Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 21

Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar
Ceuta and Melilla are two Spanish enclaves in North Africa, they are both claimed by Morocco but remain Spanish territory. The situation is very much analogous with that of Gibraltar, British territory claimed by Spain. As Ceuta and Melilla are only 15km from Gibraltar many commentators draw attention to the dichotomy whereby Spain claims Gibraltar whilst also maintaining its own enclaves. It might have been naturally expected that might be mentioned in the Gibraltar article but it is not.

I have prepared a brief mention, cited and giving due coverage appropriate to an overview article on Gibraltar, with more details at Foreign relations of Spain. See. I first proposed this edit in talk over the weekend, repeating the same suggestion without a response. Immediately I add it to the article it is reverted claiming there is no consensus to add it and a somewhat strange talk page post claiming this edit violates WP:NPOV.

I would like outside opinion as to whether the edit I have proposed meets WP:NPOV and gives appropriate coverage per WP:DUE. Thank you. Justin talk 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The main reason for saying that this edit is non NPOV has been that it gives voice to critics of the consistency of the position of one of the sides of the dispute (Spain, supported by the UN) but it does not mention equally noteworthy criticism of the other sides (Gibraltar and the UK) or the position of Spain about the lack of parallelism between these situations:
 * If the Gibraltar article explains parallels between its situation and other similar disputes, it should also mention -for example- what notable sources say about the dichotomy (for the UK) of Hong Kong being returned to mainland China while Gibraltar is being kept, or about the parallelism with the original inhabitants of Western Sahara (who were displaced when Morocco invaded it -like Spanish Gibraltarians after the capture- and were replaced by a new population of Moroccans whom Morocco now says should vote in an eventual self-determination referendum -against the criteria of the UN), or...
 * Also, for NPOV, the article would have to explain the POV of Spain about the different situation of Gibraltar and Ceuta and Melilla, the POV of the UK regarding why Gibraltar is different from Hong Kong...
 * Besides, a majority of editors (Spanish and British) have said that Ceuta and Melilla are not relevant to a Gibraltar article. They have said that the only common thread between Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla is Spain -not Gibraltar. Therefore, Ceuta and Melilla are relevant -indeed- to the territorial disputes section in the article about foreign relations of Spain (in fact, it is mentioned in that article) but not to the article about Gibraltar (even more if you take into account all the different implications that should be mentioned in order to reach NPOV). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the posting to this board was to elicit outside opinion but to correct an obvious untruth, a majority of editors did not say this at all. 2 support it, 1 is weakly opposed and the above editor opposed it.  Justin talk 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note: I did not want to go into this (boring) detail, but you can count at least three editors saying Ceuta and Melilla are not relevant to the Gib article: The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Richard Keatinge, and yours truly. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC))
 * No you're being misleading again.  RHoPF commented on a completely different and more detailed edit.  That criticism was taken on board and acted upon. Richard's comments were to weakly oppose the edit as I have correctly reported already.  What you have just stated is misleading.  Let people comment please and stop adding misleading comments.  Justin talk 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, including information about Cueta and Melilla in the Gibraltar article is inappropriate, specifically when it seems the sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar, which is where the NPOV problem arises.  Grsz 11  21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (neither Spanish nor British)
 * It has nothing to do with discrediting Spain's position whatsoever, it reports what has been said in a neutral manner. If Spain is criticised for its position we report that, that is not a NPOV problem.  Avoiding such coverage is a NPOV problem as it implies there is no criticism of the Spanish position and skews the POV of the article.  Justin talk 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument for including some comment is that such remarks have indeed been made; to many people including the PM of Gib and the government of Morocco the plazas de soberania etc seem relevant to Gibraltar. The argument against is that, in fact, Spanish claims to Gib would not be affected if Ceuta and Melilla etc. had never existed. They are different places and most of the arguments are different. I suppose there's the point about integrity of national territory, which the Moroccans at least feel applies to all these claims, but then the Spanish position disagrees about that too... Altogether a complicated argument of minimal actual relevance to Gibraltar, on balance well worth leaving out of an overview article, though a link to Spanish foreign policy could certainly be engineered. And I'd suggest that this debate would be better in the Gibraltar talk article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "of minimal actual relevance to Gibraltar" and "sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar"
 * Agree and agree. Bottem line is, mentioning Cueta and Melilla is basically a debating point rather than a fact that will actually give a reader some useful information about Gibraltar.  For the record, I happen to think this is good debating point, but frankly, WP is not a battle ground and an article on Gibraltar shouldn't contain this kind of stuff. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "sole purpose of doing so is to discredit Spain's position toward Gibraltar" Seeing as that as been highlighted as a reason for not including it, could you all please note that is not my reason for doing so.  I perceive such a comment as a bad faith presumption as to my motive for including it, even if that isn't the intention.  I was drawn to the compelling analogue of the situation with Gibraltar that was all, it seemed to my mind an omission to not comment on it.  I still think it is to be honest.
 * I wanted outside comment for adding it, I got it, so I won't be including it. I happen to disagree with your comment and would have been a lot happier if outside comment had been allowed before the well was poisoned so to speak.  There are a lot of issues on that page right now that I would really welcome outside comment on.  Regards.  Justin talk 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re '"please note that is not my reason for doing so. I perceive such a comment as a bad faith presumption" - For the record, I was not trying to suggest nor do I believe that Justin's contribution was in bad faith.  Additionally, I agree re the "compelling analogue" comment. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you I appreciate you clarifying that. Regards, Justin talk 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Layng Martine, Jr.
He is determined to write the article about himself... badly. No response to any attempt to discuss. I have to rush off to choir practice; anyone else want to have a try? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've placed a formal COI notice on his talkpage and reverted. He'll be over 3RR if he reverts again. A short block clearly and patiently explaining the reason might be salutary in making him understand how to contribute. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights and the Koran
An article I nominated for GA status, Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, failed due to NPOV concerns. The discussion is here. I'd like broader input on the NPOV issue, as I didn't think the GA discussion was clear or thorough. The objection centers on quoting of the Koran in the green sideboxes. The quotes pertain to women's rights. The objection is that this implies that the Koran is anti-woman. If you find the quoteboxes in violation of NPOV, constructive suggestions would be helpful. Should they be deleted? Can the Koran can be quoted in any way?


 * My thoughts are: 1) The quotes aren't interpreted, just given as what the Koran says, 2) The quotes aren't selected to paint an unbalanced picture; they were chosen because they are about the rights of women, 3) The fact is that the Koran is not exactly a feminist document: it states that husbands have a right to beat their wives, brothers generally inherit more, and so on. 4) It is relevant because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state; the Koran (along with tribal custom) is the basis for women's legal rights there. Noloop (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd remove the quotes. This isn't about women's rights in Islam but in Saudi Arabia; while religion plays a big part in female repression there I'm more interested in quotes that relate directly to the nation's perspectives. Abrahamic religious texts are chock full of misogynist passages downplaying the value and rights of women but it's only Saudi Arabia that won't let women drive. Sol (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar enough with Saudi law to give a definitive answer. My advice: Quote the Koran where the relevant passages underlie current Saudi law as proved by reliable sources. Footnote the connection. If the Koran is an overall source for Saudi law on these issues, relevant quotes for protection of, and limitations on women's rights should be cited. Put something about the role of the Koran in these areas of law early in the text.
 * Also, minor design suggestion: whiten the non-Koran quote boxes so as not to imply they are all agreeing with each other, and to diminish the sense that this is a point-counterpoint debate among the quotes. Also, put all the quotes on the right: it's extremely irritating to come to a new section and wonder if you should read the box quote or the section first.--Carwil (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely not have quotes like this, as per Sol above. At the moment, the quotes give the implication that the Saudi system is the one true representation/interpretation of the Koran, which is clearly POV. It also seems to implicate "Islam" in the poor human rights record of Saudi Arabia, which is also POV. It's been the Saudi choice to legitimate their regime using the Koran, but thus was slavery, persecution of Jews, war and misogyny legitimated by the bible previously (and still now by some). We don't present the history of women's rights in Europe using prominent scriptural quotes. Koranic quotes should be presented only in the context of how Saudis have used them, preferably with an indication that the Saudi version is not the only version. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I missed part of this discussion. Regarding this comment: " This isn't about women's rights in Islam but in Saudi Arabia; while religion plays a big part in female repression there I'm more interested in quotes that relate directly to the nation's perspectives." The Qu'ran relates directly to the nation's perspectives. The nation's perspective is that Saudi Arabia is the world's foremost Islamic nation (because it is the birthplace of Muhummad). A number of people have asserted what is implied by the quoting. These alleged implications seem like POV to me. Who says quoting the Qu'ran implies that Saudi Arabia is the "one true representation/interpretation of the Qu'ran"? How? Why? Where? It is just POV to say that's implied. The only implication of quoting the Qu'ran in this article is that the Qu'ran is a significant part of women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Which it is. Noloop (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System and WP:COATRACK
Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System is currently undergoing an AfD. I commented at the AfD that there is no inherent BLP issue with this entry and that it is notable enough to be kept, but that the current entry appears to be a WP:COATRACK. As a result I have posted a detailed discussion on the talk page of the COTRACK/NPOV issues - Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System. This discussion quickly digressed into a verbal ping pong match with the main contributer to the article, which is just cluttering the talk page without any productive movement on the issues. I'm hoping some uninvolved eyes could take a look at this so that I can step back from the unproductive back and forth with the afore mentioned editor. I do not think the entry should be deleted or whitewashed. Not at all. Just think it needs some serious trimming. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree re COATRACK. Also WP:SYN violations. There are WP:OWN problems, also (the editor makes the argument that the coatrack is needed because the main articles are biased -- as blatant of evidence of POVFORK as possible). Once all the coatrack is removed, all that's left is a stub about a non-notable lawsuit that never went anywhere. The article should be merged into Werner Erhard to avoid the coatrack, and I would support such a WP:BOLD move. THF (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment above starting this discussion in this noticeboard is most certainly NOT a neutral or matter of fact presentation of the issue. The majority of comments at the AFD have posted positively about the quality of the article, have stated it is not pov, not a "coatrack", see . -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into the details of the AfD, but this looks very much like an attempt to canvas at the AfD. This is not the purpose of this noticeboard. I would respectfully ask Griswaldo to withdraw this entry.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this comment by . -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So I'm trying to canvass to get other to vote like myself, to keep the entry? Can you please tell me how to get a third opinion at the entry talk page about issues in the entry?  Should I wait until the AfD is over?  Once again, I'm not voting delete, and fully expect the entry to be kept.  I'm simply trying to get eyes on it to improve it.  Please tell me a better way to go about this.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be helpful to wait to address these other matters until after the AFD is over. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(in agreement with cirt, but with detail) I said it's canvassing because you've appealed to a group of editors with a non-neutral presentation of the issue of something currently at AfD. It's clear that you are interested in getting people to agree it's a coatrack as it stands. AfDs often result not only in a keep or delete decision, but also a clear indication on how to move forward, which can be invoked in future discussions (this may or may not be official policy, but it's a common occurrence). I would suggest that the most proper thing to do in this case is wait until the AfD is over, and then discuss on the talkpage about how to improve the article. In terms of an approach, arguments such as "it's a coatrack but rescuable" (see also "it's basically OR, but it doesn't have to be") are usually not going to gain majority support in any AfD. It's probably better not to confront the issue (and have it ruled out after minimal discussion because editors will tend not to nuance as much at an AfD) and focus on the basic keep/delete for now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Does this hatting deal with your concern?Griswaldo (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally. The short version of my babble above is : leave it for now (a) for propriety's sake and (b) you'll get a better hearing after the AfD. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Above discussion hatted, due to ongoing AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hellfire
Hi. An IP has made a series of revert edits for which he has now been blocked, the last being the following: here.

I would revert him myself, as his reference is as other editors have indicated as well POV, off-topic, soap-boxing, and not supported from what I can see by the ref he initially claimed supported it. However, I don't wish to brush up against 3RR myself. The sysop who blocked the IP suggested that I therefore post the matter here, suggesting "f the edits in question are obviously that bad, you can certainly get another editor to remove them.". Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Clearly a coatrack soapbox editor. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Professional sports league organization
While the title suggests something broader, the gist of the article entitled Professional sports league organization is essentially a comparison between professional sports in North America and Europe. However, the choice of terminology, in particular, the use of the word "league", represents a North American perspective, being applied to European sport. A comparison of two subject areas, from the perspective of one of the two subject areas can hardly be said to be neutral.

The focus of the article appears to be even narrow - an attempt to explain the Premier League, and the various other competitions that clubs playing in that league participate in, to a North American audience unfamiliar with English football.

The North American perspective, together with the narrow focus, results in several inaccuracies in the section on European sport. I have raised these in the talk page. Rainjar (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Afshin (Caliphate General)
I am seeking assistance or involvement of neutral experts or administrators who can look into the Afshin (Caliphate General). I added over 7 references yesterday referring to both Turkic and Iranian background of this historical personality. Yet I am faced with opposition from User:Khodabandeh14 who seems to diminish or get rid of references to Turkic/Turkish in favor of Persian/Iranian throughout this and other articles, and seems unwilling to come up with a compromise, instead removing dispute tags and using restrictions to intimidate into accepting his WP:POV. I am not sure if this is more relevant to content noticeboard or here, I feel it is more about neutral point of view in judging references. The fact that User:Khodabandeh14 rejects multitude of other historical references using just one author C.E. Bosworth in both Afshin (Caliphate General) and Atabegs of Azerbaijan article raises concerns of excessive WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge everyone to look at the talkpage discussion. A) If ethnicity of something is disputed, it should not be in the introduction. B) The above user has simply used sources from 1848, 1910 (outdated) and three authors with no university/academic affiliations. I have brought authors from published academic journals and scholars such as Bernard Lewis, Peter Benjamin Golden and C.E. Bosworth (Oxford University Professor and well known scholar), as well as Cambridge History of Iran. . The above user is simply not reading the talkpage and claiming that I have only one source! He simply refuses to read the talkpage, and still repeats his own statement that I am using one source. C) I also urge a neutral expert admin to come to the discussion and I have called two admins already. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not want to get into this conflict, but according to mainstream academics, Khodabandeh14's version is the correct one. See for example Encyclopaedia Iranica:
 * "... At the time of the Arab incursions into Transoxania, Osrušana had its own line of Iranian princes, the Afšins (Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 40), of whom the most famous was the general of the caliph Moʿtaṣem (q.v. 833-42), the Afšin Ḵayḏar or Ḥaydar b. Kāvus (d. 841; see AFŠIN). ..." - OSRUŠANA
 * It is also important to note that al-Afshin was later imprisoned and executed because he was an Iranian and because he was accused of anti-Arabic/anti-Islamic heresy in favor of ancient Iranian practices. In this regard, Iranica writes:
 * "... [...] Afšīn’s position [...] became increasingly difficult. He was accused by his enemies of hostility towards Islam and of sympathy for ancient Iranian practices and beliefs [...] The contemporary Arabic sources thus regard Afšīn’s rebellious acts as those of a protagonist of Iranian religious and imperial feeling, and as the expression of anti-Arab resentment for the loss of ancient Iranian political domination, feelings which were at this time finding a more harmless outlet on the literary level in the Šoʿūbīya movement. That this view subsequently became the stereotype is seen clearly from the anecdote about Afšīn in Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqī’s Tārīḵ-eMasʿūdī written over two centuries later (pp. 173-78), in which anti-Arab sentiments are specifically placed in his mouth. ..." - AFŠĪN
 * Please keep in mind that the Encyclopaedia Iranica represents the current academic mainstream view. In this case, Atabəy's argumentation is not convincing. He is disputing something that, very obviously, is totally undisputed among experts and scholars. Tajik (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration allegations
This section - Transportation Security Administration - states as fact allegations of widespread assault and abuse by a U.S. government agency. The article neither states any rebuttal nor cites any official TSA or DHS sources, and openly advocates for activist websites which are cited as sources. This subject is a hot button media issue, and these claims are inflammatory at best, as well as self-promoting. Tad (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Sumner
The article Charles Sumner is mostly great, but the lead (specifically the last two or three paragraphs) strikes me as overly long and lending undue weight to a particular set of opinions. Is this me? The editor(s) of the article don't seem to think so; see Talk:Charles_Sumner. The lead is less than half a dozen paragraphs, shouldn't take long to skim them and chip in and let me know if I'm being unreasonable. Johnleemk | Talk 05:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Welner
Talk:Michael Welner


 * Does this BLP violate WP:PEACOCK?

It appears to me that for the past 3 years this BLP has been controlled by a series of single article editors and used as a promotional article for the Subject. Recently the Subject became more internationally notable and somewhat controversial for his testimony in GITMO. Presently there are 3 single article editors working in tandem to keep the BLP 100% free of any but the most complimentary content. 1 of the 3,Stewaj7 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. I have been very involved in the article since I first noticed it on Nov.1,2010. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors of Welner's BLP it is important to note that Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) is lying in the above. I have attempted to the extreme to work with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) to bring the BLP to a place where all editors would be comfortable with its neutrality and would be happy to copy for you here the complimentary notes I receive from him when he enjoys my edits. That being said - it is the position of all editors except for Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) that certain sections that do not belong on a BLP not be added in and I have consistently removed those sections and tried to reach consensus with Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) on the talk page regarding these issues. However, on talk pages, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) attempts to appear neutral and complimentary, to prevent himself from being blocked from editing the page, while then reverting edits, violating the 3RR rule and doing what he chooses, regardless of talk page discussions. Edits that are made without factual knowledge of Welner or his contributions and merely utizilize their advocacy positions under a guise of neutrality cannot be expected to have their edits remain on any page, particularly a BLP and this editor can only hope that all nuetral editors agree with this objective position. Empirical9 (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — Empirical9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I encourage Mr.grantevans2 to watch his false accusations. Particularly, as the he/she was introduced to the page to which he is referring in November 2010. Before then very few edits have been made to the page and never has there been a dispute regarding its neurtality. Following the close of a very sensitive case, in which the subject of the BLP was involved, the editor who raises this claim became obsessed with inserting factually inaccurate, unrelated, controversial information into the page. This attempt to introduce defamatory content and malign Dr. Welner, has been cloaked with false assertions of adding neurtality and reducing pufferey. Clearly the editor is wiki rules savvy. I can appreciate reaching a consensus; however, Mr.Grantevans2 has not adhered when consensus is reached. Rather he accuses those who have reached a consensus as working in tandem - a risk one takes for disagreeing with him. Before offering an opinion to the matter, please take a moment to review the issues raised with the content that Mr.grantevans2 is trying to include . Despite having brought the inaccuracies and concerns to his attention, his efforts to include defamatory content continuesStewaj7 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — Stewaj7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I think these are the sections Stewaj7 attempted to provide links for: Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy
Please see Talk:Naturopathy there have been multiple NPOV issue raised here. I have suggested several new sources but am a new editor. Input from more experienced editors is requested. Mcmarturano (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Political propaganda by JACla
Can someone please go through this (sections Afghanistan, Afghanistan and Afghanistan) and neutralize the edits made by the POV-pusher, it reads like someone's blog page. I believe that everything JCAla is adding to Wikipedia is political propaganda in which he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time he is praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords. JCAla even added Pakistan as one of the Taliban's main allies when really Pakistan is engaged in a major war with them and is allied with US-NATO forces. Everytime I tag the page JCAla removes the tags.--Jrkso (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just JCA1a who removed them. I also removed them (except for the unencyclopaediac tone one but that has also improved a bit), as did also another editor. You haven't substantiated your claims it is biased and good citations have been provided for everything there. The diff you provided was to another article and I don't think Pakistan should be counted as a current ally of the Taliban but that isn't what was said in the Afghanistan article. About the one thing I would say about it all is that much of what is said there should be moved to the history of Afghanistan article instead. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, I like to ask you not to remove the tags until neutral editors fix the problem and allow them to remove the tags, so please be patient. I don't think you're neutral because you have opposed me before. JCala's edits are trying to mislead readers by telling them that the Northern Alliance (Afghan warlords), were victims and that the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of foreign interference by nations such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, USSR, USA, etc. But we all know this isn't the case, the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of Afghans fighting Afghans, which began in 1978 with the Saur Revolution. The foreign nations were trying and are still trying to help end this war. JCAla is defending warlords in Wikipedia while media reports say these warlords are more dangerous than the Taliban. , --Jrkso (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything has been discussed here and here. All sources have been provided. They are considered as reliable and as coming from distinguished institutions and academic sources by the editors. Jrkso does not like the realities of history. Dmcq (except for the tone tag) and two other long-time editors have all agreed to remove the tags. We have further agreed that the content of the sections is valid, well-sourced and should stay. There was an agreement that the wording of the sections was not of encyclopaedic quality. That has been changed. Jrkso should stop his politically motivated, ridiculous accusations. He has disputes with many editors because he falsifies sources for his own political agenda. His agenda becomes evident considering his statements:


 * "... the reason why Afghanistan is destroyed and poor is the result of Afghans fighting Afghans, which began in 1978 with the Saur Revolution. The foreign nations were trying and are still trying to help end this war." -Jrkso


 * "... warlords are more dangerous than the Taliban." - Jrkso


 * "... There is no unity among its people [...] Each group is used as a proxy by neighboring countries and the Afghans always blame one another. This is an example of what happens to a country when it lacks unity." - Jrkso


 * " ... he's specifically bashing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all Afghan groups that he doesn't like, but at the same time heis praising and glorifying the Northern Alliance, a group which is often described as Afghan warlords." - Jrkso

Some days ago he was claiming the oppposite:


 * "You are defending the neigboring country of Iran ..." - Jrkso


 * "Both of these users share similar biased views on the history of Afghanistan, trying to make Afghanistan somehow a province of Iran." - Jrkso

It is getting ridiculous. By the way, it was me who added "According to Human Rights Watch in 1997 Taliban soldiers were summarily executed in and around Mazar-i Sharif by Dostum's Junbish forces." to this section. JCAla (talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso - I have not touched the tags since you put them in saying you were raising the issue here, so exactly why have you addressed me in particular about that? I have left them there so anyone here can look and judge for themselves.

Yes the warlords were the bigger threat in 2004 after the Taliban were nearly destroyed, and your point is? Plus I'm sure there's lots of Afghans who'd prefer the sort of stability the Taliban brought despite what they did, and what's your point with that? Are you really alleging the Saur Revolution had nothing to do with Russia and America didn't exploit it, never mind their various neighbours sticking their fingers in the pot and stirring it? I'm sure America would like nothing so much nowadays as a way to escape the whole business with a shred of dignity and leave the place halfway reasonable and stable - but that wasn't always so. Dmcq (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, I have nothing to discuss with you, and you popping up everywhere is very annyoying, plus I have trouble understanding your English. So, don't ask me these questions please.--Jrkso (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * JCAla, whatever I wrote in talk pages in other places or how I personally feel about Afghanistan is totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. Your edits JCAla need a review by neutral minded editors and I'm waiting to hear what they feel about this so just wait instead of accusing me of nonsense. You are clearly trying to only glorify the Tajik Nothern Alliance (Category:Afghan warlords) and bash all the other groups. This is wrong and Wikipedia is not suppose to have such biased information. Your edits are also very long, explaining unnessary details in an article which suppose to be about a country. As for the sources you cited, you have searched online and cherry picked unverifiable/poor sources (i.e. ) to help you send your politically motivated point across Wikipedia. Your sources are unverifiable books written by Afghans, who belong to different factions or political parties, and they're known for political rivalries. Amnesty International states "Amnesty International is not in a position to confirm that the Taleban were responsible for this latest bombardment" but you still cited it. Try citing Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica, Library of Congress Country Studies, or others which are neutral academic sources but you're avoiding these because they don't mention what you want to explain. I don't want to hear anymore from you, leave the tags until neutral people fix the problem.--Jrkso (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are starting to adopt a wrong tone, Jrkso. And, as always, you are falsifying sources. I wrote in the article: "The Taliban started shelling Kabul in early 1995 but were defeated by forces of the Islamic State government under Ahmad Shah Massoud.[107] Amnesty International, referring to the Taliban offensive, wrote in a 1995 report: "This is the first time in several months that Kabul civilians have become the targets of rocket attacks and shelling aimed at residential areas in the city ..." This is what has been mentioned in the article. Not more, not less. It is correct.


 * The full report by Amnesty International states: "According to reports, between 11 and 13 November 1995 at least 57 unarmed civilians were killed and over 150 injured when rockets and artillery barrages  fired from Taleban positions south of Kabul pounded the civilian areas of the city ."


 * What your quote (taken out of context) is referring to is the following, a specific bombardment of Nov. 11 : "On 11 November, 36 civilians were killed when over 170 rockets as well as shells hit civilians areas. A salvo crashed into Foruzga Market forcing the shoppers and traders to run for cover. ... residential areas hit by artillery and rocket attacks were the Bagh Bala district in the northwest of Kabul and Wazir Akbar Khan..." The Taliban (positioned to the south of Kabul) were fighting against Islamic State forces positioned in the north of Kabul. Wazir Akbar Khan is the "diplomatic" area, also controlled by Islamic State forces. You, deliberately, did not cite the following sentence (referring to that specific bombardment) in a complete manner: "Amnesty International is not in a position to confirm that the Taleban were responsible for this latest bombardment, but the reports that the barrages have come from the Taleban-controlled positions appear to be credible ".


 * Let's see your other claims. Human Rights Watch is a "cherry-picked unverifiable/poor source"? If you want to be taken seriously stop your bizarre accusations, your frequent references to rawa and your random usage of the term "warlord". JCAla (talk) 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed the tags, but I think that they are not needed. JCAla has provided good and acceptable sources. The only thing I am not happy with is the wording. In my opinion, it needs to be written in a more encyclopedic way. But the message is well sourced. I have offered JCAla my help in order to improve the section's wording, but my English is not that good, so I would appreciate support from native speakers. As for Jrkso: I do not understand his constant opposition and fight in Afghanistan-related articles. Basically, he is opposed to everyone else. Tajik (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's 3 Tajik editors from Kabul, Afghanistan who are constantly opposing me. Your English is very good don't play games. Most of the sources are links to books written by Afghans and the books cannot be verified plus the content in the sections are purposly selected to make a point by a POV-warrior. According to reports, upto 2 million Afghans died in the 1979-2001 wars but the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban. This is a very stupid way to explain the Afghan civil wars knowing that 600,000 to 2 million Afghans died.--Jrkso (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have supernatural abilities "knowing" where everyone is coming from without anybody ever telling you. Plus, your sentence, "the POV-warrior JCAla is only explaining about a dozen Afghans that were killed by the Taliban", (besides being a false statement since I also wrote about the execution of Taliban soldiers and atrocities committed by different militias in Kabul) proves where you are coming from (considering I was writing about the mass killings in Mazar-i-Sharif in which 2,000 - 8,000 civilians were executed by the Taliban). For the record, the most frequently used sources in the article are the following ones:


 * Human Rights Watch - Blood Stained Hands (2005)


 * Afghanistan Justice Project - Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001


 * Neamat Nojumi - The Rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mass Mobilization, Civil War, and the Future of the Region (Review)
 * Nojumi - U.S. citizen with Afghan origins - has studied at the University of Hartford, Yale University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Nojumi worked for Tufts University, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Harvard Law School and the American Military University. Currently he works at George Mason University for the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution.


 * Prof. Amin Saikal - Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006) (Chosen by The Wall Street Journal as One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan)
 * Prof. Amin Saikal is a specialist in the politics, history, political economy and international relations of the Middle East and Central Asia/Afghanistan. He has been a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the Institute of Development Studies (University of Sussex), as well as a Rockefeller Foundation Fellow in International Relations. He is an appointed Member of the Order of Australia (AM) for service to the international community and to education, and as an author and adviser. He is also a member of many national and international academic organisations, and the author of numerous works on the Middle East, Central Asia, and Russia. He is currently working as Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (The Middle East and Central Asia) at the Australian National University.


 * Roy Gutman with the United States Institute of Peace - How We Missed the Story. Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and the Hijacking of Afghanistan
 * Roy Gutman was director of American University's Crimes of War Project and a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the 1993 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where he provided the first documented reports of concentration camps. Gutman's honors include the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting, the George Polk Award for foreign reporting, the Selden Ring Award for investigative reporting, and a special Human Rights in Media Award from the International League for Human Rights. He holds an M.A. in international relations from the London School of Economics.

JCAla (talk) 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * George Washington University - The National Security Archive 1 and The National Security Archive 2

Disruptive use of the wikipedia notification boards by Jrkso and edit wars because of his political agenda
moved JCAla (talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Vidim pushing for ancient origin of Waldensians
In the Waldensians article, in the section "Ancient origins asserted and disputed", User:Vidim has been attempting to give equal weight to the claim that the Waldensian church is older than Peter Waldo, a claim that even the Waldensian church does not support, that is not supported by contemporary sources, and that secular scholarship does not even bother with. He has been fighting my attempts to add neutrality to his additions (instead of removing them wholesale). We have not been discussing it in the article's talk page, but on his talk page instead.

His actions include:
 * Downplaying mainstream scholarship
 * Continuing to downplay mainstream scholarship, pointing out a potential bias in Roman Catholic sources while bringing in a source that has a Protestant and Anti-Catholic bias (the Dr Wylie quoted also wrote a book accusing the Papacy of being the Antichrist)
 * Attempting to place more legitimacy on a pre-Waldo scholar by eliminating the similarity between the two scholars. He also states on his talk page that the edit was meant to show that "there isn't consensus within the Waldensians regarding their origins," which smacks of WP:OR.
 * Here and here he attempts to cover up Wylie's academic misdoings (quoting a later source, but naming an earlier one before getting to the actual quote), at one point marking it as minor.
 * Continues to read his own interpretation into Reynerius's words, puts the word "Waldensian" into the mouths of a Council that did not utter the name.

I have tried to explain repeatedly that information in the articles should be proportionate to reliable sources, and that neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to non-mainstream claims. I have tried to point out that he is reading his own POV into Reynerius's words "a long time." I have tried to point out that the sources he's been using are biased. He still wants the article to treat the pre-Waldo origin claim as equal, when the sources are:
 * Pro-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - Their consensus is that they started with Waldo. It would be to the Waldensians' ecumenical-political advantage to be older than Waldo, but they by-and-large still go with Waldo as their origin.  That alone speaks strongly.
 * Pre-Waldo Waldensian scholarship - So far, a single reformation-influenced Waldensian whose view is cancelled out by his father.
 * RC scholarship - Vidim thinks they have an agenda, fine. However, their sources are still contemporary, and they don't mention the Waldensians until after Peter Waldo.
 * Pre-Waldo Protestant scholarship - The ones that push for a Pre-Waldo date have their own agenda, and they do not have contemporary sources. Also, this only represents a select portion of protestantism.
 * Secular scholarship - No agenda regarding who has apostolic succession or not, they say the Waldensians started with Waldo.

I think part of the problem is that there are no other editors involved, so he is OK with dismissing just me as having some sort of "lack of neutrality in any argument about Waldensian antiquity," even though he initially admits that his edits may have been biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian mysticism
It seems that one or several evangelical Christians have been busily rewriting this article to conform with their own religious beliefs, as well as creating articles like Pauline mysticism and Evangelical mysticism, that also are meant, not to give objective information, but to ensure that Wikipedia confirms the beliefs of their particular church. There's a lot of stuff there, and some of it goes beyond my own knowledge... anyone interested in theology and in taking a look at this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the burrito
The article Timeline of the burrito has many WP issues from my perspective. Dispite initial cooporation offered by another editor Talk:Timeline of the burrito, that editor has since engaged in protectionism of all content within the article. Plenty of time was offered between conversation and the resulting good-faith edits to remove unencyclopedic material. Dispite this, the editor is now engaged a reverting edit war. WP:3RR does not directly apply because this article gets so little activity that reverts occur over a week rather than a day. I am hoping for fresh eyes to review Timeline of the burrito, especially since there is an attempt to merge this with the main burrito article. I fear the edit war will move over to that more significant article if this is not addressed now. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the article entries look like burrito-related trivia rather than encyclopedic content, violating WP:IINFO . I think it would help to have well-defined inclusion criteria for the list indicating what type of events are worth including and what type of sourcing is necessary. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we really need a "Timeline of the burrito" article that is completely separate from Burrito? Isn't the history a food usually included in the article on that food? I think that the very idea of a separate timeline article is flawed. --Habap (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronz and Habap: User:Fcsuper has completely ignored the discussion on the talk page, and I would encourage you both to review it. The user has in three separate instances, asked a question about a particular aspect of the timeline, received an answer, and then ignored the answers, claiming that his questions are being ignored.  The user has also continued to unilaterally edit the article while disruptively tagging after the points in dispute have already been discussed.  The merge discussion has been proceeding in harmony while Fcsuper has been engaging in reverts and tagging.  This noticeboard report is good, but it is essentially ignoring the discussion that is already on the talk page.  The user has obsessively and repeatedly tried to remove sourced data while at the same time refusing to look at the actual sources or do the slightest amount of research on the topic.  I agree with Ronz that some aspects of this timeline have become trivial over the years, which is why I have recommended the merge into history section of Burrito so that the most important aspects of the food history of the burrito can be represented in prose form.  In other words, we don't need the list as much as we need a well written history of the burrito section in the burrito article, which this list supplements in part.  This is why I initiated the merge discussion, a discussion that Fcsuper has tried to disrupt.  In what can only be described as obsessive and disruptive, Fcsuper has again ignored the answers given to him about the content on the talk page, and has again started an entirely new discussion by copying and pasting the questions he has already asked and received answers into another new talk page thread.  Fcsuper is engaging in tendentious editing on the talk page, asking the same question over and again and ignoring the answers because he doesn't like them.  At least two other users, User:Dohn joe and User:Archolman have agreed with the merge.  Dohn Joe has agreed to do some research and add academic sources, while User:Archolman has commented about the merge, "Who could object to something as obviously sensible as this?"  The problem, therefore, is not other editors or the content, but Fcsuper.  As a result, this thread should probably be elevated/duplicated on ANI. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Since Fcsuper is unable to contribute to a calm discussion about the topic on the talk page or to the merge discussion, I'm currently in the process merging the content into the burrito article. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are clear content problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged the specific problem you raised with trivia here on this page, in my above response. I've also acknowledged it on the talk page, where I agree that currently, at least four trivial items should be removed. You are welcome to look at the talk page discussion, where Fcsuper refuses to acknowledge answers to questions about the content, and continues to ask the same question over and again about items we've already discussed.  You are also welcome to look at my recent merges of selected content into the burrito article.  However, I fail to see how this is a topic for the NPOV noticeboard.  If you feel that there are NPOV issues that need to be addressed, please raise them. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the content problems fall into issues of WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to review the article and discussion and point out specific examples. When Fcsuper has raised those issues on the talk page in the past, he has failed to respond, instead opting to repeat the same questions over and over again.  I am open and willing to leave out any egregious examples from either the timeline or the proposed merge (which I am implementing over the next few days).  It would be refreshing to discuss this with someone who is willing to look at it. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did look at the article and my immediate reaction was that it was a bunch of worthless information that doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia and, while fcsuper is behaving badly, part of the problem will go away after you merge the few useful parts of the article into Burrito itself. I agree that it is not a NPOV issue. It belongs on ANI or some other aspect of dispute resolution.
 * In my very short experience in looking at this NPOV page, any input from outside parties is unusual, so better that you not try to bite the heads off those who do happen to take a look and provide some kind of comment. --Habap (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it belongs on ANI, and I'm in the process of drafting a report. Looking at the article, we see that the topic has been covered by at least four different scholars, (Daniel D. Arreola, Emory Dean Keoke & Kay Marie Porterfield, and notable food historian Andrew F. Smith) and many additional reliable sources.  We also see that this topic covers a lot of ground, from the food history of the intersection between Aztec cuisine and Mexican cuisine, to the culture of the Southern United States and the culture of San Francisco, to the history of food companies and restaurants, menu engineering and even competitive eating. While we are all entitled to our opinions, I admit I was surprised to find your strongly worded comment about the article being "a bunch of worthless information that doesn't deserve to be in an encyclopedia".  I don't believe I've ever encountered that strong of an opinion about a related topic before, and I'm curious where it could possibly come from.   I am also curious how this kind of information could in any way be considered "worthless" given its unique importance and contribution to the interdisciplinary nature of food studies.  It is one thing to edit from ignorance, but quite another to promote it. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me point out the information I would find as "worth merging". The 16th and 19th century sections, though they ought to be rewritten, provide valuable information. The entry for 1961, on the first retail burrito, should be kept. Maybe the 1982 note on the different sauces, though it might better be merged into a new section of the Burrito article on sauces. Finally, the 2002 entry on Arreola's book is interesting. Most of the rest of the article is trivia or already included in the main article. As such, most of this article is not encyclopedic. Do you really think the trivia supplied in the 21st century section contributes "to the interdisciplinary nature of food studies"? It is one thing to provide quality information and yet another to simply provide quantity. --Habap (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the article, is in fact, encyclopedic, with trivial additions making up a very small part. The information about restaurants and dishes, manufacturing and popularity, is important, and covered by reliable sources on the topic of burritos and their history.  Feel free to look at the references in the burrito and San Francisco burrito article if you have questions. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Habap's "worth merging" assement of the content of the article. I think that is an excellent starting point to form a proposal for the merged material. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, are the dates on which restuarants opened really that notable? I'm not a Californian and have only been to a few places in Mexico, so I have no idea if any of them are important. For example, I consider the 1973 entry "La Taqueria opens in SF" to be trivia because there is no explanation of why this matters. There are, I think, six entries that are equally uninformative as to the importance of the restuarant opening. --Habap (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Givati Brigade
Editors are claiming undue weight over inclusion of convictions for abuse by two members of this military unit. There is world-wide coverage in reliable sources (Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, BBC, Vancouver Sun, Bloomberg) and several previous acquittals of members are noted in the article. Convictions for such abuse are rare enough that it seems worth including. Is this removal appropriate?--Misarxist 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are at least two discussion at ARE about ongoing efforts to prevent any mention of this incident:, . It would be helpful if other editors could comment at Talk:Givati Brigade and Talk:Gaza War. RolandR (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag at Mass killings under Communist regimes
I'd like to get the NPOV tag at MKUCR removed as it seems to be used there as a "badge of shame." Some editors do not like the article's contents, but really don't have anything to add to the article. Rather they want to remove certain points of view, e.g. that the mass killings of something like 100 million people were related to the Communism of the regimes that killed them. As I understand WP:NPOV it is about making sure that all non-fringe documented points of view on a topic are included, NOT that points of view should be removed if some editors don't like them.

I've asked for well over a month for folks to come forward with POVs that they think have been excluded, and only 1 editor has done so. That POV is essentially that comparisons of Nazi and Communist mass killings are essentially anti-Semitic. It seems a bit off-point and fringe, but I've invited him to include it in the article.

The main point of contention is that sources such as the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press, and many other scholarly works do make a connection between Communism and the mass killings, as well as many more popular and/or political sources such as the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Several editors do not like the views expressed by these sources and thus insist that the NPOV tag be kept - this is a complete inversion of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Note that several editors have made a point of trying to get this article deleted; there have been about 6 requests for deletion over the last 18 months, and they have failed every time. The NPOV tag should not be used as a substitute for deletion or a mark of "I don't like this article"! Smallbones (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV tags are generally "IDONTLIKEIT" tags - but the drama in forcing removal is generally not worth it. And the AfDers are likely about ready to nom it once more .   Alas. Collect (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't tag this, and have never read it before, but the sections from Controversies on down seem to have POV issues. That section in particular is a collection of POV forks only vaguely rebutted by the "famines as mass killings" section. For example, Great Leap Forward addresses several alternate readings of the mass death in the period other than Dikotter's. A systematic attempt at NPOV could fix this section.
 * For some summary material on Western colonialism's deaths see Mike Davis' Late Colonial Holocausts. The "capitalism/colonialism deaths are nowhere near the Red Holocaust" claim seems to fly in the face of that source and other several tallies of colonial deaths (and is difficult to understand because no attempt to tabulate the deaths described on this page, or deaths due to communist regimes is made). Ditto the Shoah to Red Holocaust comparison, which should be replaced by a Nazi/Soviet comparison (apples to apples, please). For general comparative genocide statistics, you might also consider The History and Sociology of Genocide by Chalk and Jonassohn.
 * Also, I don't understand this self limitation in the theory section: "Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel, that propose communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings have attracted scholarly dispute; this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories."
 * Overall, an noteworthy subject that should have an article. However, that is not a reason to cut the tag until its POV issues are addressed.--Carwil (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, a list of things to work on! As I read this, you're saying there are not major problems in the top half of the article and in the bottom half things should be integrated better so that different sections are not in effect saying different things.  The self-limitation "this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories," seems to come from the deletionist group who seems to want every source to be proved to be part of the "academic consensus." I think that's a hurdle not intended by WP:RS or WP:NPOV and is simply too high for any reasonable article to be written on any subject. The capitalist/colonialist comparison has been a very minor part of the article, and the nazi vs. communist comparison has been a source of conflict, but if you think there are good sources for these comparison we can include it easily (but I hope briefly).
 * I'll ask anybody who has experience in editing controversial articles like this, and who enjoys a challenge, to step up to the plate and help put this article in order. Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a newish user, but longtime reader, I like the tag for a number of reasons. #1, it doesn't pretend that all editors agree with/accept everything in the article; and if that's the case it is proper that it is noted.  #2 It points a reader to the talk page, which allows an interested person read what the concerns are, and come with, or come to, his or her own conclusions. #3) The issues in contention may spur a reader to become a contributor, and that can be a good thing, enlarging the Wikipedia and improving it. Fresh blood is always good, no pun(s) intended! (The POV citation for a particular section citation can be useful as well, though I can't remember how to do it.) Snakeswithfeet (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath of World War II - Operation Dropshot
In the article, Aftermath of World War II, Communicat has inserted a paragraph in the Post-war tensions section of the article on Operation Dropshot. Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan devised in the United States for the atomic/high-explosive bombing and invasion of the Soviet Union. It is my opinion that the detailed nature of the information provided in the Aftermath article gives an inaccurate impression that the United States was actually preparing to conduct the operation. Communicat's favored text was modified in this edit. I really don't think it belongs in the article at all.

We have attempted to resolve our differences on the talk page, though now he is talking of adding me to expanding list of users he wishes to include in his quest for arbitration without seeking any intermediate steps. 

So, I'm hoping to find some neutral parties who can review the section in question, at least. Thanks in advance. --Habap (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur with Habap, but that is is far from the only section of the article with NPOV problems, as I recently pointed out on the article's talk page. Review of the entire article by neutral parties would be greatly appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My edit in question was not intended to lead anyone to believe or disbelieve that Operation Dropshot would or would not actually have been carried out. I have cited a reliable source that says clearly it was a "plan" and a date was put on the plan, the date being the anticipated date of war breaking out with the Soviet Union. If the filing party or his accomplice have any problem with that, they should either take it up with the author of the cited work Dropshot: The US plan for war on the Soviet Union in 1957, or they should contribute text and reliable ref indicating the plan would not actually have been carried out. The filing party's personal opinion is quite irrelevant as to whether or not the plan would actually have been carried out. A further and accompanying reliable source that I cited, asserts that the plan was abandoned after the Soviet Union developed its own A-bomb, which would have resulted in unacceptable American casualites had the Dropshot plan been executed.
 * The filing party and his accomplice have over a long period time not contributed any text or ref whatsoever to the article in question. It is worth noting that certain editors at the military history project, including especially the two above, habitually raise the evocation of "pro-Soviet POV" each and every time historical fact presents them with something they find patriotically embarassing. It's regretable and unacceptable that anything not overtly pro-American should automaticaly and misguidedly be construed by them as anti-American and/or "pro-Soviet". They appear to support Bush's phrase: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Which is a load of crap, and it has no rightful place in any NPOV article. Communicat (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but I think we have evidence that the plan would not have been carried out, we are still here. The date was the date the Americans expected the Soviets to try and take over Western Europe (and other areas). It was a contingency plan to respond to such an attack.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat, if I've habitually cried out against "pro-Soviet POV", it should be easy for you to find dozens of diffs showing it. Please do so. Please also check out contingency plan, since you appear not to understand the concept. --Habap (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat, before anything else, please strike the accusation of "accomplice", as it is an accusation of WP:meatpuppetry and does you no favours in the eyes of other editors. To the matter in hand, the book you cite (Dropshot: The US plan for war on the Soviet Union in 1957) appears to be a primary, not a secondary source, being authored by the US military rather than an independent analyst. As such, you cannot draw too strong a conclusion from it - in terms of how seriously it was taken, or how it should be interpreted. On the overall matter, I have to agree that implying dropshot was a distinct possibility seems unfounded. A quick look at the university imprint secondary literature on google suggests to me it was a contingency plan based upon a strong belief in the possibility of conflict with the Soviet Union, rather than a plan that would have been carried out had the Soviets not developed nuclear weapons of their own. For example, This text (U of Missouri) says it was never adopted as policy. It doesn't get that much coverage in books on post war tensions; to suggest or hint that it was a central part of US policy (rather than an interesting manifestation of US thinking) seems UNDUE. Sources generally say that the plan itself became unfeasible when the Soviets developed their own nuclear weaponry, but that is not the same as saying or implying that were it not for Soviet nuclear weaponry, the US would have come close to invading.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * According to my dictionary (The New Penguin English Dictionary, 2000) the word "accomplice" is defined as "someone who collaborates with another".
 * The book that I've cited is a secondary source, not a primary source, and the name of the author as stated is one Anthony Cave Brown. If it was a primary source it would be attributed to Department of Defense or similar. My text states clearly that it was a contingency plan. Mention of it in the article section "Post-war tensions" was done to convey the ethos of the Aftermath of WW2, in which the plan was formulated. Given the above comments emphasising the apparently harmless "contingency" nature of the plan, and the unlikelihood of it ever being implemented, it seemd odd that the plan was subsequently classified secret for the next 30 years. The plan was later adopted in modified form as offcial policy by Pres Eisenhower, viz., when it became known as the strategy of "Massive retaliation", as attributed to two reliable sources provided by me in the article. The Dropshot plan was abandoned when the Soviets produced their own nuclear weapon, and that is also attributed to a reliable source. I am not saying or implying anything. I am citing reliable referenced works, and if there are reliable referenced works stating the opposite, then you are free to include them for parity of sources.
 * I guarantee that if this article was openly anti-Soviet it would be tolerated, encouraged even, in compliance with the prevailing double-standards at milhist project. I can provide many examples, but for sake of brevity at this time, just take a look at existing wiki Soviet propaganda article which has been in existence for a long time without hinder, even though it breaks all NPOV and sourcing rules. It relies on a self-published source (disallowed by the rules), it wrongly describes CIA-defector Phillip Agee as "a historian", and it is otherwise riddled with inaccuracies and absence of reliable sourcing. But that's evidently quite acceptable by certain editors, just so long as it's anti-Soviet.
 * Or consider the "Social effects" section of the Effects of World War II article, (now reworked and merged into Aftermath of World War II)which had existed in a anti-Soviet biased condition for a long time before anyone (i.e. myself) did anything about it. It claims: According to historian Antony Beevor, amongst others, in his book Berlin - The Downfall 1945 the advancing Red Army had left a massive trail of raped women and girls of all ages behind them. Between several tens of thousands to more than 2,000,000 were victims of rape, often repeatedly. This is not properly referenced with name of publisher, publication date, or page number etc. The words "among others" have no sources whatsoever. But, the moment reliable figures are cited by me to the effect that 14,000 rapes were also committed by American GI's, the relevant section is suddenly objected to by Edward321 as "inappropriate". The bias and hypocrisy is clear and present, and it speaks for itself. Communicat (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I never used the term "inappropriate" when discussing the problem of undue weight in the article. I did try to address the concerns about Operation Dropshot a few weeks ago. In response, Communicat blind reverted me and filed a RfAr against me. Edward321 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Communicat, could you please directly quote from Ambrose stating that "The Dropshot plan was abandoned when the Soviets produced their own nuclear weapon." My recollection of the source is that Ambrose states that at no point after 1950 could the Americans have used nuclear weapons against the Soviets without unacceptable risk. The key point here is whether he states that Dropshot itself was abandoned or just that the risk of action was too great, as you're hanging your hat on Ambrose identifying the cancellation of Dropshot being directly caused by RDS-1]. I don't Ambrose ever mentions Dropshot, so you may be performing [[WP:OR. --Habap (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Edward321 above comment about rapes: the verbatim words you used were "I am not at all sure this is the correct article to address the topic." In other words you mean the topic is "inappropriate", which it is not, nor was it "inappropriate" in your view when it referred only to rapes allegedly committed by Red Army soldiers. I repeat, your bias is palpable. The RfAr was filed against you because of your persistent stalking and hounding of me from one project to another, projects upon which you'd never previously not worked on at all, and then engaging in edit warring by reverting my edits without discussion other than brief remarks in the edit summaries, which is disallowed.
 * Re Habap above: If my text re Ambrose crosses the line into original research, then I shall be happy to rework the relevant text accordingly. Other than that, I retract nothing that I've stated above, and I await your responses to the key issues at hand. Namely, your alleged pro-American/anti-communist bias, as also the same bias exhibited by Edward321 and a few other milhist editors, which is what this dispute is really about. Communicat (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS to Edward321 re Rapes/social effects which you objected to as allegedly not being in the "correct article to address the topic": You raised no objections to that previously, when the Effects of World War II merge discussion was underway, and the topic was merged by consensus, along with other topics. Only after reliable reference to GI rapes was added by me did you suddenly (but predictably) find it's "not the correct article to address the topic." Communicat (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You state that I am "pro-American/anti-communist bias". If it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard for you to show an obvious pattern. I am innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until I clear my name.
 * You seemed very certain that Ambrose was a reliable source that supported your assertion that Dropshot was abandoned because the Soviets got the bomb. Are you saying you haven't read Ambrose either? It seems that very often, when one of your sources is questioned, it turns out that you haven't read it. This makes taking your word on what any source has to say a risky endeavor. --Habap (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had the grace to concede above: If my text re Ambrose crosses the line into original research, then I shall be happy to rework the relevant text accordingly. The text does conceivably cross the line. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I shall be happy to rework that very brief text accordingly. It's not the end of the world. The article is a Start Class article, which automatically implies that it is a work in progress. Regretably, "progress" has been continuously disrupted by you, You fail to provide concrete text and reliable refs in favour of promoting your own personal views and opinions. I am tempted to seek an interaction ban against you. Consider this a warning.
 * As regards the alleged pro-American/anti-Soviet bias, see: your recent posting together with posting of 18 Aug 2010 at WW2 discussion re link to truth-hertz.net, in which, after disruptively reviving a WP:DEADHORSE issue, you attempted simplisticly to discredit me on the basis that the subject of an (by then already deleted) external link earlier provided by me had been favourably reviewed by a mass-circulation British communist newspaper. Your implied meaning was that the link was therefore "pro-Soviet" and hence not allowed by rules of NPOV. Your remark was negated by another, more objective editor. Communicat (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Two posts indicate a bias? Seriously, you must be able to find more, or at least something more damning than me noting that the Morning Star is published by, and using the editorial stance of, the Communist Party of Britain. I leave the interpretation of whether the statement of fact indicates bias to our readers here."The review in the Morning Star is far more accurately portrayed by the quotation provided 'If this unnervingly convincing analysis is correct, beware hydra-headed fascism.' That paper was originally the product of the Communist Party of Great Britain and now says that the programme of the Communist Party of Britain underlies the paper's editorial stance. --Habap (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)"Or is it that disagreeing with you indicates bias? --Habap (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Examples of bias through omission on the part of filing party Habap: He will recall that I initiated a long discussion at World War II talk page concerning dubiously sourced text referring “brutal dictatorship” in N. Korea. I pointed out that the attributed “brutal dictatorship” source was disallowed by wiki's sourcing rules, and with the assistance of reliable citations I also pointed out that brutality was common also in US-backed S. Korea which, of course, was studiously not mentioned in the POV-biased article. It was then agreed by consensus that the “brutal N. Korea” text and reference should be deleted, which Habap undertook to do. Naturally, he failed to do so. I eventually did so on his behalf.


 * Other long-winded discussion that I initiated was in relation to the fact that the WW2 article relies on nearly 400 references derived solely from orthodox Western sources, to the exclusion of any non-Western or significant-minority Western-position sources. This is a clear infringement of WP:NPOV. Habap undertook to provide reliable non-Western sources, in order for referencing to be brought into compliance with the rules. He failed to honour his undertaking. The article remains heavily biased through omission.


 * I shall be pleased to provide diffs substantiating the above, should Habap challenge these examples of POV bias through omission on his part. The question of POV bias at milhist project, at mentioned above, was the subject of a request by me to the mediation committee. Mediation was rejected by the committee because Nick-D, a main party involved, refused to consent to mediation. The dispute remains unresolved. It is ironic, to put it mildly, that Habap should now be alleging POV bias on my part. Communicat (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Habap's abovementioned reference to the Morning Star was specifically in the context of discrediting me for providing a source that had been favourably reviewed by that newspaper. In other words, he implied that the source was unreliable simply because a communist newspaper had reviewed it favourably. (Various non-communist publications had also reviewed it favourably). Communicat (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm not going to further dignify your provocative remarks with a thoughtful response. The only reason I'm here in the first place is because Arbcom specifically instructed me to participate in Rfc before considering any re-submission of my request for arbitration. Communicat (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you forget that on the 22nd of August, you'd already admonished me for editing without allowing the arbitration process to complete. Odd that I am fault when I make changes and also at fault when I favor a change, but await consensus before making it. "Bias through omission" has to be one of the more inventive arguments I've read in a while.
 * Interesting to see that you're only going through the motions here in order to get back to arbitration instead of discussing the actual issue, which is not whether I am biased, but whether detailed information on the contingency plan, Operation Dropshot, belongs in an article covering the the Aftermath of World War II. --Habap (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to this discussion, I have blocked Communicat for 1 week for a personal attack on another user on that article talk page. This is the third personal attack block for Communicat in the last 10 weeks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that Communicat resorts to personal attacks too frequently. I hope the one week break will allow the passions to settle. Let me point out, however, that, although Communicat's behaviour and his edits are far from perfect, the discussions he initiates eventually lead to improvement of the articles he works with. Going back to the initial issue, the only my objection to the Dropshot story is that it is not true that the idea of massive atomic pre-emptive strike against the USSR was abandoned in 1947. For instance, in his article "American Atomic Strategy and the Hydrogen Bomb Decision" (The Journal of American History, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jun., 1979), pp. 62-87) David Alan Rosenberg writes:


 * "...Truman himself initiated a process that would finalize American dependence on the atomic air offensive. Concerned about spiraling inflation, he announced on May 13, 1948, that he was placing a $14.4 billion ceiling on the Fiscal Year 1950 defense budget. During the next eight months, despite military protests, he refused to raise the limit he had imposed. The JCS estimated that a budget of $21-23 billion, or even a compromise of $16.9 billion, would allow the United States to maintain adequate conventional forces to retain some foothold in Europe as well as to carry out naval operations in all or part of the Mediterranean in the event of war. They feared that the $14.4 billion budget would result in the total loss of Western Europe; conventional forces would have to be cut back so far, the JCS argued, that the only offensive operation the United States could undertake to meet an emergency would be an atomic air offensive from the British Isles and the Cairo-Suez area. The president's continuing refusal to budget adequate conventional alternatives thus made the United States virtually dependent on the atomic bomb.
 * By fall 1948 many air force planners had come to believe that the atomic air offensive would be adequate to achieve victory. LeMay, who assumed command of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) in October 1948, immediately set to work preparing a feasible strategic plan for atomic operations against the Soviet Union. His plan, SAC Emergency War Plan 1-49, called for SAC "to increase its capability to such an extent that it would be possible to deliver the entire stockpile of atomic bombs, if made available, in a single massive attack." When combined with JCS targeting requirements, as spelled out in war plan "Trojan," the SAC plan entailed strikes on seventy Soviet urban target areas with 133 atomic bombs within thirty days.34"
 * (the ref 34 in this article is: ''34 Thomas S. Power to chief of staff, U.S. Air Force, April 1, 1950, OPD 381 SAC (23 March 1949), TS, section 2, Papers of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. For bomb numbers and targets, see JCS 1952/11, Feb. 10, 1950, Weapons Systems Evaluation Group Report 1, CCS 373 (10-23-48), section 6, Bulky Package, and JCS 1823/14, May 27, 1949, CCS 471.6 (8-15-45), section 15, Papers of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. See also Anthony Cave Brown, ed., Dropshot: The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957 (New York, 1978), 6.)

In other words, the decision to build the grand strategy based on the atomic weapon was a long term strategic decision, which was dictated by the fact that as a result of WWII the USA could not compete with Soviet land forces in Europe. Therefore, both Dropshot and the story about the US turn to the atomic weapon as a primary tool of its military strategy has a direct relation to this article. Consequently, we have to concede the Communicat's point (although not necessarily his behaviour) was generally correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The immediate post-war US paradigm shift from an emphasis on conventional warfare to nuclear strategy should be included in any serious article on the World War II aftermath. The Joint Chiefs of Staff plan known as Dropshot was based on flawed assumptions and false predictions of Soviet aggression in Europe. That it was never carried out does not in any way detract from the historical fact of its existence. As such, it merits inclusion in the article.
 * Communicat appears to have been blocked for a very minor and possibly unintentional infringement, the effect of which has been to prevent Communicat from defending his position here. This is unfortunate, because the blocking conveys an impression of authoritarianism and rank buffoonery. 196.210.181.54 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC) — 196.210.181.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And another SPA IP comes out of nowhere to defend Communicat. Paul Siebert, clearly acting in good faith, has missed the point. Operation Dropshot was not a planned a pre-emptive strike, it was a theoretical retaliatory strike, as references clearly show. Attempt to correct this error made by Communicat was met with blind reversion and filing of an RfAr against me for attempting the correction. The quote that Paul lists does not establish whether later plans were for pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes. Edward321 (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I would now agree to discussion of the shift from conventional defense of continental Europe to a nuclear deterrent and a mention of Dropshot, I don't think that a detailed discussion of one contingency plan does anything to explain that shift. Communicat's leads the reader to believe that the US planned on using nukes and invading Russia on a specific date that was only thwarted when the Soviets developed their own nuke. Nice to see other South Africans springing to Communicat's defense, even if it has to be anonymously. --Habap (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I missed the point. I never stated that I fully support the Communicat wording. However, this, as well as other sources clearly states that the US strategic doctrine shifter to the use of pre-emptive nuclear strike (in particular as a response to the Soviet attack in Europe by conventional forces). Therefore this fact does belong to this article. I can provide other quotes if it is needed.
 * Let me re-iterate my earlier thesis. Communicat is not the most convenient editor do deal with, however, he gave a start to a useful discussion (as he already did before). Although his point about planned American invasion of the USSR was an exaggeration, the idea that the US built their military doctrine on the use of pre-emptive nuclear strike can hardly be disputed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI - another administrator reviewing the IP above's contribution determined Communicat was evading his block, and re-blocked him for block evasion.
 * Communicat, I assume you're watching this. Paul is making a good point, and one I have been attempting to work with you on with the RFC - you are introducing useful new perspectives.  These are not being rejected out of hand, though some other editors seem to be in a mode of mutual confrontation now.  But your behavioral problems - attacking people inappropriately, and now the rather blatantly obvious sockpuppetry - are on the edge of making it impossible for you to continue contributing to Wikipedia.  Those need to stop.  Please work within our community values and social and behavioral expectations here, so that you can continue contributing.  I will work with you in good faith on the RFC when your block ends to help with this.  But you need to be willing to participate fairly as well.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Georgewilliamherbert and Paul are engaging in wishful thinking. While Communicat is providing a new perspective, it is a perspective that the Guardian describes as "the extreme edge of revisionism" and the "sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name".


 * GWH: You obviously have strong feelings about WP:NPA. The above unsigned posting by Edward321 constitutes a personal attack. It is also the latest in a succession of resurrections of a WP:DEADHORSE issue. Moreover, it is an issue that was dealt with and dismissed by the adjudicator of the COI noticeboard where Edward321 earlier and unsuccessfuly attempted to bring a case against me. I'd be much obliged if you could demonstrate your impartiality by warning and/or blocking Edward321, just as you have done to me in the recent past.


 * Separately, and to return to what is supposed to be the subject of this Rfc, namely Operation Dropshot: WP:VERIFY states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The published source Anthony Cave Brown is a reputable author/historian. The source is verifiable as given in the reference. The source is a secondary source, since it includes the author's comments and analysis of the primary document to which it relates. On this basis, the source conforms in all major particulars with the rule of WP:VERIFY.


 * Further, I fully support Paul Siebert's contribution above. It is obviously intended as a contribution towards improving the Aftermath article. The first-stike issue that he raises with reliable refs should be seriously considered for inclusion in the article, and not simply be disparaged and dismissed out of hand, as it has been by those apparently opposed to neutral and accurate improvement of the article.


 * It would be helpful if involved parties could stop obscuring, digressing and/or ambiguating the subject of this discussion, namely NPOV/Dropshot.  Communicat (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Nobel Peace Prize
I'm admittedly forum shopping here, as we are not getting a very satisfactory level of response through the usual channels: There being little other talk page activity, I solicited a response from WP:3O in the hopes that it could be resolved that way. However, the editor I am having a disagreement with seems to still dispute the change even after the 3O intervention. I think it is because xhe genuinely believes it warrants inclusion, and that 2:1 does not constitute a very strong consensus, so I'm bringing it here.

The issue at stake is whether the 'Cyber warfare attacks' section which I have restored to the current version belongs in the article. My view is that the connection between this incident and this year's prize is too tenuous, and was only reported in the article in this way because of its topicality and for no other reason. There are no news articles I am aware of which are making a connection between the cyber attacks and the nomination of Liu Xiaobo. Inclusion of this section would tend to suggest that the attacks and the recipient of the prize were related. The other party believes that "[t]he presumed connection to the Nobel Peace Prize for this year is clearly made in all the articles used to reference the 'cyber warfare' section," and thus should remain in its entirety. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't have more to offer than a bit of feedback about this post: I would suggest not starting with "admittedly forum shopping" since that immediately discounts your argument and may cause editors here to move along without looking further into it -- e.g. I almost didn't even reply to say as much. It sounds more like you've tried one other channel aside from the talkpage and it didn't help much. - PrBeacon (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview of the territorial dispute in Gibraltar
We are discussing about the most neutral wording for a summary of the territorial dispute around Gibraltar (mainly around the isthmus and the territorial waters) in the overview article about Gibraltar. Which of the following two texts do you thing is more neutral?

or

Thanks! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC) PS: I've slightly reworded the second version as per the suggestion of one editor (customary law should be included). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see WP:NPOV issues with either of these versions. Is there a specific complaint about something that one of these versions says? NickCT (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. About the complaints:
 * one user has said that the second version is unacceptable, non-neutral, completely inappropriate, utterly partisan and factually incorrect because Britain doesn't claim sovereignty -he says it has de jure sovereignty-, and the text makes judgment on merits of claims.
 * one other user prefers the second version because -he says- it only briefly describes Spain's and Britain's positions and their arguments, while the first one compares the Spanish position versus the British (e.g. "interprets more restrictively", "does not recognise any right"), and -he says- it wrongly assumes that the different interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht is one of the key points.
 * Thank you again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Declaring my involvement (though I am not one of the two editors Imalbornoz quotes), the thrust of the first argument is that "[t]he UK... claims the territorial waters" may imply a lack of control, whereas Britain in fact has full control over the waters in question. I don't think the quotes Imalbornoz provides fairly or reasonably represents this.  I would also note that the comments made have discussed several different versions of the above - shoot, the current version is not even mentioned on talk. Pfainuk talk 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is really out of order, if Pfainuk hadn't alerted the Talk Page this would have been completely unknown. It isn't like he is unaware that he should alert other editors, I recently posted a question here on a related topic and at least I had the courtesy to let everyone know.  Its not even like this is the current proposal, he's presenting text from days ago.  This is forum shopping not a serious attempt to get a neutral view.
 * He has also conveniently omitted to miss out the detail that the Government of Gibraltar has requested the dispute is referrred to the ICJ, an option repeatedly refused by the Spanish Government. Justin talk 21:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any legitimate dispute that those two statements are factually correct? I don't see any problems with the neutrality of either one of those. Wikipedia is not a place to play politics and the article should never make any insinuation about which side is right.  Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the post above. Firstly the above content suggestions above were not the texts under discussion, the post here was misleading. Imalbornoz also omitted to inform this board of the issue related to the Government of Gibraltar's request to refer the dispute to the ICJ and the Spanish refusal - the International Court of Justice is the only UN body capable of delivering a definitive legal judgement on the dispute. I suggest it should be mentioned as Spain refused, Imalbornoz says we shouldn't as the ICJ hasn't delivered an opinion, which it hasn't because Spain refuses.

So I suppose a better question for outside consideration would be should the article mention the GoG request for an ICJ resolution of the sovereignty dispute and the Spanish refusal? Suggested text:

I think it is a neutral description but would welcome outside comment - note the request for external input. Thank you for your consideration. Justin talk 13:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A fourth option has been added, trying to be as symmetric as possible to the first and third options (in order to give some perspective):


 * Which of the four options do you think is more neutral? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to Voiceofreason01, yes. Spain's position is that Britain holds sovereignty over the town, castle and port of Gibraltar, along with their defences and fortifications - and nothing else. The statement that "Spain only accepts British sovereignty within the limits of the Rock" is thus inaccurate.

There is also an argument that this and other points are far too much detail for a three-paragraph summary of the entire dispute, and that the section is at risk of being diverted into WP:COATRACK territory where every single point made by either side has to be recognised (bearing in mind that we do already have two articles on the dispute, and this isn't one of them).

I would also argue that it is biased to present the legal dispute as the EU and Spain trying to fend off judicial persecution by the evil Gibraltarians, as Imalbornoz is now proposing. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think that "the Rock and its port" cover quite accurately the "town, the castle and port of Gibraltar along with their defences and fortifications", but I am ready to accept a change to satisfy Pfainuk's objection.
 * Regarding the EC ruling (and the defence against the challenge by Gibraltar): it at least is a ruling by an international body with some jurisdiction over certain matters in Spain and the UK, whereas the text about the ICJ is just the Gvt of Gibraltar expressing some wishes. It could be moved to a more detailed article if Pfainuk thinks it is too much detail (together with the GoG declaration mentioning the ICJ). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You feel that presenting the Spain and European Commission as the poor innocent victims of judicial persecution by Gibraltar is unbiased because both the UK and Spain are members of the EU? No.  It isn't. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the text presents anyone as a victim, it just mentions an episode that is relevant to the dispute (the European Commission ruled that the majority of the territory that Gibraltar and Britain consider territorial waters should be managed by Spain's environmental authorities; Gibraltar asked Britain to challenge that decision; the EC decided to defend its decision; and Spain decided it will help the CE).
 * Therefore, I don't think that the wording is biased, or that the issue is not relevant.
 * I think that it may be biased because it only mentions one episode that is not fundamental for the dispute and it gives no chance to mention other (probably equally anecdotal) episodes that support other POVs. If an episode is not fundamental and it supports only one POV, it may result in a biased text. BTW, I believe that Gibraltar Chief Minister's request (in an interview in TV, I think) for Spain to start a case about territorial waters in the International Court of Justice is even more anecdotal than this decision by the EC, and therefore it should not be mentioned in this overview article. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Then I imagine that you would consider:


 * Britain is helping Gibraltar fend off a long-standing Spanish demand that the territory be handed back to Spain despite the opposition of over 98% of Gibraltarians.


 * to be equally neutral as the only explanation of the dispute in an article? It is, after all, as neutral and as accurate as what you're proposing.


 * That said, this is a side-show. Justin has said he won't push the ICJ, and you've said you won't push the EC.  The question at this stage is as to what exactly your objection to the first sentence of Justin's proposal is.  Could you tell us please? Pfainuk talk 18:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree: both the ICJ and the EC decission should be metioned in a more detailed article instead of the overview article (as I said before). Regarding the text you propose, I think that it isn't a very neutral explanation of the sovereignty dispute (i.e. you wouldn't accept a reverse of the wording: "Spain is fending off (...)").
 * I think that first we must agree that a neutral text must not assume that one side has more "legal" right of sovereignty than the other (no matter what any editor thinks). If you agree on this point, I am sure that we can reach consensus. Do you? In that case, let's think up a text on which we would agree even if the wording was turned around. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't propose it - indeed I would oppose it - but I find you prove my point. If you think it's biased to say Britain is fending off something, how can you find it neutral if it's Spain doing it?  That's what you just argued.


 * Would I accept a wording "Spain is fending off (...)" as neutral? No.  That's partly why I objected to your proposal, and partly why I would oppose the wording I noted above.  You're the one saying that it's neutral on one side but not the other, not me. Pfainuk talk 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Toronto International Film Festival;Single White Female 2: The Psycho
So, I just wanted to ascertain if the use of Kiera Knightlie's (correct me if I'm wrong at spelling) image in the lead isn't a bit disturbing for WP:UNDUE rule? Why was her image used? I would understand if she was at top few who won the most awards at this festival, but it seems rather no reasonable arguments behind adding it in the lead, well the fact that she's fabulous and a prominent british actress erm.. adding in this article's lead wouldn't be really suitable from neutral point of view, I'm not being picky over trifles, well maybe a bit, because if I was actually I wouldn't be asking here for advice, now would I? So, maybe moving it to a downward section would do the trick? I leave up it to your comments, as I'm not actually against it being there.. but rules are rules, step by step they should be implemented if their implementation rewards for a better right order and efficiency.

Single White Female 2: The Psycho, the section Critical response. There's only one negative comment for the film, is it okay? Shouldn't it be balanced somehow to correspond with WP:Due rule, or forget about this rule, just to correspond with fair writing and to give amount of positive comments as well? Userpd (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There appears to be no reason to use Keira Knightley's picture there at all. She's not even mentioned in the article. I'd remove it.
 * If there were other reviews of SWF2, it would be appropriate to add them. I think it sounds like it might be hard to find a positive one, but I haven't seen the movie, so can't be certain. --Habap (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brooks, Alberta
Could someone look over the recent history of Brooks, Alberta? I would appreciate a second opinion on this. NW ( Talk ) 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my opinion: The news story is a year and a half old; it is not about the town, it is about one of the newspapers in the town; whoever keeps re-adding this is not doing so because they want to improve Wikipedia; they have some other agenda. I will watch-list the article for a while. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Transportation Security Administration
With the recent controversy over enhanced security screening the article is suffering from Recentism and Coatrack issues and a lot of Imagery that does not neutrally reflect the TSA. The most interesting is the experimental full body scanner Image from 2007. According to its caption it is not what TSA sees at security thus psuhing some sort of agenda. I removed an Image yesterday of TSA employee who was sleeping off duty that had a caption implying he was sleeping at Work. Extra Eyes welcome The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

National Cheng Kung University
Here we have a user who is repeatedly adding this content. The sources he is using are questionable at best, and i can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are. In addition it should be noted that he is in fact the very person the section is talking about as is made clear here, and that he is even attempting to use wikipedia to further his own aims as can be seen here. Can someone please help me attempt to explain to him why he can't do this as I'm quite fed up of him. I hope this is the correct noticeboard for this--Jac 16888 Talk 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How can sources that are documents from a legal court ruling and Ministry of Education ruling be "questionable at best." Ifeel "sourcing" is being used in a tendentious manner here. Are editors reading the sources? Surely there must be SOMEONE who is Chinese-bilingual in the US who, in a matter of seconds, can verify the documents are authentic and read even just the highlighted section(s) of the document. The vague reference to "sources" suggests where the problem lies, and not in the sources themselves. The criticism here seems vague: "I can see nothing to prove they are what he says they are." What kind of proof is needed besides a legal court or Ministry ruling? And I'm not clear how personal involvement is an issue here? If I report a fire at my house does that mean the fire is not real because it happened at my house? Where's the logic? Does that mean the fire victim is "furthering his own ends" by reporting the fire? (As a matter of fact, the documents are not MINE; they are from the Taiwan court and Taiwan Ministry of Education.) And I do wish you would be more careful in your choice of words ("I'm quite fed up with him"); I don't write the same thing about you; even though people involved in this case are puzzled where you think the entry is not properly sourced; they went to the trouble of properly sourcing the entry. I dont write "I'm fed up with you." I'm trying to communicate with you, because I know the sourcing is correct by any reasonable standards. Other issues should be of no account, as I pointed out in examples above. I feel words like "sourcing" and "biased" are not being used the way they should, but are being using tendentiously. How can something be biased if it's based on legal documents? And how much sourcing can one use than legal documents? I see no difference between my entry on NCKU and, say, the entries on various Hollywood stars where similar entries are made. You write--Cincinattus (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)--Cincinattus (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)--Cincinattus (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC), "I strongly advise you to attempt to address the points i have made." I would suggest the same here to you. Jac, the illegal dismissal is a fact, by any reasonable interpretation of the word fact. If a court document or the Ministry of Education document is not sourcing, I don't know what is. The one point I might agree with is the reference to my blog (but that was done only in response to a previous edit when I was unfamiliar with what "sourcing" was required. I will remove that. I also would agree with the placement of the human rights entry, though I would not use a different argument than a previous editor did. Cincinattus
 * I'm not sure how I can be any clearer with you, but here goes. You are the person who was fired from the university. You say it is a Human rights violation and are campaigning for something, justice, whatever. Therefore you are not, nor can you ever be, neutral about the subject. Therefore, you can't edit about it. When you're writing letters to the university referencing content you personally added to the article, this is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for your own aims--Jac 16888 Talk 02:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A posting to WP:COIN might helpful... As to the issue at hand, the material seems to fail WP:WEIGHT unless independent sourcing (i.e. newspaper reports, etc) can establish its notability to the university.  Phrasing such as "human rights" are clear POV violations as well, and the apparent use of Wikipedia as bad publicity to get an "apology" out of school officials is unacceptable.Yobol (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Search results rather than paper?
We've got a question at WP:ELN that's not properly an External links question, but since it's already in its second or third location, I hate to move it again. Could a couple of you please go over there to comment?

The issue is whether a link to search results from a (respectable, independent) database is a good (secondary?) source for supporting a statement that a given academic journal published a handful of (important?) papers. The aspect involving DUE is whether these papers should be called out in the journal's article at all, since nobody seems to have written anything like "Journal X is famous for publishing these papers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne
I have a fairly big concern about the article Line of succession to the British throne. At first glance, the biggest problem with the list (apart from its size) is the apparent Original Research problem. While this may be a problem, I think the fundamental problem is that it violates NPOV. I summarized the problem in this RfC. Basically, if one were to verify something like the King of Sweden is number 203rd in the line of succession, you'd have to do a lot of verification.. there is no source that claims he is number 203. But there are sources who make the arguments one would need to make (he's next after number 202, who's next after 201, etc..), since there are rules to the line of succession (WP:SYNTH). The NPOV problem is that the precise meaning of some of the rules - in particular that Roman Catholics are excluded from the list - is unclear: different sources interpret the rule differently, and hence produce different numberings. Yet the Wikipedia article endorses a single choice (which, by the way, isn't found in any reliable source).

I have tried to convince editors on the talk page that something needs to be done, but there are some editors who are against removing the numbering - in particular the dedicated editors who strive to keep the list up to date. Any comments would be appreciated. I made an RfC about a month ago, but no action was taken. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - there have been a variety of complaints about this article, such as its size, original research, and unrealistic hopes of keeping it up to date. The talk page and archives are full of these discussions. But I'd like to focus on this particular NPOV concern about the numbering. None of the other issues have "stuck".. it's possible that the NPOV issue won't stick either, but what can you do. Mlm42 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We should provide a short list from a recognized source, which would probably present the first ten or twenty in line. TFD (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I supported limiting the size of the article on its talk page in the past to no avail. back in 2009.  Not much change.  And the denizens there appear to like it that way. Collect (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That page seems to me to be in violation of several policies. One is clearly verifiability WP:VERIFY, WP:SYNTH, but also WP:UNDUE. I have a hard time seeing the relevance of all the people in the list. Which is now at 2000+. The chances that anyone past 20 (or even, if we are very generous, past 50) ever gets to the throne is very small if not pretty much non-existent. So they really are not very relevant to the content of the article.
 * And if the list is about people in line to the throne, then listing all those that are not seems a bit much. Not to mention confusing. That's my 2 cents as an outside observer.--AnnekeBart (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Feminism Page: dispute over NPOV on Approach to Men section. We need help resolving.
We need help on the wiki Feminism page, we can not come to an agreement. I feel one version is balanced and the other is promoting a point of view and verging on original research. We are going round in circles.

My version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509002&oldid=419311345#Approach_to_men

Version I dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509513&oldid=419509002#Approach_to_men

(1) "'Most feminist movements ....... argue that men are also oppressed by gender roles and can ultimately benefit from feminism.'"

I do not believe this to be true. There are numerous forms of feminism, including probably the largest being the social movement of most women who just believe in equality for women, for whom gender roles has no part of their thinking or would have no idea what you are talking about.

The term "most", imo, requires either  (a) A reliable source  that has through empirical or other means has confirmed this. or (b) Consensus.

In this case we have neither.

(2) "'In the U.S., mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position'"

This has not be verified as true and is circular. It asserts through its references that:- US mainstream feminism = Those who believe in gender role arguments

There are many forms of feminism as this article shows. And what is a self identified feminist?

(3) Removal of "'In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men'"

It has been removed with its reference being moved to those to do with radical feminism. This opinion belongs to one of the most famous feminists of all time and is not specific to radical feminism but a general commentary on feminism in general. It belongs in this page.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting. One day, if I am overcome by a desire to stick my head in the mouth of a hungry lion, I might get involved with this subject instead. Rumiton (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else you made me laugh. About that lion..... Zimbazumba (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To address your first question (one question at a time). Why does the article have a section "Approaches to men" as second section after "History", and before the sections on theory and on the different parts of the movement? I don't see on the talk page from any part any real acknowledgement that this is an important article in political science. All statements should be referenced to good, recent secondary sources. Also, as far as possible, try and take a world-wide view. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moving the "approach to men" section down could be a good idea. Also I just want to note that everything in this section is sourced, as can be seen at the article. The two sentences Zimbazumba doesn't believe are true are supported by many feminist books asserting that feminism is pro-men, the positions of the major feminist organizations, and a review of studies showing that feminists are generally not anti-men. Also Friedan is still in the section, but was combined with another source to support "[Radical feminism] has been criticized by other feminists as having anti-male views." To answer Zimbazumba's question, a "self-identified feminist" is someone who would label themselves as a feminist if asked. --Aronoel (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Aroneal,

(1) You have demonstrated some not most feminist movements adhere to gender role arguments. (feminism is defined by more than members of NOW et al)

(2) The final statement is ethnocentric in that is merely addressing the US and in my view not true, and basically says

mainstream feminism = those who believe in gender role arguments = mainstream feminism

Mainstream is a difficult word to define word and you are making well defined statements about it.

(3) The Friedman quote is clearly notable. No where in the voluminous commentary on her work have I seen it suggested that her use of feminism in that opinion is with reference to radical feminism alone. Simply put she say "feminism" not "radical feminism". Her views on this are well know.

Perhaps you are young and don't remember the 60's - 90's, but the the anti-male commentary from "mainstream" feminism was ubiquitous despite what the policy manual said. It exists today to a far lesser extent, because they have realised Friedan is right. It should be commented on. One comment from one of the most famous feminists of all time is hardly overkill

My version basically say feminism is not against men, welcomes male allies and some hold gender role arguments whilst a few are against and blame men. It think this is reasonably,  uncontroversial and more in line with an encyclopedic entry. No where in that paragraph am I suggesting, apart from a few radicals, that feminists aren't pro-men. I can't see what the problem is.

Zimbazumba (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Betty Friedan criticized radical feminists many times. I don't recall her ever criticizing all feminists for being anti-male. If the desire is to include a source saying she did, then we certainly need to include a source saying that her critique was specifically of radicals, which was her usual complaint. While The Second Stage has been cited, no page has been cited, although requested. While the obituary cited does support the claim that she criticized large parts of the feminist movement, the movement also criticized her, and that's been reported in various places, including in the cited obit. That subject, too, is as valid for discussing in the article about her, although very little, if anything, about the disagreement between her and the movement belongs in an introductory article on feminism, because she remained a feminist supporter and the movement continued to remain connected with her and neither allowed the disagreement to terminate the feminist movement. The relationship was at an arm's length, but so were many.


 * The consensus was that Betty Friedan's commentary about radical feminism belongs in the article on radical feminism. This article is only a general introduction to feminism; it is not all about everything feminist. Most feminist movements are not critiqued in the introductory feminism article, that being the province of a specific article on each movement. If this critque belongs here, it should get very little space, hardly its own paragraph, since it is clearly relevant mainly to the radical view that men are presently to blame for sexism and her critique would belong with that.


 * That most feminists in the U.S. oppose sexism but not men personally is, regarding sexism, a paraphrased summary of gender roles. We don't mind clarifying the wording, but its basis remains valid and sources are abundantly provided (and I'll probably add Mary Wollstonecraft soon). We do not have a statistical study of the ratio because there is no such study in either direction, to our knowledge, but the literature is extensive and the moderates overwhelmingly outnumbering radicals is so well known within feminism that no one's likely to spend the money to conduct a study of the ratio, but the literature remains available. We use the best kinds of sources available and did. That only a small proportion of U.S. feminists are radical or have ever been (except perhaps at the beginning of any movement or wave, mainly in the late 1960s) is reflected in that both mainstreamers and radicals contributed thought, both participated in politics as outsiders, the radicals participated much less in inside politics (Andrea Dworkin did), but the legislation that passed and remained law was almost entirely that from moderates. Moderates were much more important to the movement in terms of numbers and influence, although radicals had a portion, and radicals are already covered in the introductory article on feminism, with a link to the article on them.


 * The charge that feminism was anti-male was ubiquitous from antifeminists and nonfeminists and they typically identified themselves as such (as in, "I'm no feminist but I believe in equal pay"). It was not ubiquitous from feminists, unless it was in the mid-to-late '60s. The ubiquity faded after that as moderates became more numerous.


 * The Approach to Men section is high up because feminism is about women's general relationship to men, and feminist theories and movements are developments of feminist thinking and action about the general relationship to men. If the desire is to move it down, not great but okay.


 * The statement is not circular and, in math, if A=B then B=A and therefore A=B=A. A survey of feminists requires either qualifying their feminism (which is costlier and less likely to be done) or asking them to qualify themselves (a method used in numerous studies, allowing comparison between studies with some time- and place-independence). Both can be valid. For an understanding of mainstream, I think you'll find the answer in sociology and in politics. Applied to feminism, it is not an unclear concept. It does vary between places and between times, but that doesn't seem to be an issue in this dispute. Certain statements should be U.S.-specific and editing has reflected that.


 * Political science sources are fine for adding; as are sources on the arts. Feminism is a field of study that overlaps many fields. Some sources can be added here. To add many more sources, the best places may be in specific articles within feminism.


 * I took the liberty of correcting part of the title to this section from "Reactions to Men" to "Approach to Men", as that appears to be what the original poster meant and is substantively the subject of the section. I hope that's okay.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrected "mainstream" to "mainstream" to indicate discussion as a word and that title correction was to part of it, the part newly quoted: 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

Thank you Nick for your contribution, they are always remarkable.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)


 * Zimb: While I might quibble with the phrasing 'oppressed by', it is clear that almost every major thread of feminism sees the disentitlement of women as a social dynamic which involves cognitive distortions and a degree of misery for both sexes. This goes all the way back to Wollstonecraft in the 18th century, and is one of the theoretical underpinnings of feminism.  Put bluntly, feminism (1) asserts that gender inequality exists, and (2) asserts that this inequality is not a conscious, intentional action of men individually or collectively.  These two points imply that men must be just as conditioned and constrained as women when it comes to gender relations.


 * A few feminist scholars make this kind of point explicit, usually from a psychological perspective (e.g. where feminists talk about the social conditioning placed on men during their upbringing - discouraged from expressing emotions, forced to be self-sufficient and competitive, etc). Most feminist schools adopt an ill-defined, semi-Marxist 'failure of class consciousness' approach (men behave the way they do because they don't understand the societal role they have been locked into).  No feminist scholar that I know of treats men as unaffected, because that would inevitably lead to a mindlessly simplistic model that places all of the blame on men (as vicious oppressors) or all of the blame on women (as too weak to stand up for their rights).


 * That being said, I'm tempted to bull in there, move that entire section down into the 'Societal Impact' section, rename it 'theoretical relationship to men', and rewrite it with a cold, cold eye. It's clear that someone is trying to push a point with this paragraph - it has way too much prominence for what it says, way too many pushy citations, and a point/counterpoint feel to it that just screams 'agenda'.  I'm going o bookmark it and come back to it in a few days, and decide then.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * feminism no longer promotes equality. Today's feminism promotes inequality to women's favour. For example, recently a law in England was under review to give women equality under the law, so they could be held equally accountable for their actions. It was feminist groups who argued against it, saying men would abuse the law. Women who have 'affairs' with minors are not currently called 'rapists' (like men who have sex with minors). The law offered equality - and feminists argued against it, demonstrating they clearly do NOT want equality. Note also how they claimed 'men' would abuse it (as if no woman currently abuses the advantages currently afforded them by not classing them as rapists when they have indeed raped), this demonstrates their innate hatred towards men - assuming the worst in men and the best of women.

Feminism IS misandry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.124.121 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ludwigs 2  for your feedback, it was an interesting synopsis. The class of feminist theories you are describing, although very important, are one of a number and are the ones predominately taught in universities. In part because they are much more interesting to analyse and are worthy of a section of their own. This is a great article imo describing the diversity of feminism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/, if only the wiki article had the feel of objectivity this article has to it.

The problem with terms like feminism, feminist theory, feminist movement and feminist is that they have multiple definitions and mean different things to different people. As such they are a nirvana for prevaricators and agenda pushes. I have attempted to be as clear and unambiguous as I can.

The objection to the Friedan opinion is simply bizarre.

Zimbazumba (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Ludwigs. I just saw the addition of this "approach to men" section today. (And I've been working on articles relating to feminism for over 3 years). This is an outright violation of WP:UNDUE. It's also basically original resaech becuase it presents the topic of feminism in a completely novel way. The problem with the arguments you have about this Zimbazumba are 'weighting'. There should not be sections on the approaches to men, reactions from men's rights activists, pro-feminist men reactions and a section about the effect on hetrosexual relationships. On top of that none of this reflects how Feminism is written about in relaiable sources. And that's crucial. The article needs to be organized to reflect how the subject is discussed in 3rd party reliable sources - that means in academic sources. It doesn't. Thus I support Ludwigs suggestion to move, rewrite and rename that section--Cailil  talk 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree too. The article should be structured along straightforward lines. History first is fine. Then a section telling us the current scope of the movement - worldwide - liberal feminism, socialist feminism, ecofeminism, Muslim feminism, etc. Obviously the salient parts of the feminist viewpoint(s) have to be described, but it is also important to give the rather more boring organisational facts, some names of feminist organisations in different countries, for example. Some of the most important writers should be mentioned. Only after all that is done, a "responses" section, and even then only if it is necessary, if the responses haven't been covered in the earlier sections. That's about it. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cailil, It was not me who added it. I was responding to what imo was an agenda driven entry that had been added. Its placement at the top atm is clearly wp:undue and I think is more an oversight. That being said, the terms feminism and feminist movement etc. means different things to different people. Certainly an informative discussion of feminism from a more academic perspective and its theoretical underpinning is excellent.

But also feminism to many is an important social movement involving mostly people who would never heard of Wollstonecraft or gender roles but adhere to a loose concept of gender equality. This aspect is commonly seen in our media, has caused social change, widespread debate and division amongst groups including the idea of the "The man hater". For this not to be on this page shows a lack of balance.

I agree this page needs a lot of work and the presence of some of the sections boggles the mind. Much as I'd like to contribute to this, my chances of not being repeatedly edit reverted and stonewalled in discussion are slim.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Zimbazumba this is very simple. Wikipedia is written by recording all the major mainstream, 3rd party reliable sources on a subject. WP:NPOV means, recording these sources neutrally and in a manner that reflects the research and knowledge 'out there'. It does not mean neutralizing or "balancing" an article between academic and media sources. If a source does contains a POV that is considered to be significant and well cited (this does not mean widely held), as per WP:V and WP:RS, then it goes in with appropriate weighting. But if its weight is too low (especially in a parent article like feminism or Science) then it just doesn't belong there. As far as I can see from reading throgh the past year of talk - these entries about teh relationship with men have proliferated due to the demand for balance (not by you pe Zimbazumba but by others who have made similar arguments) this is all way off track as regards how to write articles for wikipedia. When dealing with a massive subject that has indeed multiple definitions one needs to read up about it from a number of major sources just to learn what's out there. That isn't being done. Rather what's happening is a creep towards POV giving undue weight to Fringe points of view about men & feminism--Cailil  talk 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tasks that are easily described are not always easily completed. But I understand your point. Zimbazumba (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Friedan's viewpoint is casually misrepresented by the obituary quoted in The Guardian. Far better sources are available, scholarly ones with a more complete picture. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Offering only one point here: A source need not be recognized by most Wikipedia readers, most feminists, most women, or most people to be a valid referent. E.g., Mary Wollstonecraft, whose work is established in feminism. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare
An attempt is being made to disassociate Pepi II Neferkare from the Ipuwer Papyrus and the First Intermediate Period.

First of all, Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the First Intermediate Period.

"Once the choice was made for the First Intermediate Period reasons were found to date it to the beginning of the period or even to the last years of Pepi II in the Old Kingdom." -- John van Seters, archaeologist, December 1964

"Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II." -- R. J. Williams, professor, 1981

"... research strongly suggests Moses and the Israelites went into bondage during the reign of Pharaoh Pepy II, the 'Pharaoh of the Oppression'" -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994

"One of the names in the family of Pepy II is an exact match to a name given in the Book of Jasher. This is the chief wife of Pepy II. In the Book of Jasher it states that the wife of Melol, the pharaoh of the oppression, was named Alparanith. The chief queen of Pepy II was named Neith (or Nith). This is very probably the same name and therefore the same person." -- J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994

"According to the Midrash, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was named Akidam and he had a short reign of four years. The Pharaoh who preceded him, whose death prompted Moses' return to Egypt (Exodus 2:23, 4:19), was named Malul. Malul, we are told, reigned from the age of six to the age of 100. Such a long reign - 94 years! - sounds fantastic, and many people would hesitate to take this Midrash literally. As it happens though, Egyptian records mention a Pharaoh who reigned for 94 years, and not only 94 years, but from the age of six to the age of 100! This Pharaoh was known in inscriptions as Pepi (or Phiops) II. The information regarding his reign is known both from the Egyptian historian-priest Manetho, writing in the 3rd century BCE, and from an ancient Egyptian papyrus called the Turin Royal Canon, which was only discovered in the last century." -- Brad Aronson, scholar, 1995

"Ipuwer, an ancient Egyptian sage. He perhaps served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare (reigned c. 2294 - c. 2200 BC)...." -- The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, 2002

"The end of the reign of Pepi II led into the First Intermediate period...." -- Richard Lobban, historian, Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia, 2004

"There are many petroglyphs which depict ostriches and a few that depict giraffes. Butzer (1961) has used relative frequencies of the appearance of these animals in petroglyphs to gauge the changing climate. This evidence fits well with the three OK inscriptions, at least one of which is from the reign of Pepy II, which tell of digging wells (inscriptions DN28, ML01, ML12). While it is possible that these people could be simply pioneering a new route, it seems more likely that the old sources of water were drying up. Additional weight is given to the latter argument by a passage from a document known to Egyptologists as the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer,' which described conditions during the First Intermediate Period." -- Rusell D. Rothe, et al., Pharaonic Inscriptions From the Southern Eastern Desert of Egypt, Eisenbrauns, 2008

All this scholarship is being distorted. It is being claimed that Pepi II Neferkare is not associated with the 4.2 kiloyear event and the First Intermediate Period and that modern scholars do not associate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus even though they do.76.216.196.209 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I and another editor have tried to explain the situation to this IP, who continues to add references which either don't meet WP:RS, are misinterpreted or in other ways misused, eg not about the subject being referenced. The IP seems to have picked up quotes at []. For instance, "J.J. Williams and C. Parry, historians, Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, 1994" which he mentions above is from that site. So far as I can see Parry had nothing to do with this, that's a Google error somehow. The actual booklet is by JJ Williams, an LDS member whose work is soundly rejected by LDS scholar John Gee at and I have explained this in detail on one talk page or another (see Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus and Talk:Pepi II Neferkare). He quotes John Van Seters above in support but doesn't point out that van Seters argues that the Admonitions were not written during the period of Pepi II but "late in the Thirteenth Dynasty"
 * His Brad Aronson is Brad Aaronson, some sort of Velikovskian and certainly not a reliable source.
 * The issue isn't whether Pepi has ever been considered related to the Admonitions of Ipuwer, it is about current opinions and the IP has been trying to present the relationship as thought it is more or less certain. The pov being pushed by the IP is this link and a link to the Exodus. He's been doing the same thing at Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible where even self-published books have been used. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with anon's is that he is cherry picking some of his sources and is actually the one in violation of the NPOV guidelines. There is a lot of research literature that points to problems with the interpretations with the above mentioned Ipuwer papyrus. The actual document dates to the 19th dynasty (ca 13th - 12th cent BC), but is thought to be a copy of an older document. How old is much debated. The idea of a link to the breakdown of the Old Kingdom (and the reign of Pepi II) is an old idea and dates back to the work of Gardiner and Erman. But by the 1950's this was starting to be re-examined. And over the decades there has been a work by several Egyptologists putting the date and meaning of the original text in doubt. Otto started in the 1950's by suggesting that the original work on which the papyrus was based was from a later period and that the discussion with a king was actually aimed at the got Atum. This was later supported by work of Fecht who has shown that the work is more consistent with the 10th dynasty, which is several decades later than the end of the 6th dynasty (Pepi II). The history of the interpretations can be checked:
 * Online Master's Thesis Elisa Priglinger, Historiographie der Ersten Zwischenzeit einst und heute“, 2010 (with Prof. Dr. Manfred Bietak as the Thesis Advisor)
 * Ilin-Tomich A. A., Safronov A. V., Dating and historical circumstances of the Admonitions of Ipuwer. Vestnik drevnej istorii, 2010, no4, pp. 3-22 [20 page(s) (article)] (2 p.1/4) - This paper actually dates the event from the papyrus to the Second Intermediate Period (several centuries after Pepi II). Online Abstract
 * R. J. Williams, The Sages of Ancient Egypt in the Light of Recent Scholarship, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 101, No. 1, Oriental Wisdom (Jan. -Mar., 1981), pp. 1-19. - Refers to the work by Otto and Fecht.
 * Winfried Barta, Das Gespräch des Ipuwer mit dem Schöpfergott, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, Bd. 1 (1974), pp. 19-33 (Available through JSTOR).
 * Fecht, G., Der Vorwurf an Gott in den »Mahnworten des Ipu-wer«. Zur geistigen Krise der ersten Zwischenzeit und ihrer Bewältigung, Heidelberg 1972.


 * The problem with the posts of Anon are as follows:
 * * WP:NPOV A disregard of the complete picture as presented by the literature.
 * * WP:RELIABLE See previous editor's comments.
 * * WP:CITE The references quoted at times do not support the claims.
 * Regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
It is absolutely absurd that this article does not at the very least have a citation indicating that its neutrality is disputed. Please see the article on Gibraltar and reasonably defend how there can be less 'dispute' as to neutrality or reliability. The article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nothing but a long winded cult advertisement without a single reliable independent academic citation at any significant point. The article goes beyond unreliability; it is anti-academic and a shame to Wikipedia. Without a warning tag I cannot see how Wikipedia can maintain even a shred of honour as a worthy information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The forgoing is a rant, a bunch of claims and over the top statements, which may well express how you feel about the article, but doesn't give us any of those inconvenient details as to any actual problem. E.g., you mention a lack of "independent academic citation".  If that is a problem, then why don't you find the material ("citations") that should be supplied?  If there is an on-going dispute, then say so, and give us the details of why it needs to be brought up here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You should look up the definition of "feel". I suggest you begin with Merriam-Webster.  It is not my duty to provide citations; it is the ABSOLUTE and SOLE DUTY of the author of the article.  It is the ABSOLUTE DUTY of Wikipedia's editors and moderators to flag articles which lack sufficient citations and neutrality (or in this case any).  If this were an article on anything else, there would be such appropriate flags at the top of the article.  Such tags are the one of the primary means by which Wikipedia maintains a shred of intellectual credibility. Why is this article being given special consideration?  Why does it not need a shred of documentation or citation?  Is the Mormon 'church' contolling the process?<<  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And trust me, if I were able to put tags at the top of the article which stated, "This Article's neuttrality has ben disputed..." and "This article does not cite any reliable sources...", I certainly would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsareinconvenient (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Korean History Compilation Committee
In February 10, 2011 I left a message on the article's talk page, pointing out a fact that the article only mentions some Korean scholars' negative attitude toward the committee, and does not mention Japanese historians and Korean positivist historians's viewpoint of the committee at all ( mentions it). However in March 9, 2011 the problem still exists, so I deleted all the heavily biased sentences and paragraphs, which claims that the committee's main goal is to distort history of Korea, like Japanese edition. But I still think that since there are some scholars praise or attack the committee, the article should not just have the establishing date and members of the committee (the Japanese edition only mentions them); the article should also describe the various viewpoints of the committee. Hope that Wikipedians can use academic books and papers to further expand the article (not television programmes, encyclopedia articles and posts on blogs, there are not professional and accurate enough!).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology POV related RFC
The article about Evolutionary psychology currently includes no information about the highly publicized controversy surrounding the discipline inspite of the fact that that controversyt has generated dozens of books and scores of articles. We also have a separate article about the controversy that is as long as the main article. EP partisan's argue to keep out the critiques of the discipline from the main article because that is "for presenting the main theories of Evolutionary psychology and its main findings". I say POV-fork. I have started an important RFC here regarding how to integrate the criticism of Evolutionary psychology into the article about that topic, and about how to define the topic itself either narrowly or broadly. Please participate.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Has this issue been raised on the article's talk page? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page is getting a bit impenetrable, so this clear RfC could help. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in opening line of People's Pledge
I recently created People's Pledge to cover this new British politicial campaign which hopes to force a yes/no referendum in the UK on the issue of ongoing membership European Union. Now, from where I'm standing, if you look at their 'case' page, explaining why a referendum shoud take place, I'd say it's pretty fair to describe in the opening line that the campaign is Eurosceptic - i.e., against the EU. Another user, is trying to water this down into just saying it's a campaign for a referendum, on the (correct) basis that (some) of the supporters of the campaign are not Eurosceptic, and they just want a referendum to settle the issue either way, as it's been a political issue in the UK for decades. While this could be mentioned in the article; given the case page, given this is not the view of the majority of the supporters, and given the very obvious fact that all the polling suggests that a referendum would say no to continued membership, I think it would be a pretty basic violation of NPOV to present this campaign as politicially neutral, i.e., just interested in polling the democratic will of the people (although the Europhile view is that the UK does not run on referenda, and the umpteen general elections inbetween are sufficient representation). What are other people's views? MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop "Eurosceptic" from the initial description - add a sentence or so in the corpus saying who describes them as such (RS source). There is no need to so specifically categorize every single person, group, or movement on such a basis. Generally the mildest adjective is the wisest in the lede, focus on qualifying adjectives in the corpus. In the case at hand, it is a political campaign seeking a referendum on continued UK membership in the EU.  We can trust the reader to continue for specifics.  Put specific references claims (I suspect most fall into the category of "opinion" as a simple matter of fact) and source the opinions to the persons or groups holding them.   IMHO. Collect (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First, in the UK at least, Eurosceptic already is a pretty mild adjective, and is commonly used. Second, if it's RS opinion you are after instead of the primary evidence, the stuff we have is pretty clear that it's Eurosceptic, and I have not yet seen even one RS that gives their opinion that this is just a neutral campaign, let alone enough to confidently say this is the majority view. NPOV is not about presenting no view at all in the lede and then hoping the reader figures out from the main article what the situation is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case, giving you my view seems futile. Collect (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not futile if you offer something to back it up. I've stated specifically where my opinion comes from, and it can be swayed by contrary evidence. I've found no RS to support your claim it's viewed as a neutral campaign, and I cannot even think of a term that is used as a weaker form of 'Eurosceptic'. But I'm open to counter-evidence. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctor's diagnoses
Is it POV to preface a medical diagnosis with "-by doctors opinion-" as was done ? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that was of course not the right way of putting it, but I believe the standard way the media deals with this kind of situation is to say something like "according to doctors", and I don't think this would be understood as casting doubt on the information. As far as I can tell from reading some reliable sources, it appears that the irreversibility and the extremely low life expectancy of the child are not contested, but the parents insist that he isn't quite in a vegetative state. Given that this seems a bit iffy to diagnose anyway, I think "... which doctors say has left him ..." would be perfectly reasonable and NPOV. Hans Adler 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me -- updated the article. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral pov for Family Compact
Hi there, I've been going through the Family Compact(Can History) article and don't think this article is neutral. I see name calling (oligarchy,elitest) and other terms that are not supported by the received body of historical research. Family Compact is certainly led by a prominent group of Upper Canadians, but this kind of writing is really a bit over the edge.

Membership in the Family Compact was not "closed". Any immigrant could join the family compact; it was a question of choice about the general tone of thought.

I've added the section with the prominent names of members of the Family Compact which include French Canadians (Baby), Scots etc. Membership at the lower levels would have been representative of the local Upper Canada population.

The Opposition section is weighted towards Mackenzie and does not discuss any other form of opposition. It would be more balanced if it showed the influence of the Colborne Clique at least and some mention of the other forces at work in Upper Canada.

This article is not neutral.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact

99.246.14.181 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you help improve the article by adding more material with reliable sources. You mention "the received body of historical research", and that's exactly what all our history articles need to be based on. You can just start by listing some relevant texts on the talk page. I don't see any really good sources there at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's no problem to add the relevant sources. I plan on re-writting some of the intro and the sections. I just wanted to make sure that my objection had been noted in case there is any conflict in the future. Given the importance given to the article this seems to be right way to go about it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That is how they are described by historians and how they saw themselves. TFD (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson and non-consensus, extremely biased edits
In 2011 Libyan uprising, I noticed a pattern of edits by SuperblySpiffingPerson, who is listed as a relatively new editor. These edits seem to be primarily regarding the conflict in Libya. My research on the content of their edits seems to indicate a pattern where the conflict is being described in terms that are very biased toward the Western powers and describe the fledgling rebel government as 'transitional'. This editor seems to include a bias in a significant majority of their edits. For example, while most people might say "government of Libya" or "Gaddafi", Superbly says "Jamahiriya loyalists" or "Jamahiriya".

I am concerned about the integrity of the article, as well as related articles, and am worried by their seemingly rapid understanding of how to move pages and the number of edits (22 edits so far on March 23).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=SuperblySpiffingPerson

Please forgive me if I have left anything out. I'm very concerned about the direction the article seems to be taking.

-- Avanu (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * User talk:SuperblySpiffingPerson has been blocked for a week. There seem to be multiple issues with this person; this venue doesn't seem to be the proper place to get into them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten there was a comment still placed here about that editor. It would be fine with me to take this section down for now.  Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated here on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to decide an NPOV/BLP issue.

The issue is whether the Lyndon LaRouche biography should contain a paragraph about the death in 2003 of Jeremiah Duggan. Duggan died in disputed circumstances after running down a busy road, apparently while being recruited to LaRouche's organization. The High Court in London recently ordered a second inquest into the death.

The article has contained a paragraph about this for several years—currently the third paragraph in this section—but there are now objections to including any reference to it. Arguments against inclusion are that LaRouche is not personally involved in whatever happened to Duggan, and that BLPs must err on the side of caution. Arguments in favour are that multiple high-quality sources have linked the incident directly to LaRouche's ideas, and he has several times responded to the allegations personally. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does your link refer to the third paragraph in the lead? Its not clear from your link where the controversial text is/was located. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this has been discussed over the past few days at "Death of ..." sections in Lyndon LaRouche BLP on the BLP noticeboard. -- JN 466  19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This question was asked and answered at the BLP/N. The editor who has now posted this RfC apparently doesn't respect the opinions of the uninvolved editors who commented there.  The death of Duggan has 0 connection to Lyndon LaRouche the person.  Any notable connection to Lyndon LaRouche Movement can stay in that entry.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view violation at Frot article
I am in constant dispute with an editor named Mijopaalmc at the Frot article. And because of this, I opened this discussion there: Talk:Frot.

Basically, Mijopaalmc constantly nitpicks and makes things worse at the article every time I fix it up. No matter how much I fix up this article, he is never satisfied. Or he pretends to be satisfied and then finds something else to complain about the next week or next month later. I reverted him this time because these changes give WP:UNDUE weight in the Preferences section as to why men like anal sex. Why men do not like it, and why they like it should be adequately summarized in the Preferences section. Furthermore, the change unbalances the Debates section back to the same problem it had before. There was a POV problem with that section, which Mijopaalmc complained about, and I recently balanced it out. His changes make the section lean back toward presenting the same POV he complained about. Which is no doubt what he wants so that he can complain some more about the article. Not to mention...that what is in the Preferences section is not about debates. It is specifically about why men prefer one act over the other. Mijopaalmc insists that "Repeating the claim about the the intimacy of frot give WP:UNDUE to frot," which I find absurd. The Preferences section is about opinions, and is of course going to include men preferring frot because they feel it is more intimate, or because of whatever other reason they prefer frot. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole Comparison to anal sex section is a disaster, as it does not properly belong in the an article about the act of frot. Additionally, it relies almost exclusively on content generated on the internet by people who are admittedly "vocal" and whose reliability and notability are therefore suspect. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The whole Comparison to anal sex section belongs in the article because "frot" has to do with preferring the act of frottage over anal sex, for various reason, just as much as it has to do with the act itself; the term even originated as a way to disparage anal sex. See Talk:Frot and Talk:Frot, where even Mijopaalmc agrees with this. Also see Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination).


 * And notice how Mijopaalmc is diverting attention away from the matter at hand and has not offered any valid reasons for why the Preferences section should not mention that men prefer frot because they find it to be more intimate or for whatever reason, and why the preference for anal sex should be given more weight than the preference for frot. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Preferences section does still state that MSM do prefer other sex acts over anal sex because they perceive the to be more intimate. (The sources that are not from the groups discussed later in the Debates section say "frottage" or "frottage and mutual mastrubation" not "frot".) I only removed the phrasing that repeated what was already discussed in greater detail in the Debates section. Mijopaalmc (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not mention that two other reasons some gay men engage in frot is because of the health risks they associate with anal sex and because they find it degrading to the receptive partner, which it should mention...because those are preferences for the act of frot as well; there are sources for this specifically, which state "frot." And even if they only used "frottage," you yourself have stated how the words are used interchangeably among gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM) in general and how most of these men simply use the word "frottage" the majority of the time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh! That was not the take from my analysis. I demonstrated quite clearly that MSM do not in general distinguish between rubbing their penises together and rubbing their penises on other parts of their partners' bodies. Moreover, the Preference subsection does mention both intimacy and safer sex, so I don't see what your objection is. Mijopaalmc (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh in return! You clearly stated that MSM in general use the word "frottage" for genital-genital stimulation and not the word "frot." Moreover, while the Preferences subsection does mention intimacy and safer sex, it does not mention "health risks" (seeing that some frot advocates are not only speaking of sexually transmitted infections) and "degrading to the receptive partner." That, and the fact that the Preferences section currently leans more toward why men have anal sex, and the Debates section currently leans more toward why they don't, is my problem. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I clearly stated that the only term used to describe genital-genital rubbing (and other genital-on-body-part rubbing) in writings that don't reference Bill Weintraub is "frottage". That means that "frottage" has a much wider definition than "frot", the reliability and notability of which is therefore questionable. Mijopaalmc (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, how is that different than what I stated? That you said MSM in general use the word "frottage" for genital-genital stimulation and not the word "frot"? All of what you stated is there in those linked discussions, and that is what you stated -- that even when gay men mean genital-to-genital rubbing, they generally use the word "frottage." Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I said the only word used outside of the works of Bill Weintraub to describe male-male genital-genital rubbing is "frottage" and that "frottage" also describes other sex acts, so it is not synonymous with how Bill Weintraub uses it. Please stop misrepresenting what I say. Mijopaalmc (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can continue to play semantics all you want. Saying "the only word used outside of the works of Bill Weintraub to describe male-male genital-genital rubbing is 'frottage'" is the same as saying "MSM in general use the word 'frottage' for genital-genital stimulation and not the word 'frot'." There has been no misinterpretation of your words. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The words are seldom, if ever, used interchagable, because "frot" is seldom, if ever, used. Mijopaalmc (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I stated above.


 * For others reading this, I have combined the sections. That should solve this matter. But other editors are still welcomed to weigh in, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't misinterpret my words; you put words into my mouth. You and Atomaton determined that Bill Weintraub and his community use "frot" interchangeably with "frottage", and I demostrated that the predominate, if not, sole term for genital rubbing was "frottage" . What you are trying to so is say that, since Bill Weintraub and his commounity, use "frottage" and "frot" interchangeably, all gay men or MSM do. This is a falsehood as borne out by the sex manuals I just cited and and even one of the sources you cited which says:

"Frottage, also known as dry humping, is sex without penetration where both partners rub or grind on each other to achieve an orgasm. This can be done either clothed or unclothed and can be achieved genital to genital or genital to other body parts. Frottage can be used as foreplay before anal sex or as the primary means of intimacy."
 * Nope. I didn't put words into your mouth either. But you just put words into Atomaton's mouth. Atomaton did not agree that the words "frot" and "frottage" are used interchangeably. You put words into my mouth too, because I did not say that "since Bill Weintraub and his commounity, use 'frottage' and 'frot' interchangeably, all gay men or MSM do." I said, "...that reliable sources clearly show that when speaking of male-to-male genital sex or a male rubbing his genitals on any body part of another male, the word frottage is generally used over the word frot. "Frot" is hardly ever used." Nice that you used one of my sources above, though. And that you further demonstrated you love to divert discussions away from matters at hand. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Atypical NPOV Issues
I would like to write an article(s) about a project I'm involved in on an ambiguous and partially undisclosed level. We purposely engineer an environment suggesting endless supposition of who precisely is involved, as the project itself has an attitude of atypical relativeness, and so we believe we've become specialists at bypassing subjectivity and adopting an alternate point of view. (I say "alternate" and not "neutral" because I feel in many ways there is no such thing, for even a news publication decides what type of facts constitute objectivity, subjectifying its internal relative neutrality.) Paradoxically, we often hype and market this nature (and the project) ad nauseum, but we generally (or have come to be able to) do so in a conscious, crafted, calculated way, and often as a parody of its own ego. (We might wager the argument that this ego, even when uninflated, is an unavoidable consequence of the general principles and methods involved, but we're far too in the know to be certain we're not fooling ourselves.) Hence, one's right to suspect an especially high susceptibility to subjectivity (excuse the alliteration) but the opposite should also be supposed. I think we've evolved the latter skill, and are experienced enough to write with epitome NPOV.

For a microcosm example, I choose the phrase "has an attitude of atypical relativeness" (above) rather than a phrase with more miniature spin, such as "a philosophy of radical objectivity". Even though someone can have a philosophy seen as negative to some, that philosophy is a respected scholastic field of study seems to cast a warm light on that what's in question has been thought through intelligently by someone or something involved. And, while describing something as "radical" may judge it light or dark, it's more a plus when paired with something already having positive spin (e.g. "objectivity", which is a little more often than not seen as a better thing than its opposite). Also, I attempted to throw in a negative to the revision to counter the infinitesimal precision of exact neutrality. The phrase "has an attitude" usually connotes an undesirable one, and is something someone suppressing a negative bias might use. That the phrase must be modified after the point where it would create a gramatically correct sentence sans the modification is something that may have gone unnoticed to someone less specialized in "atypical relativeness". You may or may not agree with these details, but my point is that I was able to catch myself subconsciously on this particular word-to-word level. Likewise, I revised "expert" to "specialist", "mysterious" to "ambiguous", and "craft" to "engineer". (Rhetorically, this is conrived to an extent for demonstration.)

While all this should be enough to make my general inquiry obvious (how to write about the project neutrally here, given that a place that promotes neutrality via understandings of precision and complexity intrinsically offers allowing exception to policies prohibiting writing normally prone to bias), the question is complicated by the vast/excessive (POV-depending) amount of original terminology and concepts that need or could use extensive explanation or promotion to be understood. That is, its creative sope. More specifically, a largely undiscovered one. A good example would be a hidden library of sci-fi/fantasy books of a single epic (e.g. Star Trek,  Star Wars,  Wheel of Time,  Lord of the Rings) of which A) only a few people read or have read, whose opinions would reflect a larger whole, B) has an established body of material worth noting, and C) incorporates unique/confusing concepts best nutshelled by its maker(s).  (This latter point is key, a close example being the book  Godel, Escher, Bach.)  This scope in combination with being very "little discovered" suggests a potential nightmare of spam for a place like Wikipedia.  Again, we think we're extremely sensitive to these subtleties, and our sense of noteworthiness is based on these factors.  For instance, I would not write an article about a book we've not posted, nor one contradicting the consensus of minimal feedback.

Our project as a whole is largely a template for potential projects, or an ambitious web of them. We consider something to have substance when its strongly developed as a concept as well as via significant posted/published material, and I think we're at the point where a few key/core articles would be at home with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, our projects are exceptionally prone to confusion and complexity, so it may be a long wait for a third party to decide they understand one enough to relay it. Of course, our desire to eliminate extension may be tainting objectiveness, which is another reason I'm inquiring beforehand.

I hate mentioning specifics when I try to talk about our stuff objectively, because it always seems to turn out pluggy. I can't even say my own nickname anymore without feeling like I'm pushing a flyer into somebody's face. For instance, discussion boards can have a positive effect on the search engine status of a site, so even mentioning a keyword or two can be technically plug-esque. If you want more specific examples about what I'm talking about, you can search the net for the phrases "difficult to maintain total and fully up-to-date continuity", and "free for nonprofit use and free in general anyway". These should bring you to two pages that speak to our attention to detail, and you may explore from there. (You can also check the list of junk in my profile, but not all is what I'm talking about.) The projects these two phrases should bring you to are two I'd consider writing an article about if deemed appropriate. Please advice on how to proceed, thanks.

Squish7 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see what's atypical about it. You want to write an article about a personal project. That's against Wikipedia policy. -Furry-friend (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's against general official policy, not the spirit or point of it, and not the details, given documentation mentions the possibility of exception. If a project potentially difficult for a third party to sum up whose core specialty is objectivity and the establishment of the equal weight of all points of view via writing and reading is not a potential exception, I don't understand what would be.  At the least, it falls under "atypical" by definition.


 * Wikipedia is vast, documenting everything under the sun. Intrinsically, no blanket policy or simple method of documentation is going to hold for practically everything in the universe there is to document, and an intelligent publication should be able to evaluate and consider special situations.  Almost always, it's near-impossible to fully detach from personal bias when attempting to write objectively about one's own project(s).  In addition, most artworks can always be summed up well by a smart third party who's familiar with the work.  These are roots of the general policy you speak of, and a project which lies outside of them lies outside the point of the policy.  Our project plays with the entire medium of writing and reading and experiencing art, and in doing this we think we've developed a better ability to write objectively about our own project than most third parties.


 * Epitome NPOV is formed from the masses. An article on a widely known project incorporates the average voice of everybody exposed to it.  It's generally impossible for an individual to speak with that honed tone.  There are absolutely infinite things one might say or leave out in an article that attempts to be neutral.  Out of this infinite pool of potential articles, only a scant handful qualify for true NPOV.  I believe we have a rare ability to generate such an article, but I wanted a feel for its potential acceptance before drafting one, as it would be a major undertaking to write with A+ NPOV, however possible.  We're fluent shifting around internal voices and tones, but have not written with a truly anonymous external voice.


 * Consider a narcissistic clique of con artists with better skill to forge a detailed police report about their activities than any single investigator, motivated primarily by the creative endeavor of doing so, with bias toward benefit in check. -Squish7 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like your project is still at a very early stage and not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Look at the WP:Article wizard which will guide you through the process. If you are sure that your project is notable, i.e. it has been written about independently, then you should ask someone else to create the article for you. Best of luck with your project. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Coatracking, editorializing, and edit warring on Employee assistance programs
I'm making this report as a third party uninvolved in the original dispute. In November 2010 began adding content to the article Employee assistance programs related to workplace bullying. This content was summarily deleted on 17 November but reverted by an IP (likely Albertoarmstrong forgetting to log in) a few hours later. In January 2011 became involved in editing this section and the two have been involved in a prolonged edit war ever since. I warned both users and requested full protection of the article to prevent the edit warring from continuing. Now that I've had a chance to look over the content issue, I disagree with both users' preferred versions of the article and I think this whole section should be deleted as coatracking, or at a minimum drastically trimmed back to remove editorial content. I'm bringing this issue here to get some consensus from editors who (theoretically) have more experience with these sort of issues than I do. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Prior to my involvement the article had no references. It read like an advertisement for EAP and I think Wiki frowns upon that practice.


 * I started a new section "Workplace Bully Concerns" and backed it up with about 15 independent references (from US, Canada, Britian .. "worldview"). Despite this another editor (Cknoepke) keeps attacking it (just read the Discussion Page). I haven't bothered with others edits as I'm sure readers can judge for themselves what's what. On Jan 5, 2011 Cknoepke wrote: "You are correct in assuming that I am an EAP professional, but I am an external contracted provider ....."  Cknoepke is by their own admission a private EAP provider, so they have a vested interest in censoring my edits.


 * As for the "coatracking" claim against me: the article started out as "coat racking' (before me) as it was written as an advertisement for EAP.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello


 * A third party review of the article and discussion page would be very helpful as it illustrates the manner in which discussions about various content changes have taken place (or, in many instances, have not taken place). This, coupled with (Albertoarmstrong)'s constant baseless accusations of vandalism and attacks on my credibility (based, as you can see, on one statement where I disclosed that I am a professional in the area) has lead to what I believe to be an intractable argument: Albertoarmstrong has illustrated that he believes the article to be his own and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications for NPOV or other purposes.

Cknoepke (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice? I'd have to agree that that section is a mess. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Cknoepke wrote: "he believes the article to be his own" This is a false but EAP providers sure believe it theirs. Cknoepke inserted a paragraph at the end of the Workplace Bullying Concern section but misrepresented the reference so I had to insert a direct quote from Cknoepke's own reference to put in the correct perspective. If I thought the section was "mine" I would have deleted it.

Cknoepke wrote: "and is unwilling to discuss even minor modifications". Again false. We had extensive discussion on the Discussion Page.

A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "Bully managers" in Wikipedia's voice?" That the terminology used in the references, so why can't that language be reflected in a Wiki article?

A Quest For Knowledge wrote: "I'd have to agree that that section is a mess." I used about 15 references so how can it be a mess? Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) I'm not going to lie: this article as it existed before Albertoarmstrong edited it was a terrible, unreferenced, promotional mess. However, the article as it exists right now is still mostly the same terrible, unreferenced, promotional mess, though marginally better referenced and coupled with a new section on "Workplace Bullying Concerns".
 * Note that the name of this forum is the Neutral point of view noticeboard. I brought this issue here first because I believe that adherence to neutral point of view is the biggest problem with both Albertoarmstrong and Cknoepke's preferred versions of this article. Here is how I would summarize this issue:
 * The article started off as unreferenced blatant promotion for EAPs.
 * In an attempt to correct this issue, Albertoarmstrong piled on some criticism of EAPs.
 * Cknoepke challenged Albertoarmstrong's content by adding a bunch of dubious, fact, and similar tags, which Albertoarmstrong responded to by adding citations.
 * A previously uninvolved SPA rewrote the "bullying" section in accordance with the promotional nature of the rest of the article . An edit war ensued over this version of the article, with Cknoepke supporting the promotional version and Albertoarmstrong supporting the negative version.
 * A strongly POV article does not magically become neutral by adding a bunch of the opposite POV. In my book, that only compounds the problem. This entire article needs to be rewritten from scratch. I can't even find a good NPOV version to revert to, including the original version.&mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Albertoarmstrong: It has so many things wrong with it, I'm not sure where to even begin, but let's start with the first sentence: "Workplace bullying or mobbing targets should be leery of EAPs, particularly in-house EAPs." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a how-to guide. We're not here to give people advice.  The very next sentence begins, "Unfortunately," which is a violation of WP:EDITORIAL.  This is terrible writing, no offense, and if this has been going on since October, I don't know what to say.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi A Quest For Knowledge,

Actually, another editor inserted the "leery" word. Other than my edits, the rest of the article "implies" advice because its promotional material.Albertoarmstrong (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made what hopefully will be the first of several requests for consensus on edits that will make this article more NPOV. Please see Talk:Employee assistance programs. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto - Assistance
A major feature story ran on Rabbi Pinto, the largest story ever written about him and the few editors who control the board didnt allow neutral entrees to be placed. Need assistance from curious non interested parties.

The article was syndicated and picked up by Globes a major Israeli paper, The Real Deal a major NYC real estate publication and Vos Iz Neas Religious news service but entire chunks of article werent included. Can we have new eyes please ?

Would suggest adding: "Considerable questions have risen regarding Pinto’s organizations finances. A report by a leading New York Jewish newspaper has revealed a “contrast between the rabbi’s lifestyle and his reputation for modest living, and questions about the rabbi’s image as a business guru when his own not-for-profit faces financial problems.” The Forward stated: “The business troubles at Mosdot Shuva Israel could be seen as ironic, given Rabbi Pinto’s reputation as an adviser to businessmen, and particularly to real estate brokers.” 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you make a concrete proposal on the talk page ie. what text you would like to add and give links to support that text, then I will participate in the discussion on the talk page.-- — Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a little forum-shopping going on here. Versions of the above request have been posted at Editor assistance/Requests, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, an RfC, and on four different user talk pages (all today).


 * Some related background is at Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah...so...we (the "few editors who control the board", by Babasalichai's description) did include a lot of information from the report the sock mentions, we just didn't include the more polemic and statements.  Yes, it's the largest story ever written about him (at least, in English), but it's still only one story, and most of it isn't even about him (it's about the organization he is a member of); certainly not enough to use phrases like "considerable questions". However, if anyone feels like investigating, the story is linked at the article, and there's at least 3 of us who can/have discussed it there.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I support his proposal, just that I need to see specifics before I can comment one way or another. If its already been discussed among multiple editors and the editor is just forum shopping to try and subvert an existing consensus then that is another story altogether. Thanks for your comment.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The label "alternative"--as in category:alternative journalists
--A Jimbo quote...: --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think such a category has some use, if perhaps small--say, in cases where someone hasn't received journalistic training and does non- "MSM style"(?) work? however, perhaps these type of individuals really should be incorporated into the more general category of journalists, for maximum NPOV, too-- . So, either way--that is, keeping these two cats separate or combining them--is fine according to my own pov.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this an accepted term in the national media or in academia? If so, can we see some refs and a definition of what the term means? If not, then it may be POV or OR.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well (of course, FWIW), there is a 2010 book, Alternative Journalists with chapters: Michael Moore, Alex Jones, Eduardo Montes-Bradley, Michael Yon, Amy Goodman, Alexander Cockburn, Kevin Pina, Thom Hartmann, Wayne Madsen, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Karel Bouley, Stephanie Miller, Michael Jackson, Steve Dillard, Abraham Sarmiento, Jr., Jim Hightower, Andrew Goldberg, Larry Bensky, Alex Bennett, Charles Foster Johnson, Marc Cooper, Dennis Bernstein, Neil Rogers, Phillip Frazer, Jeremy Scahill, Marlene Garcia-Esperat, Wakas Mir, Ed Morrissey, Aaron Glantz, John H. Hinderaker, Isabelo de Los Reyes, Rick Rydell, Teodoro Casino, Jeffrey St. Clair, Paul and Shirley Eberle, Mohammed Omer, Dahr Jamail, Jon Rappoport, Laura Flanders, Jay Marvin, List of Progressive Talk Radio Hosts in the United States, Dave Kopel, Scott W. Johnson, T-Bone Slim, Francisco Aruca, Mike Malloy, Stephen Bainbridge, David Barsamian, Robert Parry, Deepa Fernandes, Bob Cesca, Patricio Guzman, Janine Jackson, Paul Mirengoff, Pierre Carles, David Moberg, Jim Naureckas, Neil Demause . I'm an idiot. That book is a reprint from Wikipedia!   And here is where the phrase alternative journalist is used per a Google Books search (plus: plural; alt. journal-ism).  The problem is: Where do we draw the line for inclusion, with regard such a category? What constitutes its parameters as either a sub-set of "journalist" or a grouping that partially overlaps with it?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the history behind the creation.... Is this the same as citizen Journalism or is a simple "Other Category" for those who dont neatly fit in any existing category? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * or is this simply desciptive of some one who works for Alternative media like an Alternative news agency or Alternative newspaper The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * there's no doubt that many newspapers are labeled "alternative". For example, the free weeklies distributed in a number of U.S. cities get that label. But I'm not familiar with it being applied to the journalists themselves. Some of them may write for a variety of sources, so it would be inappropriate for us to use that category on our own based on their contributions to alternative news sources. Like any category, we should be able to find sources which use it about the individuals to whom it's applied.   Will Beback    talk    21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thumbed through a couple of dozen sources now, I am seeing no consistent use. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hotpads.com Wiki entry reads more like promotion than neutral point of view
Here's a link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HotPads.com Last 2 sentences in the intro paragraph seems out of place on a site like Wikipedia. I'm a little surprised it got past the editors. <<All features are designed to create the most user-friendly, comprehensive, and personalized location-based housing search experience online. Whereas many real estate websites are mash-ups of other mapping applications, like Google Maps, HotPads uses its own original mapping application.>> Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.68.91.86 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At AFD almost no sources and certainly none having depth of coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi
What has happened with this article in the last month is one of the worst examples of politically-motivated recentist bias I've ever saw on Wikipedia. Just compare this revision from February 21 and the current revision as of March 30.
 * There is a standing bias in wording of half of the section titles, compared to the older version. While much of content hasn't changed, the way in which article is currently structured is blatantly non-neutral.
 * The almost empty Economy section was created, with no any mention that Libya became one of the most prosperous states in Africa with the highest HDI under Gaddafi. Instead, there is only a dubious statement that the eastern separatist regions "became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories".
 * Another one-sentence section "Prosecution for massacres" was created, as if there is good evidence so far (other than Twitter, Facebook and biased journalism) that there were "massacres" and not just fighting separatists.
 * At the same time the Public works projects has been reduced in size, tagged with no good reason, renamed to more ambiguous "Public works", stripped from the subsections and put into less prominent position in the article.


 * And so on. The question of the deteriorated neutrality of the article has been raised multiple times at Talk:Muammar Gaddafi, but nothing has been done about the issue. Hope somebody intervenes. Grey  Hood   Talk  18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Without looking at the article (I appreciate that this may reduce the credibility of my comment - however, if I happen to hit the nail without looking, maybe it actually increases it), this sounds very credible and describes exactly the sort of thing that WP ought to have effective mechanisms for avoiding. Undoubtedly there are currently ample sources for a whole range of things (true, false, fair, infair) that portray Gaddafi in a poor light. Concentrating exclusively on those isn't NPOV, however much editors think that that Gaddafi-is-a-shit represents genuine neutrality.
 * BTW. I'm not saying it doesn't. But obscuring the other side of the case remains wrong. This isn't meant as a defence of Gadaffi. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and George W Bush also presided over considerable economic success. The fact that they are also shits doesn't mean that their association with anything that might be considered positive should be excluded from their articles. --FormerIP (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What I just quoted in the section above (from WP:WEIGHT) seems relevant in this instance: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text ...." I see the prospect that Gadaffi's supporters would want to emphasize his public works, etc., while his detractors would want to diminish coverage of same.  But how to determine the appropriate balance I don't know. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At least, two months ago the balance was more appropriate. And the article was rather stable for months and for years. Why change its structure and tone so much because of the recent events? I'd propose to return to the older order and naming of sections, of course with addition of one or two sections specifically devoted to the recent events. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Duloxetine: badly in need of a re-write or at least a re-edit
The article is a big jumble of two different viewpoints, even mid-paragraph. Either the entire thing needs to be ditched and re-written, or at least somebody needs to separate out the bogus negative stuff with the valid ones, and put them together in some sort of different subsection. Every single symptom section seems to refer to some obscure study about how it didn't work for this symptom, while talking about how it's treated for this symptom.

Here's the "Major depressive disorder" section:

''Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of major depressive disorder. In three out of six well-designed properly controlled pre-marketing trials duloxetine performed better than placebo; the three other trials were inconclusive.[17] Recently, duloxetine was shown to be effective in elderly with recurrent major depressive disorder where it improved cognition, depression, and some pain measures.[18] A meta-analysis of these trials indicated that the effect size of duloxetine as compared with placebo was weak-to-moderate, and similar to other 11 antidepressants studied.[19] The rationale behind the development of duloxetine was that inhibition of the reuptake of both serotonin and norepinephrine would make it work better than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors  (SSRIs), which inhibit only the reuptake of serotonin. However, in a comparative meta-analysis of clinical trials duloxetine appeared to be insignificantly less effective than SSRIs.[20] A head-to-head comparison of duloxetine with an SSRI escitalopram (Lexapro) found duloxetine to be both less tolerable and less effective.[21] Another analysis of the comparative efficacy of modern antidepressants found duloxetine to be significantly, by 30-40%, less efficacious than mirtazapine (Remeron), escitalopram, venlafaxine (Effexor) and sertraline (Zoloft). Duloxetine was similar to fluoxetine (Prozac), fluvoxamine (Luvox) and paroxetine (Paxil). The tolerability of duloxetine was significantly worse than the tolerability of escitalopram and sertraline.[22]''

''A review in Prescrire International summarizing the existing evidence noted that duloxetine has limited efficacy in depression and no advantages over other antidepressants. Prescribers observed that, taking into account the risk of hepatic disorders and drug interactions, there is no reason to choose duloxetine when so many other options are available.[2] Similar analysis was presented by Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, which is a part of the respected BMJ Group.[23]''

References or not, it's still slanted and biased, showcasing a minority opinion as front and center, while contradicting itself with somebody else's edits. This article has been on the Noticeboard before, but that was two years ago.

I have put in Conflict & Undue templates for the article until it is fixed. SineSwiper (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Due weight and factual accuracy
We're really going around the houses on this one, I'm afraid.

It is argued that WP:WEIGHT only applies when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute. That is to say, that there is no problem from a WP:WEIGHT perspective with giving a point whose factual accuracy is undisputed significantly more weight than it is given in reliable sources.

In the case concerned, the point given significantly more weight than is present in reliable sources is accepted to be factually accurate (broadly, there are some disputes on detail), but are the points argued by those on one side of the modern dispute to further their cause.

Is this argument an accurate reading of policy? Pfainuk talk 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Allowing at the outset that I make no claim to being expert on policy, yet there are points that might be raised.  Like, it seems to me that the question you have raised here is not quite the same as the argument you refer to at Talk:Gibraltar.  Both seem worth discussing, but I am a little concerned lest what is discussed here gets carried back to there in a way that might not be appropriate.  (As a side comment: is it possible that you and the other editors at Gibraltar might work up a joint statement as to just what you all think the issue is?  That is a somewhat sophisticated approach, but you all seem to be reasonable enough and cool enough to do that.)
 * As to the question raised here, my understanding is that you have a point whose general "factual accuracy" is not in dispute. That is, it is agreed that certain events happen, though there may be some quibbling about the exact details.  So the issue is not about whether these events happened, but how much prominence they should be given.  (Close enough?)
 * My initial take on this is that WP:WEIGHT is about prominence. But — what makes this question tricky — is that the policy seems focused on opinions, views, viewpoints, and disputed interpretations.  What you have here is (effectively) undisputed fact(s); the "weighing" is in regard to their presentation.  WP:WEIGHT says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."  Note the "overall significance to the article topic." And just further on, what seems to be key here: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."  (emphasis added.)  In brief: no, WP:WEIGHT is not limited to only "when the factual accuracy of a point is in dispute."
 * A warning: while reliable sources might be relied on to some extent regarding proper weight, I think there are other factors that might be considered. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * May I offer a little more information. These facts are included to explain why the population left and some authors do make that link. Others do not for example Andrews contradicts it directly.  Opinions vary signficantly including the expectation of a counter attack, loyalty to Philip and others.  The range of opinions in the literature isn't reflected, with a focus on only one.  Clearly this is unsatisfactory for NPOV, particularly as the sole opinion represented reflects the Spanish national narrative.
 * In additon, I cannot see how Imalbornoz has established due weight regarding the opinion in the literature. He does not have access to either of the sources he cites (Hills, Jackson) and both are only available in snippet view via Google Books.  He relies on a 3rd party for second hand quotes from texts he does not have.   He claims notability on the basis of Google Hits.
 * Hence, I believe this is why Pfainuk has asked for external opinion on the arguments advanced by Imalbornoz rather than his own comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar I have started an RFC to gather outside opinion related to this issue. Those who have commented here may care to contribute an opinion. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will go out on a limb and claim, as a correct reading of policy, that 1) an editor may not cite sources that he has not seen, and 2) notability is not determined by Google hits. If that is not sufficiently clear and authoritative perhaps more senior editors might be requested to comment.
 * I would also point out that two distinct issues have been raised here, and care should be taken to not confuse them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

About the LDS
People, can you please give your feedback here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Argument_against_Christianity I would like to see this discussed on just one page, and that is the page where the debate started. --217.50.56.198 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fertility Monitors and NFP
Fertility monitor

I have cleaned up this article a bit and posted to the talk page, but I'm not very active on Wikipedia, so I won't be able to follow the discussion. This article provides no counterpoints and uses material sourced entirely from the webpages for the products, or third party webpages claiming that the products can be used off-label for birth control. NFP may or may not be a good method of birth control, and if any of this stuff checks out, it's great news. But if it doesn't, it shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.46.81 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

== Emehmotors.com ......THE RISE AND FALL.

This is the tiny little company started by a girl. He was supported by his brother and it grew to a mega company. They grew up poor with thier mother in a tiny village of West Africa. They all mi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginikanwaobivuilo (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
Is it NPOV to describe the Viet Cong insurgency during the Vietnamese war as "communist terrorism" in the article Communist terrorism? TFD (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources which call it such? -- Jayron  32  03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The source says,"Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, police chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than thirty-three thousand South Vietnamese and abducted another fifty-seven thousand of them.... While the labeling stategy of the United States evolved over time, each of the related administrations linked terrorism and Communism as paired threats to American interests in the region. To reinforce the association, each relied on the convential Cold War narrative to publicly frame acts of terrorism during the war. The approach recalled the nation's war history by mapping the terrorist tactics of the Nazis during World War II onto the Communists in Vietnam. (In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World, Carol Winkler, SUNY Press, 2006, p. 17" This is rephrased in Communist terrorism as, "In the 1950`s communist terrorism was rife in South Vietnam with political leaders, provincial chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors and members of the military being targeted. Between 1965 and 1972 terrorists had killed over thirty three thousand people and abducted a further fifty seven thousand." TFD (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like an issue for the original research noticeboard. It is a fairly common phrase that was used to describe the insurgency in Vietnam but you would be testing the limits of synthesis to incorporate that source. There are far better sources out there. <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus <font color="#CC7722" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Qwertyus   04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces fails to point out it is taken from a chapter titled "The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists" So there is no issue here at all with either NPOV or OR. Tentontunic (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you see no difference between an author claiming that the U.S. government used the term CT and the author endorsing the use of the term? Notice the writer uses the term "Communist Terrorist" in scare quotes.  TFD (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the context above, I don't think that the title of a chapter is enough to use the term without qualification. On a side note I also think the copy could be better written: phrases like "was rife" and "being targeted" seem clumsy, no offense meant to whoever wrote it. - PrBeacon (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@<font style="color:#000099">Jayron. Your question "Do you have reliable sources which call it such?" is irrelevant to this noticeboard, because this thread is not about reliability, but about neutrality of the text we discuss. In my opinion, the same is true for the TFD's arguments, because if the author does not endorse the term "Communist terrorists", then this thread belongs to WP:RSN or/and WP:NORN, because, as <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus says, the text may have some synthesis issues. Nevertheless, I agree with <font color="#21421E" face="font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;">Marcus that it is possible to find some reliable sources that openly and explicitly characterise North Vientamese or Vietcong partisans as "terrorists", or even "Communist terrorists". However, again, all of that has no relevance to the neutrality noticeboard. What is relevant to it, is the fact that many reliable sources exist that (i) explicitly state that the term "terrorists" in general should be applied with cautions to the national-liberation and partisan movements (see. e.g. William F. Shughart II. An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000, Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39: "What, if anything, distinguishes a terrorist from a “revolutionary”, an “insurgent”, a “freedom fighter”, a “martyr” or an ordinary criminal?"), or (ii) characterise the usage of this term in a context of Vietnam War as US, or, broadly speaking, Cold War propaganda. For instance, the current version of the article clearly explains (with sources) that "this term ("communist terrorism, P.S.) has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during Vietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures."(Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35.), therefore, we have no other choice but to conclude that, according to some reliable sources, the term "Communist terrorism" in this context is a Cold War legacy, and cannot be used without attribution. My conclusion is that the discussed section as whole contradicts to the neutrality principle and to other parts of the article and must be rewritten.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's impossible to determine neutrality without reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And of course on page 18, 25 and 32 of this book she says viet cong terrorists. Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue. Tentontunic (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that you see no issue is a serious issue per se. Your conclude that the text is neutral just because it is (in your opinion) verifiable. By writing that you mix two independent policies. In addition, by saying that "Given the VC were of course communist then again, no issue" you demonstrate your infamiliarity with the WP:NOR policy: the source must explicitly characterise VC as "Communist terrorists", otherwise your conclusion is synthesis.
 * However, that is only a part of the issue. In actuality, the proposed text is even non-verifiable. Thus, whereas the author agrees that terrorism was common for South Vietnam since 1950s, on the page 18 the author does not call Vietcong "Communist terrorists", by contrast, he points out that the idea to couple terrorism with Communism belongs to the US administration and was used as a "public justification for the US involvement in the Vietnam War". Therefore, you simply misinterpeted the source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And that paul is pure wiki lawyering. To say the VC were communists is hardly OR. A source calling the VC terrorists is communist terrorist, to say otherwise is a waste of time. Tentontunic (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And again all of this is more relevant to the umpteen attempts to delete the article than to any violation of NPOV at all. If one feels there is a POV, the procedure is to add balancing material, not to rehash the same ten thousand words over and over and over. This article has survived a sklew of AfDs - time to let it evolve and grow and not to keep sniping at it in every forum possible. Collect (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A number of sources explicitly mention communist terrorism in Vietnam, for example see Inside the VC and the NVA: the real story of North Vietnam's armed forces By Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg: "Pike concluded that the most horrendous example of Communist terrorism during the war, the massacre at Hue" and The war for South Viet Nam, 1954-1975 By Anthony James Joes: "The target of increasing Communist terrorism in the cities, the police forces of South Viet Nam continued to deteriorate" --Martin (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Collect. Wrong. You can easily see that neither I nor TFD are the proponents for the article's removal. At least, I made several additions of the text and the sources, which have been reverted by others. Let me reiterate: I do not propose to delete this article.
 * @Martin. As I already wrote, it is not a problem to support this material with needed references. The problem is that other reliable sources exist that directly connect the term "Communist terrorism" (in a Vientam context) with a Cold war propaganda. It is a neutrality noticeboard (if you haven't already noticed that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa about the number:  removal of over 85% of article in one edit.  ditto without preserving edit history as required by WP policy about copyrights.    turning article into a dab page.   attempted redirect.   AFD 3.  There were also AFDs 1 and 2 by the way.  And note the !votes including TFD.  AFD2? Paul Seibert. So your "strong delete" meant nothing? Thank you most kindly, but the forum shopping is evident. Sigh.  And the MfD for "Communist terrorism (disambiguation)"?  Closed as The result of the discussion was Speedy delete via G6 as blatant misuse of disambiguation.  Too many bites at the apple now. Collect (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I pardon you, don't worry :). Speaking seriously, I failed to find anything in your diffs that support your assertion that I want to delete the article. Yes, I moved (not deleted) a significant part of the article, because it belonged to another article, and you perfectly know that. Therefore, I even don't know how to characterise this your assertion using the terminology allowed by the WP policy... I do not propose to delete this article because when you type "Communist terrorism" in google or gscholar you get a lot of hits. However, they refer to many quite different, and frequently not related to each other, things and sometimes are used as an alternative terminology for the events that are being described by other, more adequate terminology. Therefore, in my opinion, the article should stay, but it should discuss not a concept (no single concept of Communist terrorism currently exists), but various examples of application of this phrase by different writers, politicians, scholars and journalists: starting from the Red Terror (which should be briefly mentioned, the Nazi demagogic attempt to blame Communists in Reichstag fire, Malaya, Vietnam (as a part of propaganda efforts), left-wing terrorism (it is necessary to explain that sometimes terrorism of this type is being described as "Communist terrorism" and to provide a link to the main article), etc. We are quite able to write a good article, if we stop edit warring and forget old Cold War propaganda cliches. In any event, the way some editors follow (to combine as many bad things as possible and to contextually or directly link them to the word "Communism") will not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A "Strong delete !vote is not a vote to delete? Really?  Seems to me that "strong delete" means "strong delete" unless there is some "what does 'is' mean" moment has occurred.  Meanwhile, trying to use this as one more forum to accomplish was not accomplished in any of innumerable other forums seems outre.  Collect (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you should look more carefully: I do not remember that I participated in the AfD discussions (at least I didn't find my name there). With regard to what I want to accomplish, I believe I described that in details in my previous post. And, please, if possible, try to stop your personal attacks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh?  Note all of the following deals with your specific words, and is not a "personal attack" in any way.
 * see seems clear about your desires and intent.
 * that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content.
 * where you removed 85% of the article to that other article.
 * your precise rationale for disliking the article.
 * wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya.
 * where you say   "Based on the google scholar search results, which demonstrated that the terrorist groups described in this article belong to the Left-wing terrorism article and not to this article, the content of the sections 2.1 - 2.16 must be moved there. Since this is a neutrality issue, no consensus is needed for that."
 * where you say  "I would say that these alleged "communist terrorist groups" are in actuality left-wing groups, according to majority reliable sources. Therefore, the content of this article simply has to be moved to the Left-wing terrorism, which will be done after Nov 4."
 * (state of talk page included) wherein you write: "They possibly identified themselves with Communism, but they were not seen as Communist by large Communist parties, and were seen as "ultra-leftist" by others. Communism/Marxism is much more narrow term, and, accordingly, the Red Brigades etc should be moved to some more appropriate article"   saying that "Communist groups" are only "Communist" if they are seen as officially communist by "large Communist parties."   You specifically state:  "One way or the another, whereas "Communist" is a subset of "Leftist", and whereas numerous sources calling them "Leftist" do exist, insisting on the word "Communist" is a violation of the neutrality principle. "      This position is shared by TFD who even manages to say   "Also, Orwell was writing about the "Communist Party". None of the groups listed in the article were Communist parties or had any official relationship with the Communists and therefore whatever he thought about Communists does not apply to them."     "Delete I provided the examples of inadequate usage of the source, I addressed this argument specifically to Collect, however, he seems to completely ignore that my post. Therefore, his claim that "the claims are backed by WP:RS sources" is simply false"  where a "Paul Siebert" used the word "delete" for a large section of the article (that is, everying about  'origins, evolution and history" of the topic.   "Rename per Scholar results (see above). That should be done independently of the straw poll results, because the present name violates the neutrality criteria.--" where you specifically state that the name of the article itself can not be allowed.
 * "I think, it is senseless to continue. Every article's section I checked belongs to "Left wing terrorism", not to "Communist terrorism" article, according to sources"
 * So let's see -- you never suggested deleting the article -- just renaming it, removing it, removing every single section, removing everything about "origins, evolution and history" and so on. I will take you at your word that you "never" sought deletion.  I rather think this small assemblage of diffs shows your opinions adequately.  Collect (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "seems clear about your desires and intent" To declare desires and intent does not contradict to the rules and the policy, provided that these desires do not contradict to WP:C, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Do you see anything in my desires and intents that contradict to them?
 * Re "that you regard this a subcategory of an article into which you moved a great deal of content" And why do you believe that was incorrect?
 * Re "where you removed 85% of the article to that other article." Yes, I did that, and I provided needed rationale, and this my step has been supported by many users;
 * Re "your precise rationale for disliking the article." Yes, I dislike wrongly written and biased article, in full accordance with the WP policy. I already explained why this article is biased and poorly sourced. Do you have any counter-arguments against that?
 * Re "wherein you state that "communist terrorism" is only found in regard to Malaya. " Sorry, but that statement is a blatant lie. From the diff provided by you it is clear that I wrote:
 * "In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue), what Petri means is that Malayan Emergency was the only case when the term "Communist terrorism" was used more widely than other terms to describe these events"
 * In other words, your statement is a lie at least for three reasons
 * (i) Firstly, I wrote "In my understanding (although I didn't do a separate studies of this issue)", which means that I didn't state anything, just expressed my opinion, which, according to my own words, was not based on the analysis of the sources, so it was not the ultimate one;
 * (ii) This opinion was not about Malaya, but about the views of another user (Petri);
 * (iii) This my opinion was not about "Communist terrorism" as the term applied to Malaya only, but about Malaya as the only known case when this term is being used more frequently than other, alternative terms.
 * Therefore, the only my advise in that case is: please, read the text you quote more carefully. Misinterpretation of my words is harmless, however, if you read the sources as carefully as you read my posts, you are quite able to badly misinterpret the formers, which may inflict serious damage on Wikipedia.
 * Re the rest of your post, I don't see any problems with what I wrote in the past.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also note your own words: "[Obviously, someone wants the word "communism" to be associated with as many nasty words and definitions as possible. Of course, this article's content should be moved to the terrorism article (interestingly, the latter article even do not mention "Communist terrorism" as a separate type of terrorism). BTW, the same is true for "Mass killings under Communist regimes": the mass murder (the article mass killing redirects to, that is supposedly a "Mass killing under Communist regimes"'s mother article) mentions neither "Mass killing under Communist regimes" as a separate mass killing category, nor Valentino's, Goldhagen's, etc works. (IMHO, the very fact that so much efforts and WP space is devoted to killings under Communists, whereas almost no attention is paid to other mass killings, and to the mass killing issue in general, is a clear sign of someone strong bias)    In my opinion, a redirect from mass killing to mass murder should be removed, the "mass killing" article should be extended by moving part of mass murder's, Mass killings under Communist regimes', Holocaust, Nazi war crimes, American war crimes' etc content there, and, if necessary, series of "Mass killings under..." daughter articles can be created. That should be done first, and only after that can I switch to communist terrorism."     which also appears to be an abundantly clear statement of your intent to remove anything where you feel "communist" is used as something only anti-communists seek to associate with "nasty words and definitions."    I am not an "anti-communist" in any such sense - but it is likelwise clear that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND outlook on this per your own talk page. Collect (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A pure logical fallacy: "X in not always wrong" and "X is always right" are two quite different statements. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only do I "lie" but I have a "pure logical fallacy"? Your supercilious claims thereon do not benefit any article.  Nor do they benefit this noticeboard.   Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon taking a closer look at the source and the proposed text, I would say that it fails verification. The quoted source is about how the US government labeled this as communist terrorism, which is, of course, wholely different than saying it is communist terrorism.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How incredibly fortunate then that I found another source which supports this content. Tentontunic (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is unfortunate, however, is that you continue to misinterpret the neutrality policy: if the sources A states that the Vietnamese partisans were labelled as Communist terrorists by the US administration, and the source Y states stat they were Communist terrorists, that does not mean that the source X can be rejected. But, in actuality, that what you have done. You removed the following text, that was supported by numerous reliable sources and that stated:
 * "...... Later, this term has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans duringVietnam war to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.(ref. Carol Winkler. In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World War II era. SUNY Press, 2006, ISBN 0791466175, 9780791466179, p.29-35. /ref)......"
 * And added another text that directly contradicted to what the text removed by you said. This is a serious violation of the policy, and I request you to self-revert. The fact that you found another source that supports your POV changes nothing. This is my second warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take your warning, and then put it were the sun doth not shine. The second source most certainly does not contradict the first, perhaps you ought to look closer. Tentontunic (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is totally irrelevant. Since reliable sources exist that confirm that the originators of the phrase "Communist terrorism" (in this context) was the US administration, and that it was utulised to draw teh US into the Vietnam War and to affect the public opinion, that must be said in the article (so the text removed by you should be restored). Since no common opinion exists among the scholars on if partisans can be described as terrorists, the term "communist terrorists" must be used with attribution. Do you have any concrete arguments against that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is really irrelevant whether or not the US government used the phrase "Communist terrorism" as Cold War propaganda, since your source states as fact that terrorism existed in Vietnam. The very first paragraph of chapter of the book you cite states the existence of terrorism as fact: "Terrorism was commonplace in South Vietnam beginning as early as the 1950s. Targets included local political figures, province chiefs, teachers, nurses, doctors, military personnel, and others who supported the nation's infrastructure. From 1965 through 1972, terrorists killed more than 33,000 South Vietnamese and abducted another 57,000 of them." That the US administration exploited that fact as propaganda does not diminish that fact or make it POV, no more than the Allies used the fact of Nazi atrocities as propaganda to motivate their people into action. --Martin (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not correct. Firstly, the source does not state that this terrorism was Communist terrorism (it does not specify that at all). Secondly, this chapter is specifically about the attempts of the US administration to link terrorism and Communism to justify American involvement in Vietnam. To take some facts from this source and to reject other facts and the author's conclusions is a direct and deliberate misinterpretation of the sources. You also forget that other sources explicitly refuse to call partisans "terrorists". By saying that, I do not claim that the characterisation of Vietcong partisans as terrorists should be removed from the article, however, it is absolutely necessary to say that (i) the originator of this terminology was the US administration, which did that for propaganda purposes, and (ii) other sources do not characterise partisans as terrorists. By contrast, Tentontunic and the editors supporting him insist on removal of any other information but Cold war propaganda, which is in blatant contradiction with WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So who were these terrorists that killed 33,000 and abducted 57,000 South Vietnamese, aliens from the planet Mars? A number of authors, such as Michael Lee Lanning, Dan Cragg and Anthony James Joes, do make the explicit connection between Communist insurgents and terrorism in South Vietnam. Nobody is claiming that Vietcong partisans were "terrorists", but that they used terrorism as a tactic in their insurgency. --Martin (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They definitely were not aliens, which, of course, automatically makes them Communists (as we all known, all bad things are being done by either aliens or Communists). According to the existing viewpoints (major ones), the originators of term "Communist terrorism" (in a context of Vietnam) was the US administration, and, therefore, this term was initially politically motivated. Some authors explicitly call VC insurgents "terrorists", some of them use the adjective "Communist" (just to discriminate them from others), some authors directly link Communism and terrorism, and others explicitly refuse to apply this term to partisans, because the term "Terrorism" is vague. Neutrality requires us to say all of that in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Terrorists" itself is a loaded word, and arguably non-neutral POV. Contrast with "freedom fighters" — one is bad, the other is good, and (curiously) all of the terrorists are on the other side, and all the freedom-fighters are on our side.  It's like a wire with high voltage on — there will be sparks where ever it touches, and needs extremely careful handling. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article seems mis-named since it only addresses terrorism related to the Vietnam War. This sentence: " On December 6 1967 the Viet Cong used Flame throwers on civilians in the village of Dak Son killing 252 with the majority of those burnt alive being women and children.[13]", makes me wonder if we should have an article titled "Anti-Communist terrorism", to address the My Lai massacre of civilians. Or better yet, maybe just delete the article and merge it back to the Vietnam War article.   Will Beback    talk    19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear you misapprehend the context. Collect (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article in question is Communist terrorism, this is just a section within the article. Tentontunic (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know on how many notice boards and pages this article has popped up. The whole topic suffers from the fact that "communist terrorism" is a propaganda phrase that has been bandied around for about 100 years with very many different meanings (usually "stuff the other side does", but with different "stuff" and different "other" and different "sides"), and with different intentions (tainting insurgent movements with the association with "communism" and tainting "communism" by association with acts of terror). Treating the topic as a meaningful concept in its own right is about as reasonable as an article on "capitalist imperialism" as a valid concept. To answer the original question: Based on the source, no, it is not correct to describe the Viet Cong insurgency as communist terrorism, although the insurgency certainly included acts of terrorism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim -- but Wikipedia has thirteen articles mentioning "capitalist imperialism." Including Anti-imperialism which is quite definitely mainly aimed at that topic.   Meanwhile, I find it interesting that people can assert that people who admittedly engage in terrorism are somehow not terrorists!    It is neatly analogous to a person who has committed multiple arsons complaining when he is called an "arsonist." :) Collect (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you referring to my comment? An insurgency is not "people". And acts done by members of an organization or group don't universally reflect on the organization or group, and much less on all members. Compare "All Americans are evil torture-murderers". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Collect, were you not aware that the British referred to their sphere of influence as an Empire? That the heads of state of Russia, Germany, Austria, France, and Belgium called themselves emperors?  That they called themselves imperialists?  That scholars refer to them, as well as the Spanish, Portugese, and Dutch (even U.S.) overseas possessions as imperialism?  They do not however refer to anti-imperialists as Communist Terrorists.  TFD (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try to understand that I do understand English. The term "capitalist imperialism" has nothing whatsoever to do with the "British Empire" or the "Iranian Empire" or the "Japanese Empire" or the "German Empire" or the "Chinese Empire" or the "Empire of Siam" or the "Empire of Brazil" or the "Empire of Mali" and so on ad infinitum. BTW, Leopold II was "King of the Belgians" and never "Emperor."  I suppose you simply forgot that fact.  And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense at all in this discussion. Collect (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about capitalist imperialism? TFD (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded to Stephen's  " Treating the topic as a meaningful concept in its own right is about as reasonable as an article on "capitalist imperialism" as a valid concept."   Look back in the list of threaded messages to see his post.    Then you injected the Belgian Emperor (sic).   To follow threads, look at indent levels - I trust you will find his post. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You provided the article Anti-imperialism as an example of an article "quite definitely mainly aimed at that topic ["capitalist imperialism"]". In fact the article mentions the Roman Empire, the British Empire, Spain, etc.  I suggest that the Roman and Spanish empires were not capitalist.  TFD (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk about a digression! I pointed out that WP has many articles referring to "capitalist imperialism" and "Anti-imperialism" is but one of them. From that article:  Lenin held that imperialism was a stage of capitalist development,  is a central tenet of the longest section in the entire article.  Your note about the "Roman Empire" amounts to a part of a single sentence. And "Spain" or "Spanish" is not even found at all in the body of the article - contrary to your apparent assertion (other than a single aside about the "Spanish-American War").    Meanwhile, this digression has absolutely nothing to do with the points I raised, and is a thorough waste of our readers' time. Collect (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)