting WikiProject Christianity on this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note to inform interested parties that Willfults has been involved in POV activity on various other Seventh-day Adventism pages in addition to this. He has also caused trouble at Sabbath in Christianity. Based on my observations, Willfults' POV is that of the most conservative branch of the SDA church. He routinely deletes large slabs of properly verified material that supports views that are opposed to his or that are too "liberal" for his taste. He insists on getting his way, he often engages in revert wars, he very rarely if ever engages in discussion with other editors on article talk pages, and he often covers his revisions with false edit summaries. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I should add, on the question of the Waldensians, that the ancient origins theory was a belief of fringe radical protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries, and it would be completely inappropriate for this article to give the impression that it is taken seriously by legitimate historians. Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To Itsmejudith: The article currently matches what modern academia, contemporary sources, and the Waldensians themselves say about the Waldensians. There have been attempts by Willfults to make the article give equal weight to a 19th century revisionist history, that today is no more taken seriously than Baptist successionism, and less so than Out of India Theory or Christ Myth theory.  It is a fringe theory that the Waldensians are older than Peter Waldo, the article (as it stands, not under Willfults's revision) gives due weight it and does not need to give more.  As I have said, I would count scholars who happen to be Protestant (or for that matter Catholic) who are not writing for religious purposes but scholarly ones to be "secular."  I brought this up because at the time Willfults was attempting to place undo weight on this fringe theory.  Where might I go to report overall POV-pushing behavior?  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment/User conduct perhaps? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it is simply wrong to describe the sides of the "dispute" as "Catholics" and "Protestants" when the article itself says: "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants claim that the Waldenses' history extends back to the Apostles.". That is, one side is not "Protestants", but only a small subset of Protestants (Seventh-day Adventists and the like), while the other side is not "Catholics", but "the rest of the world". For example, Britannica (hardly a Catholic publication) simply writes: "Waldenses, [...] members of a Christian movement that originated in 12th-century France, [...]" with no qualification. So, how much weight should the views of Seventh-day Adventists be given in an article concerning views of all Christians (the article like Waldensians, that should take secular views into account, could be expected to give even less weight to them)? Well, it is estimated that there are about 2 billions of Christians (Christianity - ) and about 15 millions of them are Seventh-day Adventists (Seventh-day Adventist Church - ). Thus about 15 / 2000 * 100 = 0.75% of weight could be expected to be given to the views of Seventh-day Adventists (of course, that is just an estimate - the actual weight given in the reliable sources will be different in different cases)... So, the part about their views could probably be shortened - and, perhaps, given a better plan. Perhaps it would be enough to say that "Some groups of Mennonites, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and other Protestants" believe Waldensians are more ancient, and to note why do those groups find it to be important (because they see themselves as successors of Waldensians). Everything else can probably go to a separate article about this fringe theory (there will be enough sources to prove its notability, right?). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I hope Willfults listens. I've started to compile something about his behavior.  If it continues I'll go to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct as you suggested.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
There are many issues with neutrality in this article at this time. User:CLL80 describes some of them very well in Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity. In addition, other users have attempted to contribute, but are being shut out. I have placed a NPOV notice on this page, and it has been removed without consensus. I feel that this should be posted here in order to alert other editors to this problem and possibly get some neutral editors involved. Xrin (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have taken a look at the discussion on Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity and I think that you and User:CLL80 misunderstand the meaning of neutrality here. In a matter of speaking, Wikipedia takes the side of the consensus/majority of medical researchers, rather than presenting all researchers' opinions as being equally worthy of consideration.  The undue weight section of NPOV states, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence."  To make the article give a lot of attention to, or even take the side of, a small minority of researchers is to give that minority and clearly goes against Wikipedia policy.


 * This position statement from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, which is listed in External Links section of the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity article, shows how many prominent medical organizations have expressed skepticism about the validity of this diagnosis. These organizations would need to reverse their opinions in order for the article to give much weight to the opinions you wish to promote.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my previous posting, I missed a couple words. The end of the first paragraph should have read:  "is to give that minority undue weight and clearly goes against Wikipedia policy."  -- JTSchreiber (talk)

WP:peacock tags
Is it customary to remove peacock banners from the top of the page simply because there is none in the article? That's what has been happening hereSpecial:Contributions/Editor2020, and for in one of the articles which I checked out Brunis Rubess, they still exist as in "he made the transition from the turmoil in Europe to the life of a very successful businessman in Canada." Thanks,  Spencer T♦ C 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Potter's House Christian Fellowship NPOV issues
I would like some attention drawn here. The article has always been a mess but recently I have noticed some edit waring and nasty talk page discussion between some probable COI editors and opponets. THink some extra eyes and people cleaning up would be helpful to the over all situation. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk + contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had that article on my watchlist and have seen the current editors getting into increasingly personal exchanges. I agree with ResidentAnthropologist that more eyes would help, but I also strongly recommend that the most active editors begin mediation, or just take a break from the article.   Will Beback    talk    00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and homosexuality undue weight
I feel that in the entire article that there is undue weight given to the Pro-homosexuality side. In the first section out of the opening titled "Homosexuality in the Bible" there is an outline that shows questions that pro-homosexual scholars have been asking. It feels as if it's an outline on what the author thinks Christians should do when researching biblical views on homosexuality. There is also a lack of talk about Homosexuality in the Bible except for, "There are a few bible texts that seem to refer to homosexual behavior."


 * In "The Church and homosexuality" there is a paragraph on LGBT-affirming denominations while only a sentence on those that don't. 3 churches that don't are listed while four that do are listed.
 * In "Historical views on homosexuality" much of the paragraph is dedicated to John Boswells beliefs while the rest is dedicated to unnamed critic of which only 1 is sourced.
 * In "Views critical of homosexual behavior" there are critical views and views that oppose those critical views while in "Views favorable to homosexuality" there are only favorable views.
 * In "Choice and free will" more weight is given to non-religious groups on the basis of non-religious views than is given to religious groups on the basis of religious views.

Through out the article prominent people favorable to homosexuality are listed by name. Few people critical of homosexuality as it pertains to religion are named and the ones that are aren't very prominent while there are prominent individuals known that are critical of homosexuality as it pertains to the Christian religion. The article does do alot to point out the reasonings behind the favorable sides points of view while neglecting the critical sides reasonings. In light of this I ask also that articles referring to other religions views on homosexuality be checked for neutrality.

This should neither be a pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality and religion piece. It should a neutral article about homosexuality and Christianity. Neutral and verifiable to the letter of wikipedias guidelines. Thanks for your time.70.15.191.119 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up your statement a bit; I hope you don't mind. It's best if everyone's post abides by TL;DR. And yes, you're right, we strive for neutrality in all things. Face-smile.svg the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry to have put you thru the trouble and thank you for the assistance. :) 70.15.191.119 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Gianfranco Chiarini
Per user Anthaenara, Gianfranco Chiarini'a Wikipedia article is written with bias and as a promotional. However, the article has been written and re-written several times utlizing references to source the statements. This discussion has been posted so that the article may be read, and so that contributors may make editing suggestions.
 * Gianfranco Chiarini Help Resolving Advert Tag

Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Please find corrections to the Gianfranco Chiarini Wiki Article, which has been revised several times. Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianfranco_Chiarini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevwb1220 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Gianfranco Chiarini Hi Athaenara the Gianfranco Chiarni page has been re-written to Wikipedia standards, can you please review so that we can take the advert down? Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still quite promotional and appears to be one of the products at two single-purpose accounts, yours and Andrea D'Angelico (talk · contribs), across multiple wikipedias. You can open a discussion on the article talk page prior to posting on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or ask for assistance on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. – Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Athaenara per Wiki adminstration I was given info that our article was in the context of an advertisement. Therefore I changed, and restructured sentences to meet with Wikipedia guideline. Regarding Andrea D'Angelico, I am not certain what has been translated from the English version but will confer with him as for the aforementioned. Please give specifics as to what needs to be corrected to meet encyclopedic standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gianfranco Chiarini We have been in direct contact with Wikipedia Adminstration, and they have been assisting us with Common Usage of Photos and determining correct verbiage to use in the Gianfranco Chiarini articles. However, you have not assisted us with what needs to be changed per sentence guidelines or structure in order to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. We have followed the guidelines as per the Wikipedia Administrative, and would like very much if you would assist with neutrality of the subject at hand. Furthermore, quoting Wikipedia guidelines is not helping us to achieve our goal of a flawlessly written article. Please assist with providing direction in composing a non-biased article.

Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)(talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) 71.48.225.147 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Any one or all of you may ask for assistance on the article talk page and the NPOV and COI noticeboards (linked above in my previous reply) as I previously suggested. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests is another appropriate venue. – Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Per your previous discussion, I've added the discussion to the Gianfranco Chiarini talk page. I will also add the the NPOV, and COI as you've requested. Thanks! Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have started an explanation at Talk:Gianfranco Chiarini. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Beverly Wehmer Johnson (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)