Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 25

Relisted: How best to present disputed information
Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi is a claimant to the abolished throne of Libya. The man has gained quite a bit of notoriety in the media, including most recently in the U.S., in light of the protests against Gaddafi. But the legitimacy of his claims have been widely questioned. There is now a disagreement regarding how best to present his claim on List of current pretenders. WP:LIST requires a verifiable inclusion criteria, and this list currently requires a legitimate link to the throne. The order of succession in Libya was codified in Art. 45 of the Constitution: primogeniture, or failing that, nomination by the reigning king. This man fails both of these, and it's verified by independent sources. Similarly dubious claims are presented in the article either in plain prose or in a footnote, but not as a main entry. The other editor involed claims that presenting claims unequally violates NPOV. As for myself, I consider it a violation of NPOV to give dubious claims the same weight as those that are generally recognised; see the following relevant sections from WP:NPOV:
 * The two main sources used in the list, Christopher Buyers and Henry Soszynski, both present the son of the last crown prince, Muhammad al-Senussi, as the rightful heir.
 * In 1995, a British magistrate ruled that "The world of make belief has totally absorbed Mr Idris Al-Senussi in this case. Mr al-Senussi wishes people to believe he is the heir presumptive to the Libyan throne. ... [T]he clear evidence in this case says that crown prince Muhammad, son of the last Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Libya, has a stronger case".
 * This case followed his attempt to convince British members of parliament that he was the "great nephew of the late King Idris of Libya". However, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, instead described the man (after also mocking his claim) as "the second son of the sixth son of the second son of the younger brother of Idris's father." (The Sunday Times) Buyers' genealogy matches this association exactly. Soszynski doesn't list him at all.

I'm hoping that editors here, familiar with the policy, can determine which is the right way to go. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.  Night  w   08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My reading is that we should exclude people like Emperor Norton, whose claims are entirely illegitimate. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Noting that I've been asked to comment here on my talk (but also that the message was neutrally worded and I am looking at this without regard for who holds which position here).


 * A list such as this needs to find a way of giving appropriate weight to each POV in each case. Per WP:NPOV (and in particular WP:VALID), the idea that points need to be given equal validity, regardless of prevalence, is not accepted.  Neutrality requires that we give due weight to each case, which in this means putting significantly more weight on those who are recognised by scholars as those who would be the legitimate heirs to the throne if it still existed, and less weight to those who are not.  For this reason, it would appear from the above that Idris al-Senussi should not be given equal weight with Muhammad al-Senussi in the case of Libya.


 * I think it would also be a good idea to distinguish more clearly those individuals who actually claim rights to the thrones concerned from those who recognise the abolition of the thrones concerned (or the rights of another line). Pfainuk talk 15:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion Crown Prince Mohammed El Senussi is the rightful claimant that is my 'POV'. However Idris al-Senussi is a widely acknowledged and high profile claimant since the late 1980’s, his claims are not entirely illegitimate I don't think it is appropriate to dismiss him completely, he is without doubt a member of the Senussi family (compare with Portugal: Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and the other 'claimant' Rosario Poidimani), his father was appointed by the last king, Idris to restore the monarchy, he in turn succeeded his father. Within former reigning families sometimes disputes arise, are Wikipedia editors going to make decisions over who the rightful claimant is to Lippe, Russia, France, Italy, Brazil, Two Scillies....? - dwc lr (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But he has been dismissed, as shown above, my multiple genealogical sources. He may be named in hundreds of news articles, but the sources that discuss his claim in relation to that of the Crown Prince's are the ones that should be given most weight.  Night  w   16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can cite sources to dismiss one rival claimant over another in other countries as well. At any rate Buyers and Soszynski are self published I don't think they are really even supposed to be used as sources. But there are sources that discuss his claim such as Greg Copley of the International Strategic Studies Association. Idris is treated as a claimant in the media, I don't see justification for removing his listing. - dwc lr (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The media is not a reliable source for this subject. I'm aware of your position, I'm listing this in order to get further opinions.  Night  w   08:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone offer an opinion, please?
I've relisted this in order to get further input. Do any of the regulars on here have any thoughts?  Night  w   08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think he is a notable pretender to the throne and should be listed. The media would not have the last word, but any experts on Libya, or on monarchy, writing on the media would be citable. The existence of articles in the serious media is an indicator of notability. I appreciate that there should be criteria for inclusion of pretenders so that absolutely ridiculous claims are ignored completely, but if this is indeed a notable claim, then those criteria should be reviewed or waived in this instance. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than removing the claim then, what alternative would you suggest in order to represent the view of genealogists?  Night  w   09:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just add one sentence using the Sunday Times 1995 lead article linked to above. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Where? The list is in table format. I would put it in a footnote, but given that his claims have been uniformly dismissed by genealogists, the rest of the family, the courts, and just plain common sense, I think that's giving way too much weight to the mass media's perspective, which is divided to boot. It's alright to say that he's in the same family, but let's look at the facts:
 * At the time of the monarchy's abolition, the Crown Prince, as the eldest son of the king, is the legal heir under the order of succession (primogeniture). He's also been designated the heir apparent by decree. It's not hard to draw a line between him and his eldest son, who was also publicly designated heir.
 * This guy, on the other hand, isn't descended from any Libyan king (not even distantly) and, at the time of the abolition, had no royal title. He's not even technically a prince, let alone a king. And his claim, as the sources show above, was dismissed recently in a court of law.

I'm not questioning his notability, but we do have a criteria on this list and there are plenty of other fake pretenders included outside of the table in plain prose. So you have half (let's say) of the media randomly labelling him as the would-be monarch—without delving any further into that claim—while the other half, along with genealogists, courts, the last king's family, and simple logic disqualify that assertion. Surely this is a case of WP:QS with regards the media? Surely his claim can be included, but in plain prose rather than table format.  Night  w   21:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"LIberal" versus "progressive" for United States politics
This question is inspired by a particular article, but I want to ask it more generally, isolated from some of the other variables at work there. I'll say at the outset that I don't plan to reference this discussion to influence that one.

I'm curious about the use of labels to describe political organizations and individuals. In particular, there's "liberal" and "progressive" for modern United States politics. In the last 10 or so years, "progressive" has become increasingly popular with left-of-center politicians and groups to describe their political philosophy. The news media in a lot of cases still uses "liberal" even for organizations that fairly stringently stick to "progressive." There are different shades of meaning for both terms, but in my view, they encompass the same rough idea. One issue that weighs on the topic is that American conservatives have engaged in concerted effort to make liberal a "dirty word" that conjures negative feelings int he electorate.

We have a few options for characterizing the politics of a person/organization such as this: 1. Use no label at all 2. Use a different label entirely 3. Use one of "liberal" or "progressive", but not the other 4. Use either one interchangeably 5. Use some sort of "compromise" phrase that casts the labeling as some sort of dispute

I have a fairly strong distaste for both 1 and 5. I understand the theoretical appeal of using no labels, but we need words to describe things. For 5, I think that does a disservice to the politician to say something like, "Often called a liberal, Jones calls himself a progressive." That ascribes a degree of defensiveness that may or may not actually be there on the part of the politician or organization. It also creates a sort of clunky phrase where we dither about using two different terms that are more similar than different.

Where I'm largely lost is which term the voice of the encyclopedia should use. Is one "better" than the other? Should it matter which term the organization uses? Should we try to "count votes" in our sources to see which they use? ("Sources A and B use 'liberal' exclusively, Source C uses both, but prefers 'progressive," Source D only uses 'progressive,' and so on.)

Should we crop or bracket-edit quotes to avoid using one term or the other? For instance, let's say that editors decide that a politician's website is worth quoting to describe his positions. If the site reads, "Senator Jones believes in standing up for progressive values, such as.." and then lists his positions on issues, should we leave out the progressive identifier? Should we instead write something like, "Jones says he stands up for liberal values, such as.." and then quote the website?

I appreciate anyone who's read through this whole thing, and I'm interested in hearing a lot of opinions on this sort of thing if anyone wants to give them. If this isn't the right place for a question of this nature, please point me in the right direction. Croctotheface (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're splitting hairs a bit. If 'liberal' really had become pejorative then I would agree that to remain neutral we should avoid using it. That's a very big 'if' though. Out of all your options I believe (4) is closest to what I would favour, although I wouldn't say 'interchangeably' but I would say use 'editorial discretion'. Hope this helps. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alex that 4 is the best option. In terms of 5 (compromise/dispute), I think something like that would only come into play if there's an actual dispute noted in RS where some person/institution accuses the politician of calling himself one thing when he is (at lease according to the source) another. Otherwise, it's not really an issue.--Scaleshombre (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies. There should be no question that there's been an attempt by conservative activists to make "liberal" into a pejorative.  See Modern liberalism in the United States.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would usually avoid the terms "liberal" and "conservative" which are contentious, lack precision, and have a different meaning in the U.S. than in the rest of the world.  Usually the best terms would be Democrat and Republican.  The term "progressive" however seems more acceptable because there is a Congressional Progressive Caucus and Progressive Democrats of America - it is an identifiable faction within the Democratic Party and to the left of the party.  TFD (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am Australian and it has never occurred to me that 'liberal' is pejorative, although our conservative party is actually called the 'Liberal Party', so that could be the reason. Still, I doubt there is going to be a lasting shift in meaning of the term 'liberal'. But if it is clear that a source is using the term pejoratively then Wikipedia shouldn't be doing that. Can this be illustrated with reference to a specific content dispute? Part of the problem is that this whole discussion seems somewhat abstract. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A simple way through this potential minefield could be to include the self-descriptions of individuals and groups, alongside characterisations by their most notable critics. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex Harvey, the Liberal Party of Australia is a liberal party (hence the name), the conservative party having disappeared in the 1840s. In the U.S. however, they would be called conservative, while their opponents are called liberals.  Many countries however have both liberal and conservative parties, as in Scandinavia.  Usually the difference is that liberals support free markets, while conservatives support tradition.  TFD (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

An important difference in political nomenclature between the US and other Anglophone countries is that "liberal" over here doesn't connote strong ideological support for free markets, but rather support for economic regulation in the public sphere while retaining its more universal connotation of civil libertarianism in the private sphere. American liberalism is thus more "philosophically inconsistent" (though a foolish consistency can surely remain the hobgoblin of small minds) than what's implied by Liberal and Liberal-Democratic parties in parliamentary systems, which generally tend to support free markets and lassiez-faire social policies. This makes, e.g. the British Liberal Democratic Party a philosophical cousin of the American Libertarian Party, though the US LP would be regarded as more "extreme" and much more marginal than the UK LD party, which is the third largest party in multiparty Britain. Both parties tend to attract the well-educated and well-off.

If the term "progressive" seems to get shunted aside by American commentators taking their cues from the right wing's Mighty Wurlitzer to keep their opponents tarred with the dreaded "liberal" label (one must pronounce it "lib-uh-rul" for the proper ring of contempt), it's as important to keep watch on the term "conservative" as casually attributed by American media outlets. Most often it's shorthand for "economic conservative" which can imply a belief in the power of free markets in all sectors so strong it can be justly (and quite objectively) termed radical. Likewise "social conservatives" often connotes a passionate group who would foist the sort of social changes hard to square with honestly tradition-bound conservatism. Snardbafulator (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is "The Rapture" page indicating bias or editing to justify a specific point of view?
I am far from an expert on this topic. My understanding has always been that the "Rapture" was first mentioned by William Eugene Blackstone in the late 19th or early 20th century. The page on the Rapture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture draws upon numerous Biblical passages that prior to this I have never seen used to justify the belief in it.

Every time I have attempted to edit Wikipedia in the past, my additions have been removed (such as adding famous graduates of Grinnell College [Peter Coyote, for example] or factual information [its ranking in producing PhDs]). I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic or the Rapture or editing to attempt to change it myself, and I feel that is inappropriate without a consensus on whether there are factual errors.

Finding a way to submit this to anyone was nearly impossible. If I'm not able to do that, it should be clear that I am not qualified to edit it myself.

Thank you for any help you are able to provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetererinys (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the topic to know whether this is biased or not but certainly the section Rapture is original research, because it is an original analysis of a primary source without supporting reliable secondary sources. Why were your edits reverted? Do you know how to provide diffs to show us exactly what is going on there? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed that section per WP:PRIMARY.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nihal Sri Ameresekere


Can someone have a look at this page, reads like a "Our Team" section from a company website to see if it can be re-written or is it a no hoper. Mtking (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of decent sources, my suggestion would be to take the new reports and start from scratch. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#Cameron_Todd_Willingham NPOV?
Hi. I'm hardly neutral as I'm fairly certain that the guy was innocent, or at the very least not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Could someone knowledgeable in NPOV issues have a look over the section and decide whether or not to place an NPOV tag? Thank you. Also not certain how I should have labeled this section but at least it works. Pär Larsson (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a little concerned that too much weight is being given to this section in a biography about Rick Perry. I get the feeling that the article is making a point that death sentences are wrong and attempting to pin the blame for a possibly wrongful execution on the governor, simply because he supports the death sentence generally. While the death sentence may be wrong, it would appear that the courts failed here if Willingham really was innocent. I would suggest other editors have a look at this. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Algol - feedback on whether (and if so, to what extent) pseudoscience policy affects the content of this star page.
I'm asking for clarification / benefit of experience / general advice on a matter where an editor seems intent on starting an edit war by invoking pseudo-science policy over the content of the Wikipedia page on the fixed star Algol.

MakeSense64 has a history of targeting content which involves any kind of connection with astrology. Three days ago (6th July) he took it on himself to remove astrological references from this fixed star page, beginning with the talk-page question “Since this article is about the star, then is it normal there is also an astrology section? The astrology of Algol is covered in Behenian_fixed_stars, so it can be removed here. Any objections?” (BTW, the astrology of Algol is not covered on the other page, as another editor later pointed out).

This question met with the objection of a contributing editor who wrote: “Yes. mine. It is like any popular culture/cultural depictions section. I prefer to have them all at the topic, as that is what we are talking about.”

MakeSense64 ignored the objection and removed the content anyway. At that stage I also objected and restored the content, asking for consensus to be reached before cuts are made to content that has been a part of the page for 6 years. That began a series of undos and reverts, and a discussion which pulled in some new editors, partly as a result of Makesense64 placing a request for comment on the Wikipedia Astronomy Project notice-board - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Astrology.3F

Despite this, only one editor supported his point of view and it has always been the case, throughout the discussion, that more editors wanted the astrological content to remain than be removed.

The point of contention originally involved the appropriateness of an external link which led to an article on the astrological significance of the star, and since the suggestion was that there shouldn’t be such external links on the page, I offered to produce some relevant and reliably sourced text which could elaborate on its cultural and traditional astrological significance. My point was this:

"As I have said before, the focus of this article is not pure astronomy, but the star popularly known as Algol (from its Arabic name ‘the ghoul’). This article is not limited to covering only modern scientific information on the star: the question of why it has been considered ghoulish is of interest to an enquiring mind and suitable for inclusion on the page. There should be some expansion of the single astrological reference to its meaning that currently exists “Algol is considered the most unfortunate star in the sky”. Why? If an external link is considered inappropriate then I shall aim to provide some explanation of that within the main text."

I worked hard to provide solidly referenced text, free of ‘woo woo’ and of value to researchers, scholars, and historians, as well as readers with a general astrological interest. The emphasis was on the widespread cultural and long-standing astrological tradition attached to the star. The passage demonstrated how the name and astrological associations connect to the noted astronomical features of the star. Following publication, one contributing editor raised an issue about the reliability of one point concerning the historical recognition of its variability; but this was talked through to satisfaction with a slight edit and a reminder that the same historical point had already been given in the astronomical section of the star.

As the page may have changed, please consider this diff between his subsequent removal of the text, and the previous edit which shows the text in place, to see exactly what we are talking about.

Ignoring all the previous discussion, Makesense64 removed everything I had contributed saying “see talk”. His ‘talk’ stated:

"We have to adhere to WP:PSCI, which makes it clear that where science and pseudoscience are presented next to each other in an article (which can be for good reason), the pseudoscience part should not be made as big as to look equal in importance. That becomes a case of undue weight WP:UNDUE. … [NB: The added text is nowhere near as big, and does not overwhelm the astronomical content; and it is historical and cultural – not pseudoscientific] …. Just imagine how it would be if astronomers came to add their materials in an astrology article about a planet, that would not benefit any user of WP [I truly cannot imagine that anyone would have a problem with such a thing]. Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP."

This happened yesterday. Then another editor reverted the undo and placed arguments on the talk page saying that the addition was well sourced and of good quality and demonstrated care and research. But today I see that Makesense64 has deleted it again, arguing that the text cannot be published to the page unless it gets consensus first. This is bizarre: he has held an extreme and minority position all along, supported by only one other editor from the astronomy project, who I suspect is overly concerned by Makesense64’s suggestion there: “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.”

I am going to revert the deletion myself, this one time, and ask him to leave the content in place so it can be evaluated here. If he doesn’t I hope others will act instead because this reference to war, following on from what he claimed to be an edit war the day before (in which he slapped a banning warning on my talk page) makes me loathe to do anymore myself now for fear of adding fuel to an inflammatory situation.

I don’t know whether to comment on the astronomy discussion page myself or whether that would make things worse. I hope the astronomers realise that when Makesense64 joined their project on the day he posted to their talk page to call their attention to this, he was not forwarding a pro-astronomy concern but only continuing his habitual anti-astrology agenda. His contribution history shows how practically all his editorial activity is geared towards condemning astrology comments and astrology-related pages. Criticisms are fair enough – this sharpens content - but references to going to war, attempts to stir astronomers into a state of emotive reaction against the fear that “astrologers start taking over the astronomy pages”, whilst drawing reference to the pseudo-science policy seems completely over the top and surely benefits no one. If Wiki editors apply common sense and adhere to WP policy, why is there need for editors to ‘go to war’? I struggle to know how to deal with what seems to be deliberate engineering of controversy and division. Maybe I need to open a complaint against this editor elsewhere but we also need a review of his argument from those of you with more experience, to establish the principle of whether – as he suggests - there must be extreme restriction placed upon anything that construes an astrological reference. My argument is that we are not dealing with a page in an astronomy manual here, we are talking about a Wikipedia feature article on the fixed star Algol, which can easily accommodate a segmented section that sensibly explores the star’s point of interest from the cultural and traditional astrological angle too.

Thanks for any guidance you can give Zac  Δ talk   14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Zachariel notified me about this post on my Talk page. This looks like strong campaigning to me. Please consider WP:CANVAS . MakeSense64 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood WP:CANVAS. It is obvious consensus on the talk page is not working so bringing it here as part of the dispute process is quite reasonable. As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring. Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVAS mentions that asking outside opinion should be done in neutral wording. The above piece looks like a long campaign speech to me.
 * If a person cannot ask outside opinion on a NPOV noticeboard in neutral wording, then where is his NPOV?
 * MakeSense64 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's above is not a notification on a user page or suchlike. This page is for discussions of problems and dispute resolution. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dmcq - thank you for your comments. I have never used this noticeboard before so I'm not sure about procedure or what happens as a result of raising the issue here.  The only new feedback on the Algol page is from a member of the Astronomy project who made a reasonable edit that I'm entirely happy with, and then wrote:
 * "I don't have a problem with having an astrology section in an article about a star, as long as it had some historical significance, is kept in proper contest, reliably sourced, and does not either dominate the content, drift too far off topic, or presume that the reader accepts astrology as fact. I.e. it is in line with WP:PSCI, WP:RS, WP:RNPOV and WP:TOPIC."
 * This seems sensible to me but Makesense64 still insists that this breaks policy. He gives what I think is an unecessarily derogatory comparison between the content on the page being for some astronomers as unpleasant as when a non-smoker being is forced to endure the smoke of a smoker. He is continuing to pursue his point on the Algol talk page and related project pages. At this point I'm not sure whether it is best to respond to his posts for the sake of transparent consensus, or regard them as best ignored as not representative of policy or an argument that anyone else is choosing to pursue. If anyone can clarify the procedure I should take I'd be very grateful Zac  Δ talk   08:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at the talk page. You've asked for extra input and the consensus is against them. It may be that admin action is needed about them if so I'll request it. Dmcq (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a good look at it all now, alerted by this section. As you'll have seen, I made my own attempt at a compromise, which hasn't generated consensus. I don't want this to go round in circles and turn into a bigger dispute than it needs to be. Perhaps a quick Everyone is acting in good faith and engaging on the talk page, so admin action isn't called for. A Request for Comment is the obvious next step, isn't it?

User:Itsmejudith - I think your attempt at a compromise could work but with a little amendment and discussed agreement first - we mainly need to clarify policy over the statement made on the Stars in astrology page - see my latest comment on the deletion request to understand the problem that I realise will prevent either astronomers or astrologers from buying into that page and developing it unless there is a better policy scope defined first. If that page was used as a central reference point that led to dedicated astrological articles on star meanings and small astrological references on other pages then yes it would be useful and could be purposefully developed. I have a suggestion that should be capable of resolving the Algol problem to everyone's interest and satisfaction and will propose that tomorrow as I want to break away from WP for today. My immediate question is where to place the proposal so it can be discussed, hopefully agreed, and used to define a workable policy for future reference. I don't want to thrash through the argument on the Algol page and have it recreated over and over. So would this be the best place to offer the suggestion, and then bring refrence to this in the places where the discussion is ongoing? I am assuming this is the place where these sorts of policy decisions are examined, am I right ? Zac Δ talk   17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think for policy proposals you can go here: WP:PROPOSAL MakeSense64 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably meant WP:VPP. I would suggest floating it on the Algol talk page first and then going to VPP or whichever guideline looks most appropriate if it isn't shot down in flames. Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV question and some problems with English
[This is copied from my email as the editor apparently thinks he's emailing some official group - it deals with edits at Pyramid but Pyramid of Hellinikon has related issues. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)]

Dear Administrators, After our last correspndance below I present a fair case for the Lefkowitz – Liritzis reference: AS IT IS NOW

Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method, as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia was ignored. She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.[17] In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating.[18] PROPOSED CHANGE

Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method, (NEVER THE AUTHORS MENTIONED THIS! THE RELIABILITY WAS ALREADY TESTED IN LAB & KNOWN AGE MONUMENTS PRIOR TO PYRAMIDALS SEE REFS I SUSPECT NOT READ BY LEFKOWITZ:

1.     Liritzis (1994) A new dating method by thermoluminescence of carved megalithic stone building. Comptes Rendus (Academie des Sciences), Paris, t. 319, serie II, 603-610.

2.     Liritzis.I (1994) Archaeometry: Dating the past. EKISTICS, t.368/364, 361-366.

3.     Liritzis I., Galloway R.B. and Theocaris P. (1994) Thermoluminescence dating of ceramics revisited: Optical stimulated luminesccence of quartz single aliquot with green light emitting diodes. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. Letters, 188 (3), 189-198.

4.     Theocaris P., Liritzis I., Lagios E., and Sampson A. (1997). Geophysical prospection and archaeological test excavation and dating in two Hellenic pyramids. Surveys in Geophysics, 17, 593-618.

5.     Theocaris P.S., Liritzis I. and Galloway R.B. (1994). Dating of two Hellenic pyramids by a novel application of thermoluminescence. J. Archaeological Science, 24, 399-405.

6.     Liritzis I., (1995) Alternative determination of equivalent dose by green light emitting diodes Optically Stimulated Luminescence using the unstable luminescence. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 190, 1, 13-21.

7.     Liritzis I., Guilbert P., Foti F., Schvoerer M., (1996) Solar Bleaching of thermoluminescence of calcites. Nuclear Instr. Meth. B, 117, 260-268.

8.     Liritzis I., Guilbert P., Foti F., Schvoerer M. (1997) The Temple of Apollo (Delphi) strengthens new thermoluminescence dating method. Geoarchaeology International, vol. 12, no. 5, 479-496.

9.     Liritzis I., Bakopoulos Y. (1997) Functional behaviour of solar bleached thermoluminescence in calcities. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B, 132, 87-92.

10.  Liritzis I. (1998) Bronze Age Greek Pyramids and Orion's belt. Griffith Observer, vol.63, n.10, 10-21

11. Liritzis I. and Galloway R.B. (1999), Dating implications from solar bleaching of thermoluminescente of ancient marble. J Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 241, 2, 361-368.

12. iritzis.I and Vafiadou.A (2005) Dating by luminescence of ancient megalithic masonry. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, vol.5, No.1, 25-38.

13. Liritzis. I, Sideris. C, Vafiadou, A and Mitsis.J (2007) Mineralogical petrological and radioactivity aspects of some building material from Egyptian Old Kingdom monuments. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9, 1-13..

14. Liritzis, I, Kitis.G, Galloway. R.B, Vafiadou, A, Tsirliganis, N, Polymeris., G (2008) Probing luminescence dating of archaeologically significant carved rock types. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 8(1), 61-79.

15. Liritzis, I, Polymeris, G and Zacharias, N (2010) Surface luminescence dating of ‘Dragon Houses’ and Armena Gate at Styra (Euboea, Greece). Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, Special Issue, (D.Keller, guest editor), Vol.10, No.3, 65-81.]

as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. > ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE AUTHORS NEVER QUOTE! SHE MISALLEDGES READERS ATTRIBUTING TO AUTHORS WRONG ISSUES eg THE BLACK ATHENA AFFAIR, THE AFROCENTRISM etc THAT SHE WROTE AGAINST BERNAL. BUT SHE ACCUSES THE RESEARCHERS THAT DATED THE STRUCTURES WITHOUT PROOF. WHAT SHE WRITES SHOULD INDICATE OTHERS NOT THE LIRITZIS TEAM. VERY MISLEASDING. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. > THE AGE ERRORS ARE CLEARLY QUOTED IN PUBLISHED WORKS BY LIRITZIS TEAM. AND THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND DISCUSS ERRORS (ALSO MUCH CITED BY OTHER SPECIALISTS COLLEAGUES). NOTHING MORE TO MAKE. THE AUTHORS DO NOT CALL PYRAMID THAT AT THEBES BUT SIMPLY QUOTE THE EXCAVATOR’S PAPER. NEITHER REFER TO STYLIDHA (THESSALY)…..! WHERE HAS SHE FOUND THESE?. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. > THIS IS WELL KNOWN EFFECT AND MENTIONED BY AUTHORS! IT DOES NOT ADD ANYTHING. NEITHER ALTERS RESULTS! She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia was ignored. WHERE IS THE IMPORTANCE TO WIKI READERS? A MISSED REFERENCE? She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.[17] > THE METHOD WAS TESTED AND ESTABLISHED (SEE ABOVE REFERENCES). PREDETERMINED IS A WRONG ATTRIBUTION PURELY HYPOTHETICAL AND ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. IT SHOULD BE CROSSED OUT. Under these misjudges one should expect a defence reply on one-to-one points raised by Lefkowitz by the Liritzis team. That would be fair. Isn’t it? Wikipedia does not get involved in such detail but writes the facts providing correct references with citation. Thus, I suggest the following: [Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research based on assumptions regarding the methodology and linking archaeology with politics [17]. In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating.[18]

____
 * My comments - one problem is that the text in the article by Liritzis is brief and difficult to understand:
 * "The first result of surface TL dating of the marble Temple of Apollo Delphi of c.550 BC was dated to 470±200 BC (Liritzis et al., 1997b) and two limestone pyramidal buildings at Hellenikon and Ligourio (in Ar-golid, Greece), thought to be Hellenistic times but TL dated to 2500-2000 BC on overlapping errors, were reported (Theocaris et al., 1997). In a recent volume on archaeology and politics, classicist Lefkowitz (2006: 195-202) has discussed latter dates on hypothetical preten-tiousness. The loquacity on the pseudo-archaeology is-sues in general, is a self obvious and scientifically sound attainable consideration. However, her inadequacy in physical methodology, often encountered with academic historians, and/or missing detailed critical reports and finds on the published dates, as well as, misinterpretation of the novel effort, today widely accepted as surface luminescence dating, unjustifiably undermines unsuccess-fully the new ages. Though at the end she remains skepti-cal about these older than thought ages."
 * The book in question is in fact not about archaeology and politics, it is about fringe archaeology, although her article is about politics - Mary Lefkowitz (2006). "Archaeology and the politics of origins". In Garrett G. Fagan. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public and she devotes about 8 pages to this versus the four sentences above. The Hellinikon article probably needs more from her analysis in fact (note that I'm the one that added her to both articles). I'd very much appreciate other comments on this and will direct the editor to this section. Thanks. - I'll add more here later. I have both sources if there are any questions about them. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug, do you want to summarise your question? In case it helps, I can just say that Lefkowitz is reliable for archaeology, and Liritzis writing in Geochronometria is also reliable. This seems to be an argument within scholarship. Does that touch on your concerns? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor wishes to rewrite both the bit on Liritzis and Lefkowitz. The rewrite he proposes for Liritizis is pretty incomprehensible and he wants to minimise what Lefkowitz wrote to one sentence (whereas it really needs expanding if anything), leaving just
 * "[Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research based on assumptions regarding the methodology and linking archaeology with politics [17].

In a recent article to ICI journal Geochronometria Ioannis Liritzis [1, page 294] criticises classicist Lefkowitz (2009: 195-202), referring to her inadequacy in physical methodology, one often encountered with academic historians, and specifically in the methodology known as Surface Luminescence Dating." What I'd like first I guess is what we should write about Liritzis's brief comment on LefkowtizDougweller (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this English is hardly comprehensible. Someone could explain what Liritzis said, i.e. anyone who has access to the article and can write in English. Or, if they can't write in English, they can even write in their own language and ask for it to be translated. If no-one can do that, then there's no call to mention Liritzis in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is in English, see the relevant quote above under the sentence starting 'My comments'. The problem is it's fractured English, so I've tried to rewrite and summarise it. The other editor's attempt I think fails in that it is still incomprehensible.
 * My preferred version is at the Pyramid of Hellinkon site:
 * "Ioannis Liritzis and his team argue for an early date through five sub-projects: 1) geophysical prospection inside and around the two pyramidals at Hellenikon and Ligourio, where buried monuments were discovered [10], 2) these results directed the archaeological excavations carried out by archaeologist A.Sampson and archaeologists of the Archaeological Museum of Nauplion. Amongst the new finds were foundations of rooms, ceramics of Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Protochristian periods, and protohelladic II in the exterior foundations of Hellenikon above the bedrock. A comparative study of masonries was also made [11][12], 3) astronomical orientation of the long entrance corridor was found related to the rise of Orion’s belt occurring in c.2000-2400 BC.[13], 4) the dating of some parts of the overlied large megalithic blocks in the wall, with the novel Thermoluminescence dating method of rock surfaces. Sampling was chosen for their firmness and lack of sun exposure of internal contact surfaces, by removing a few milligrams of powder from pieces in firm contact. Seven pieces gave an age range of c. 2000–2500 BC.[14],[15].[16], while two ceramic sherds of non-diagnostic typology one from Hellenikon and one from Ligourio dated by TL and OSL gave concordant ages of 3000±250 BC and 660±200 BC respectively.[17] Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research. She suggests that some of the research was done not to determine the reliability of the dating method, as was suggested, but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization. She notes that not only are the results not very precise, but that other structures mentioned in the research are not in fact pyramids, e.g. a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall, etc. She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions. She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia, was ignored. She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.,[18]


 * "Liritzis responded in a journal article published in 2011, stating that Lefkowitz failed to understand and misinterpreted the methodology.[19]"


 * The editor seems unwilling to have more than a sentence for Lefkowtiz and argues that she was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Funeral articles, "Reaction" sections
WP is not a memorial site. That applies to regular folk, as described at WP:NOTMEMORIAL. But it also applies to the famous and powerful. WP:NPOV is a core policy, and it requires including all significant points of view. There are a number of "funeral" articles which look fine to me: However there is also a set which include "Reaction" sections: These sections comprise excerpts from condolences and eulogistic comments sent by world dignitaries. I think they're a bad idea. One cannot expect honest assessments of a person in remarks of this kind, so these sections are really just collections of nice quotations about the deceased. We wouldn't allow material like this in a biography. Perhaps they should be moved to Wikiquote and summarized collectively, something like "The subject was praised in comments sent by leaders from around the world, including..." Maybe quote one or two, briefly. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan
 * Michael Jackson memorial service
 * Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales
 * State funeral of John F. Kennedy
 * Death and funeral of Corazon Aquino
 * Death and funeral of Otto von Habsburg
 * The Habsburg one seems to meet notability standards on its own - the Aquino one is more problematic. In neither case, however, does NPOV seem to be an issue, however. Try AfD on the Aquino one and see how it fares, I suppose.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting deleting the articles, only minimizing the "Reaction" sections because they violation NPOV, hence this noticeboard. The sections are basically eulogies for the subjects, and that doesn't seem NPOV. I don't object to articles about the events surrounding the funerals, just these sections.   Will Beback    talk    12:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. The sections are ver the top and unencyclopedic. When a head of state or former head of state dies, other heads of state send messages. The most that is needed is a brief "Among those sending condolences were...". Very few funerals need a separate article, only if there is something remarkable about the death or funeral that leads to substantial coverage. Diana, of course, Michael Jackson, of course. The US presidents. Elvis? Churchill? Those sorts of cases, not others. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with reporting widely publicized reactions from heads of state and similar, which also seems to be a long standing practice. Also, reaction sections don't have to be merely positive, but that, of course, depends on the reactions. In some cases, many negative reactions can be found as well. As pointed out, this kind of articles are reserved for a very limited number of cases, where there is something special about the death/funeral that leads to substantial coverage (e.g., hundreds or thousands of media reports on the funeral, closing down central Vienna, half of Europe's royals attending etc.). Essentially, it's the same kind of article as Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock in many ways, i.e. an article based on a major (media) event. As long as all significant views reported by reliable sources are included, there is no NPOV problem in my opinion. Mocctur (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The wedding article you cite does not include a similar "reactions" section, which is part we're talking about. If it did include comments from well-wishers then it might have a similar problem. I don't see how this represents a 'long standing practice, since only two articles that I've seen have this kind of eulogy section, and one of them is brand new. Further, many of these comments do not appear to be "widely publicized" at all, and are cited to the websites of the well-wishers, rather than to secondary sources. This complain is not about full coverage of the funeral, just the lengthy list of positive comments. We can wait until the funeral is over, but then I think we need to summarize the comments much more briefly.    Will Beback    talk    23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The reaction to a funeral is almost sure to run afoul of WP:NPOV. I think the expressed sentiments are almost obligatory and they tend to be gushy and flowery as opposed to concise. While reliably sourced I don't think most of the expressions make for notable quotations, therefore I think an editorial decision should be made to curtail the inclusion of them. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Only two articles"? On the contrary, it's a long standing practice: Even separate articles only containing reactions exist:
 * Reaction to the death of Robert Byrd (only positive reactions)
 * Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden (mostly containing negative reactions from people opposed to the subject; "crowds gathered spontaneously to celebrate", "this momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001" etc. etc. etc.)
 * Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy ("Men and women wept openly")
 * International reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto (only positive reactions (i.e., not critical of her) as far as I can tell)
 * International_reaction_to_the_assassination_of_Anna_Politkovskaya

Reaction sections are also common in biographical articles where no separate article on the death exist:
 * Tim Russert ("had a love of public service")
 * Levy_Mwanawasa
 * Salmaan_Taseer

And of course, other reaction sections in death/funeral articles exist:
 * Death_and_state_funeral_of_Néstor_Kirchner

I'm sure many, many more can be found. When the average person dies, there are no reactions from a long list of heads of state and the Pope. Documenting these reactions in the few exceptional cases where the death is a major issue (especially those deaths/funerals worthy of their own articles) is of historical and encyclopedic relevance, and something the readers will find interesting. Removing reactions would require the removal of lots of material in many articles and the deletion of several articles including the Osama bin Laden one with negative reactions and the Benazir Bhutto with positive ones (if neutrality really was an issue (I don't think it is), the Osama bin Laden reactions article would be the really problematic one). Numerous editors have probably spent hundreds of hours writing these articles/sections, based on this being common and accepted practice. ("reaction(s)" seems to be an extremely common heading in articles, so this way of organising articles is very widespread).

The Habsburg article you mention does not only contain completely positive reactions. It also contains reactions from a party (the ruling one) which was extremely critical of the subject for decades (the relationship between the state and the (exiled) subject of the article had even provoked a political crisis in the 60s). The article as such also contains criticism of the extensive state involvement in ceremonies. The reaction by the chancellor only emphasises that the subject's life reflects "the great turning points of the Austrian and European history". These somewhat more reconciling, but not overwhelmingly positive, reactions by the Austrian government, are historically significant, which has also been the subject of media commentary. Mocctur (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding those additional examples. I am very concerned about the "Reaction" articles. Wikipedia is not a quote farm, so any article or long section that's mostly composed of quotations is inappropriate. If properly sources, those quotations should be moved to Wikiquote.   Will Beback    talk    04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope = Wikiquote is made up of quotes by author, not quotes by event.  Putting these sections over there is a classic case of "round peg into square hole". Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles I've seen there include quotes both by and about individuals. These quotes we're talking about aren't about the funerals, they're about the deceased.   Will Beback    talk    20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While the reactions only articles mostly consist of quotes, they also include descriptive text. In the death/funeral articles, the quotes do not make up the majority of the text. The material fits in naturally in these articles, and I don't think moving it to Wikiquote, taken out of its original context, would be ideal, neither for the material itself nor for Wikiquote. I also don't think the larger issue of reactions articles, sections and materials is really a matter of neutrality. Mocctur (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The descriptive text isn't the problem, it's the quotes.   Will Beback    talk    20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi
Admins are not ready to accept any POV and reliable sources other than what is state by the above two users.

One of the admins already accepted that he doesn't know anything about the claim that being OBC means Kurmis are Shurda or not. But still he believes that any edit done by the above users is valid. While so many reliable sources have been cited to show that Kurmis are not Shudra. Still none of the admin believe these sources. Every admin especially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boing!_said_Zebedee and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpacemanSpiff

seem to concur with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sitush and User:MatthewVanitas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Please_dont_take_ownership_of_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.139.114.107 (talk • contribs) — 174.139.114.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Huh, and I treated you so nicely on Talk:Kurmi. But anyone accusing Sitush of ownership is clearly on the wrong end of the NPOV forum. Suggesting archiving of a 45 section long talk page isn't ownership. In fact, suggesting it not be archived is borderline disruptive--navigating that page is painful at best, and impossible at worst. Archiving doesn't erase anything, it just moves old discussions out of the way so that we can stay current on new discussions. Finally...have you ever edited under an account name before? This behavior of giving unwarranted warnings and reverting against consensus sure seems familiar to me...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this unsubstantiated claim. By nicely you meant you accepted your wrong POV. Where have I reverted? I am putting some material for an organization. If that's what you mean. We must keep wiki as neutral as possible. Why do you think that I committed a grave insult by placing a warning here? Is this WP:NPOV

This admin is openly haressing this user.

Please conduct an investigation on the conduct of the admins mentioned above, along with the users mentioned above.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.139.114.107 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 July 2011 — 174.139.114.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Okay, first, a clarification: the above information is partially copied from User Talk:Sitush. My comments listed above were not posted here, they were posted on Sitush's page.  Second, those comments were made after the above user (posting under a different IP address) gave a warning a templated warning to Sitush for "ownership" of articles.  In a certain sense, this is not a new "problem" for Sitush, basically because Sitush is fighting a fairly lonely battle on a number of different Indian caste pages to try to keep them neutral in the face of numerous users (some of whom have accused Sitush and other users off-wiki of receiving payments of $12,000 a month to slant WP articles) who want to "prove" that their caste is, in fact, descended from royalty, despite what all reliable sources might say.  Sitush does an amazing job at this; I haven't worked with him as much, but MattewVanitas seems to be in a similar position.  Basically, the above complaint is baseless, the talk pages of these articles are littered with sockpuppets, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and "I know it's true because my grandfather's grandfather said so."  Of course, other uninvolved editors are more than welcome to come to Talk:Kurmi (or Talk:Nair, or Talk: Kshatriya, or Talk:Rajput clans, or any of a dozen others that I'm sure Sitush and MatthewVanitas could list) to provide input; maybe we're just totally wrong and the sockfarms are right.  Also, if anyone (uninvolved) believes that my comment constitutes harassment, please tell me and I will withdraw or strike those parts which are unacceptable.
 * Just to be fair, I did make a mistake which the IP mentions at the very beginning, although xe got the actual mistake wrong (basically, I thought the article said, "The Indian gov't thinks X and Y.+ref1+ref2"; actually, what the article said was, "The Indian gov't thinks X; others also think Y.+ref1+ref2") But upon having that pointed out, I apologized and moved forward.  Final disclaimer: I am not an admin.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Followup: Perhaps the user who posted here isn't the same as the one who originally posted on Sitush's page; in fact, that user actually later said to me "Our POV is based on how we interpret the facts. You are one of the nicest persons I have met today, both offline and online. So anything you say I will accept it without any issues. To me, above two posts look like an attempt of ownership". I don't know if this is one person, two people, good cop-bad cop...Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I haven't followed this in any detail, there is clearly a problem on this set of articles involving and I agree that Sitush and MatthewVanitas (and you of course) are doing a difficult job to the best of your ability. Whether this can be solved here or will need Admin action I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't think I (or the others) have anything to defend against here - I have sought input from other admins and have so far had pretty much unqualified support for my admin approach to this sorry mess. I'll just leave interested parties to look over the relevant caste article Talk pages and see the near-infinite patience with which Sitush and MatthewVanitas have tried to explain Wikipedia's policies of sourcing and consensus to the legions of caste warriors and their socks, and have painstakingly investigated a large number of sources and explained what they see as reliable and unreliable amongst them - and see the almost non-stop abuse and accusations they have been receiving in return. And if anyone wants to try a sockpuppet investigation on User:174.139.114.107, I'd be surprised if it came up empty -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an element of swarming going on, some of which has been proven to be socking and others that look distinctly like they may be down to offwiki canvassing. There is also some on-wiki canvassing, mainly due to one user sprawling his discussions across umpteen talk pages. Basically, the issue is very simple with regard to the caste status: we have plenty of sources that say, with absolute clarity, that the caste was/is in ritual rank A; and we have been presented with a fair few sources which document attempts by certain members of the caste to claim a higher rank. Both sides are shown in the article. The problem is that the likes of want to inflate a claim into a fact but are unable to provide sources to match the clarity of the statements which say otherwise. Since neither myself nor MV are from India or of Indian origin, and since these other contributors have often acknowledged that they are of the Kurmi caste, the issue is perhaps really one of COI. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems possible that the originator of this particular thread is a sock of, regarding whom an SPI has recently closed at Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajneesh_Katiyar. This is based on some beans evidence. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been some emails sent to the unblock mailing list too, the content & style of which suggest at the very least meat puppetry. --Errant (chat!) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that my name is called, let me present viewpoint from my side. There are many contradictions on this matter.
 * In India, the word Shudra is not used anymore in official discourse, it is like a taboo - this understanding is not present on page like Kurmi though the word Shudra is prominent at many places. In fact there are legal cautions but I am not sure how it weighs on Wikipedia, I have been told that it does not, however derogatory a word may be.
 * Jati, Varna, Caste, etc. form a maze of combinations. Jatis have been mobile over time across Varna & caste, and official depends on poverty levels also other than these, along with political equations, vote-bank-numbers and reservation policy, etc. Moreover a Jati may be recognized as different Varna across different regions. The recognition of Jati/Varna/Caste is rather dynamic more than static. Moreover, the Caste/Jati/Varna combinations could be regarded as general social characteristic of people, not just Hindus.
 * As per my comments on talk page(not main page, I have edited page once after the matter came up), there are some sources that recognize, as per my understanding, explicit 'Kshatriya' status Socially and Officially. The sources I have presented and are ignored giving unsubstantiated comments like 'swaying' authorities to get Kshatriya recognition etc. which I have objected and requested substance to demonstrate the comment that I am yet to get. As it stands, many editors have given views. The discussion as per me is ongoing. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  15:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The legal situation has been explained to Thisthat2011, as s/he acknowledges, & so I have no idea why s/he says "I am not sure how it weighs on Wikipedia".
 * The sources presented by Thisthat2011 were not ignored at all. They were examined and found to be wanting.
 * I repeat: the article does discuss claims to the status which Thisthat2011 refers to, and they are reliably cited. This is exactly how NPOV should work.
 * The continued bleating and cross-posting by Thisthat2011 is tendentious, and it looks like now we are going to see it here as well. S/he has been warned about adopting this stance by several people, not all of whom are the subject of this complaint. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We have fully agreed with you that caste issues as variable over time/location. The difference is that Sitush and I go through sources attempting to balance out "sometimes called X, sometimes called Y", whereas you find a handful of sources vaguely leaning to X and then demand we strike all mention of Y from the article. And as noted by your "not a legal threat, but I'm just sayin'" comments above (and on my talk page), it's pretty clear that your goal isn't NPOV, but adding Kshatriya and removing Shudra by any means necessary. You have backed blatantly poor references as "I don't see what's wrong with this", and you have consistently attempted to spin things like "one governor declared that Kurmi's weren't a depressed class and should be allowed to join the police force" into "See! Official Indian Government recognition of Kshatriya status."


 * You also just won't drop the bone on this "sway" thing. When I attempted to summarise, on the Talk page (not in the article) what one source was actually saying, you immediately leapt to sound the alarm and run hither and yon accusing me of WP:SYNTH. This is ridiculous "pot calling the kettle black" and an attempt to smear your opponents as being exactly equal to you in POV.


 * Sitush and I, and others, are confronting a massive array of caste articles that, to be frank, almost nobody cares about but members of those castes, so they have run roughshod adding every bit of self-glorification humanly possible while ignoring all kinds of very real and intriuging descriptions of caste politics, differing legendary origins, etc. By your actions you are standing in the way of this process of bringing long-overdue NPOV to a notoriously biased portion of Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed TT2011 is also adding content in Kurmi despite the exact refs he's using being rebutted on Talk, so basically disregarding entirely the Talk page to just add changes that have been discounted as compltely inaccurate. For example, he added here: "During colonial times, in 1896, official government recognition was given to Kurmis as Kshtriya." I have told him, multiple times, exactly what the source says, and how it says nothing of the sort, but he has plugged his ears, and attempted to accuse me of WP:SYNTH when I attempt to explain the situation using small words. Anyone curious, check this page and Ctrl-F "1896". That date is mentioned twice, and in neither case says anything resembling the text it is cited to:. TT2011 added several other contentious items that he has not run by the Talk page despite this being a clearly controversial article, including taking "several scholars think they found the Kurmis in the Skandas" to mean "Kurmis are mentioned in Skanda Puranas of Hinduism." This is his usual pattern, to find the most tangential relationship between two things and assign it as fact.

Setting aside his POV inclinations, the larger problem is that he simply refuses to listen to anyone else. He repeatedly referred to cited claims in the article as "unsubstantiated" (it's that what a footnote does?), and when repeatedly told "at the top of the Talk page is a list of Shudra references" he ignored it several times, including asking "Where are the sources say that Kurmis are 'Shudras'". The TOC clearly lists Talk:Kurmi, and if at Talk:Kurmi you Ctrl-F for "top " (with space after), you'll see the multiple times I told him exactly "at the top of the page is a list of extra sources". Forgive me if I'm a bit vexed at the moment, but this is literally like talking to a child. He simply plugs his ears when there's anything he doesn't want to hear, and ventures boldly forth to make changes based on cites we have again and again and again told him are either unreliable or taken quite out of context, or cited to prove points they simply don't say. This editor has filled up a goodly chunk of Talk:Kurmi with incredibly circular and repetitive posts while ignoring all replies, and then went ahead and added a bunch of improper text anyway, which Sitush and I are now obliged to debunk and remove individually. What more can I say about this editor? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Protected Kurmi for a week, have to go watch tv now. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As can be seen clearly above, MatthewVanitas has been pointing out why social/official recognitions as Kshatriyas to Kurmis should not be considered in the article, though the secondary sources themselves do not indulge in judging/considering/not-considering, etc. The reasons/excuses to not consider Social/Official status are given by the admin, which I think is not something for Wikipedia admins to decide. What I mentioned are facts as were viewed by me, and such things mentioned in reliable sources can not be excluded because 'some admins on Wikipedia give reasons/excuses'. It is not admins/editors job to give reasons/excuses for not including content on Wikipedia for reasons perceived to the admins as 'swaying' authorities, propaganda, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  14:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TT2011, I have told you this numerous times and yet you ignore me: the source you cite does not indicate social or official recognition of Kurmi as Kshatryia. You are unfairly claiming that the source says XYZ and yet somehow I don't want it going into the article. That is incorrect: we don't want it in the article because you are, yet again, selectively misquoting, reading massive assumptions between the lines, and extrapolating incredibly anecdotal cases to be universal truths. Each time you keep bringing up the same allegations, I bring up the same response, and yet you persist. This is why you've been called "tendentious", and I am coming to agree in a very short period of time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality in regard to IIS and its connection to malware
We have a situation developing Internet Information Services article.

A user insists that according to Google, IIS is hosting twice the number of Malware than Apache server. Me and three other users have contested that this is not a neutral statement. I suggested an alternative version that says:

The fact is that:
 * 1) According to Google...
 * 2) ...in the time of research...
 * 3) ...malware creators preferred to infect or host malware on IIS servers...
 * 4) ...because IIS computers that failed WGA test could not get updates.

However, the involved user (User:DE logics and IPs in range of 117.201.*.*) still does not relent, having even insulted us, calling us "Microsoft fanboys" and "Faithful dogs of Bill Gates".

I previously requested an article protection, but the protection is by now worn off.

I need to know what further action we should take. Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a rather long statement with excuses stuck into it. How about just straightforward sentences. Also you need to stick to verifiable things. Saying malware creators preferred one system to another is practically vacuous and certainly sounds unverifiable as a fact. If written somewhere Does it just mean they attacked one type rather than the other or does it mean one type of site succumbed more than another or does it mean they had actual preferences and somebody has done a survey of malware authors or is it just some blog spouting off attributing things to people who aren't going to say something themselves? Have you got a citation saying that WGA business is the major cause? As to long sentences I'd certainly think explanations should be in separate sentences.


 * As to name calling you can complain at WP:WQA in the first instance. Attacking editors that way is against WP:CIVILITY. People should address the topic not other editors. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me make it clear: First, this statement has only one primary source: a Google Blog post. Other sources only quote, paraphrase and exaggerate this source.  Second, this source says exactly what I have written above; no less and no more. However User:DE logics prefers to write: "IIS hosts malware", although, under our protest, he has written "'Google did a study of 80 million domains by examining the server's HTTP response headers and came to the conclusion that, even though (according to Google), usage of IIS servers is 23%, the number of malware [sic] served by these servers is 49%, same as Apache whose usage is 66%. Google suggests the cause of this could be the use of pirated copies of Windows, for which patches against security loopholes [sic] in Microsoft IIS might not be available from Microsoft.'" Third, unfortunately, the WGA being the cause has already failed verification: Microsoft supplies security updates to everyone. The Google blog post points to a security update download page on Microsoft.com to supports its "WGA is to blame" assertion. However, that update is available to everyone. The best we can assume is that this whole matter is a dated matter.  Last, I never suggested to write exactly what I listed in the four clauses; it is merely my draft. I told you that I initially dismissed this whole "IIS serves malware" matter. However, I proposed this draft as an alternative resolution that both of us accept. But User:DE Logics doesn't even discuss it. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Normally blogs are not allowed on Wikipedia, I think that one probably is okay as being verifiably by an expert in the subject. I notice they don't use the 'prefer' word I was objecting to which is good. I think the statements from Google should however be qualified with the year 2007. Putting your own analysis into the same statement as Google's is just plain wrong. In a separate statement you can then say that Microsoft does allow all security updates even for pirated copies of windows and put in the appropriate citation for that. Put in any much of your own analysis an it will amount to synthesis on your part. We're supposed to be saying what outside people say, if you can find outside sources saying what you want to say that is the way to do things. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Putting your own analysis into the same statement as Google's is just plain wrong." I don't remember having suggested such a thing. My four-clause draft does not contain any statement of my own. But as for the WGA verifiability issue, simply put: Google blog provided a source; per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, I checked that source. Result: Verification failed. Again, per WP:V, I double-checked with other sources, just in case. Result: Failed again, see these:
 * Windows Team Blog
 * USA Today
 * Tom's Hardware
 * I said all these to conclude what you just said: Regardless of whether Google's statement was correct in 2007 or not, we have NPOV problem: IIS servers may no longer be hosting 40% of the worlds' malware. These negotiation concerns aside, one of the editors maintains that without a complementary assessment, Google blog cannot be trusted at all as Google is a Microsoft competitor.


 * But these are all minor concerns. The biggest problem is that our dear User:DE Logics does not hear of changing his statement in any way, not even your suggestion of qualifying it with 2007. Fleet Command (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Leftist politics in the U.S.
"LID and SDS split in 1965 when SDS voted to allow communists (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially) to vote; afterwords, SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as The Weatherman and the Progressive Labor Party."

[Historical note: the Weather Underground, which later became a terrorist organization, emerged within the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and fought for control with the Progressive Labor Party (founded 1876), which was never Leninist .]

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * [Historical note: Ignore the previous paragraph's falsehood about Progressive Labor Party (United States).]
 * The (Maoist) Progressive Labor Movement split off (after 1948) from the Communist Party USA: The CPUSA and Maoist sects are Leninist, obviously. The Progressive Labor Movement renamed itself the Progressive Labor Party sometime in the mid 1960s.
 * Gitlin describes Progressive Labor as Marxist Leninist on page 190. Obviously, T4D doesn't know the first thing about SDS, and apparently cannot be bothered to read Gitlin or the WP article on Progressive Labor. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the actual language in the reliable sources? Is "taken over and destroyed" the precise language in the sources used?  Is there a precise cite for the statement that some group "was never Leninist"? Collect (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular section seems dubious. "Organised conspiratorially", linking to "democratic centralism" is an interpretation. Of course Marxist-Leninists are organised by democratic centralism - that is what should be said. I see some scholarly histories of the Left cited. Is there no good history of SDS? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources provided:
 * Todd Gitlin. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2
 * Miller, James. Democracy is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0674197251.
 * Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director Tom Kahn, "to his eternal credit", was correct in opposing that deletion, which helped Marxist Leninists to take over SDS: Todd Gitlin, p. 88, in discussion with Irving Howe: Politics and the Intellectual: Conversations with Irving Howe. John Rodden, Ethan Goffman, eds. Purdue University Press 06/30/2010 series: Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies ISBN 13:9781557535511

No page nos. are provided and therefore I do not know what the original text is. I do not have a source that the SLP was not Marxist Leninist, but have not seen sources that they were. Supposedly had then been Leninists they would have joined the CPUSA which Lenin directed his followers to join. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD mis-states my scholarship. I cited a page reference to Todd Gitlin's The Sixties, linked to Amazon where you can confirm it. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the talk page you provide a reference to p. 387 of Gitlin's book and a link to his book on Amazon. But Amazon does not show p. 387 of the book.  However, the entire book can be viewed at the Internet Archive. (Click at "PDF" under "View this book").  While page 387 mentions violence by the Weather Underground, it says nothing about their relationship with SDS.  The PLP is not even mentioned in the book.  TFD (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gitlin discusses "Progressive Labor" on 16 pages, as shown on Amazon. In particular, according to Amazon, he calls PL a Marxist Leninist group on page 190. He discusses PL and SDS on page 240. Gitlin discusses both Progressive Labor and the Weatherman Underground and the 1969 SDS convention on page 382.
 * You wasted this noticeboard's time, by running here without discussing anything on the page. You further waste our time by failing to read. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the full text of Gitlin's book online. It is detailed and fascinating but above all it is an intensely personal account. I don't find this a waste of the noticeboard's time. How to do justice to Gitlin's account within a short and dispassionate Wikipedia article is something that requires careful consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a waste of time for T4D to have rushed to this noticeboard without indicating what was his POV/non-neutral concern at the article's talk page, especially after I asked him. (It is a waste of time, assuming that T4D or you know anything about SDS, the way it would waste the mathematics project's time to complain that I had written 1968+2=1970.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD did take the question up on the talk page before coming here. If you will be patient, you should get some input here to help the page. I have some knowledge of the history of Leftist groups in Europe, less in relation to the USA, but enough background to look texts up and understand them. With luck you will get some further views from noticeboard regulars. The gloss "organized conspiratorially" for a link to democratic centralism contains an interpretation not conducive to NPOV. A better wording would be "following the democratic centralist form of organization". But you need at least one good source for any epithet attached to any group. "Marxist-Leninist", for example, is a minefield in that period. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he did not.
 * He complained about POV/Nonneutrality and lack of references. I provided references and asked him what the problem was. Then he came here.
 * "Conspiratorially" is a standard NPOV explanation for the totalitarian euphemism "democratic centralism". Sidney Hook was correct when he described the Communist Party USA as a conspiracy in his book, "Freedom yes, conspiracy no" (or similar title). Hook's book had some controversy, but nobody serious objected to his characterization of leadership cadre of the CPUSA as a conspiracy.
 * Do you have similar problems with discussing right totalitarians as when discussing left totalitarians? ["Nazis committed genocide" "No, that's point of view. The Nazis said they were providing living space for their race, by reducing subhuman populations.... Your saying that Jews and Slavs and Gypsies are humans is POV."!] Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK it might be good here to get a little less confrontational with people who are trying to help. Regarding the "conspiratorial" issue if it is a "standard NPOV explanation for ... democratic centralism" then why don't I see it in the entry on that topic?  It would seem from first glance to be one way to describe democratic centralism and perhaps not the most common, and it does sound less than NPOV.  Either way though we don't need to describe democratic centralism at all in this other article, we just need to name it and link to it's entry.  IMO the conspiratorial part should go.Griswaldo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, the obvious truth is that that that article, like many on similar topics, is written by communists or anti-anticommunists. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being irritated, but T4D failed to discuss the issues at the page. I have improved the passage, and I'm not going to waste further time, when none of you have followed WP procedure and tried discussing things at the article talk page. This discussion is closed. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: Kiefer, you have a valid point in saying that there should have been discussion on the article talk page before bringing it here... but we don't close discussions on this page because one editor says so. Now that it is being discussed here, there is no harm in letting it continue here until resolved (is it?). Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted before, I have updated the draft on the talk page, which I had understood was Wikipedia's preferred way to improve content. I shan't participate further in a pointless discussion that has no relation to improving the article or the proposed section in question. You are all welcome to help improve the draft at the talk page of the article. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(out) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is using the 1993 version of the book while the on-line version (1987) uses different pagination. Nonetheless I cannot find the specific claims in the on-line version. Even if they were there, the phrasing used violates neutrality.

As anyone can see, there was extensive discussion on the talk page, and it was apparent that it was unproductive. K.F wants to focus the article on the 1960s and present the article from the point of view of the Social Democrats USA, a political group that had several hundred members.

TFD (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TFD now is violating AGF and making a personal attack based on unsubstantiated speculations about my politics. As I have stated before, the history of my editing on this set of articles is easy to check, and certainly does not come because of adherence to SDUSA, but upon following a request of Carrite, who has stated his past membership in 3 organizations from the old SP. Similarly, I provided a discussion of Solidarity, not because I am a reader of "Against the Current" or a believer that militancy can solve all problems but because of a concern with presenting the most interesting political groups with integrity. I would urge TFD to emulate the intelligence and honesty that Carrite displays.
 * I have no idea what TFD is babbling about, with his claim that any phrasing violates neutrality. It is time for TFD to specify NPOV violations or be silent.
 * Why does he object to a paragraph on the leading socialists' roles the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty or SDS? Michael Harrington and Gitlin and Sale seem never to have been members of SDUSA, btw. (A basic knowledge of history would prevent such charges.)
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling one of the three history sections, "Max Shachtman, Civil Rights and the War on Poverty" provides undue emphasis to certain groups, individuals, activities, etc. Your claim that they had more influence then (when they had a membership of approx. 1600) than in 1912, then they owned numerous newspapers, had elected officials and obtained 6% of the vote in a presidential election, is not supported.  It also wrongly implies that the socialists were the driving force behind these movements.  TFD (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If so, your article originated the over-emphasis on a mythic figure called "Shachtman": I quote what you consider neutral language, which is a bastardized version of the pseudoscholarly history inflicted on the public by the PA chair of SPUSA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) In 1972, the Socialist Party was renamed Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) and now had only 1,600 members [Reverses chronology of Isserman, failing to note that the 1600 comes from the SP (while Harrington's UAW friend counted 1000, according to Isserman)]. Dissidents left to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973, led by Michael Harrington.    The same year another faction of the SPA, including David McReynolds, formed the Socialist Party, USA which continues to run presidential candidates.


 * 1) In the 1960s there was a renewed interest in anarchism, and some anarchist and other left-wing groups developed out of the New Left. Anarchists began using direct action, organizing through affinity groups during anti-nuclear campaigns in the 1970s.  In the 1990s, anarchists attempted to organize across North America around Love and Rage, which drew several hundred activists.  One successful anarchist movement was Food not Bombs, that distributed free vegetarian meals.  Anarchists received significant media coverage for their disruption of the 1999 WTO conference, called the Battle in Seattle, where the Direct Action Network was organized.  Most organizations were short-lived and anarchism went into decline following a reaction by the authorities that was increased after the 911 attacks in 2001.  However by 1997 anarchist organizations had again begun to proliferate.
 * The article discusses anarchism but not civil rights, labor, or the war on poverty.


 * You are getting your sequences mixed. Harrington supported negotiations with the North Vietnamese, while the Shachtmanites wanted to pursue victory.  That was a major cause of his break with that faction, and he later came to support unilateral withdrawal.  I have provided two high quality reliable sources to back that up.  While Shachtman died in 1972, the faction he led may still be called "Shachtmanites".  Providing 1/3 of the history section to a group that had at most 1,600 members, is undue.  And labor is mentioned in the article.  And as sources state, the Old Left largely irrelevant to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the "War on Poverty" was led by the Johnson administration.  And yes, anarchism is mentioned because there are more anarchists today than members of the SDP.  TFD (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Objections to evolution
My problem is that evolutionists who posted the aledged objection to evolution on @nd law of thermodynamics completely altered the argument and when I made already two versions of modification   they are erasing it within minute and do not allow even for NPOV discussion to be raised. I'm convinced that the objection is manipulated to something else than what it really is and thus it is misleading the Wikipedia reader. It is very tricky case: group A, evolutionists, with opinion X, declares that their opponents, creationists, group B, holding opinion Y, cannot have their opinion Y presented because their own papers "are not good enough sources" of their own opinion and that's why twisted opinion Z had to be falsely atributed to them to misrepresent their own position. Even if we would accept that given source is not up to some standards of evolutionists, then it would be still ethical at least to decalre that the objection is presented from point of view how evolutionist understand it and that might widely differ from the real position of the proponents of this objection.--Stephfo (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Already being discussed here. Please don't forum shop. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I will move it there then.--Stephfo (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have a Q though, that borad is evaluating the text from other than NPOV perspective. How does it work then if my primary objection against may opponents is that they do alter soemone's else opinion, thus potentially attacking someone's good reputation?--Stephfo (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks
Serious NPOV issues generally, including a list of "fraudulent" Chinese stocks without proper sourcing. Making one last attempt to salvage this before I nominate it for deletion. Constructive input into the page is welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV over SYN?

 * Dear all, IF possible I'm requesting all to assist in the reviewing the aforementioned article and comment on the discussion page for the difference of "explained" (supported by the source, and an archive of the original source I found) over the word "said" (which isn't supported by any source), the latter is incessantly demanded by an extremely abusive Anon IP editor to replace the former, per WP:SAY. Similarly, I've placed this same request for review on WP:No original research/Noticeboard in order to give it a fair chance at hearing. Apologies for any disturbance caused, thank you. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this argument is bizarre. There is no obligation to use words that sources use.  To say that a simple verb like said "isn't supported by any source" is just ridiculous.  Biased sources can very easily be reported in a neutral way, unless you decide, arbitrarily and unilaterally, that for some reason you have to use one particular word from the source.  2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can see the IP editor has a point there. Why do you feel the IP is misunderstanding WP:SAY? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can see the IP editor has a point there. Why do you feel the IP is misunderstanding WP:SAY? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Prematurely archived: Leftist politics in the U.S.
"LID and SDS split in 1965 when SDS voted to allow communists (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially) to vote; afterwords, SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as The Weatherman and the Progressive Labor Party."

[Historical note: the Weather Underground, which later became a terrorist organization, emerged within the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and fought for control with the Progressive Labor Party (founded 1876), which was never Leninist .]

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * [Historical note: Ignore the previous paragraph's falsehood about Progressive Labor Party (United States).]
 * The (Maoist) Progressive Labor Movement split off (after 1948) from the Communist Party USA: The CPUSA and Maoist sects are Leninist, obviously. The Progressive Labor Movement renamed itself the Progressive Labor Party sometime in the mid 1960s.
 * Gitlin describes Progressive Labor as Marxist Leninist on page 190. Obviously, T4D doesn't know the first thing about SDS, and apparently cannot be bothered to read Gitlin or the WP article on Progressive Labor. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the phrasing of this text neutral? Another editor has inserted similar text, which in my opinion, compromises neutrality and re-orients the article to events in the 1960s. I would be appreciative if other editors could look at recent changes. TFD (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the actual language in the reliable sources? Is "taken over and destroyed" the precise language in the sources used?  Is there a precise cite for the statement that some group "was never Leninist"? Collect (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular section seems dubious. "Organised conspiratorially", linking to "democratic centralism" is an interpretation. Of course Marxist-Leninists are organised by democratic centralism - that is what should be said. I see some scholarly histories of the Left cited. Is there no good history of SDS? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources provided:
 * Todd Gitlin. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2
 * Miller, James. Democracy is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0674197251.
 * Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director Tom Kahn, "to his eternal credit", was correct in opposing that deletion, which helped Marxist Leninists to take over SDS: Todd Gitlin, p. 88, in discussion with Irving Howe: Politics and the Intellectual: Conversations with Irving Howe. John Rodden, Ethan Goffman, eds. Purdue University Press 06/30/2010 series: Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies ISBN 13:9781557535511

No page nos. are provided and therefore I do not know what the original text is. I do not have a source that the SLP was not Marxist Leninist, but have not seen sources that they were. Supposedly had then been Leninists they would have joined the CPUSA which Lenin directed his followers to join. TFD (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD mis-states my scholarship. I cited a page reference to Todd Gitlin's The Sixties, linked to Amazon where you can confirm it. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the talk page you provide a reference to p. 387 of Gitlin's book and a link to his book on Amazon. But Amazon does not show p. 387 of the book.  However, the entire book can be viewed at the Internet Archive. (Click at "PDF" under "View this book").  While page 387 mentions violence by the Weather Underground, it says nothing about their relationship with SDS.  The PLP is not even mentioned in the book.  TFD (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gitlin discusses "Progressive Labor" on 16 pages, as shown on Amazon. In particular, according to Amazon, he calls PL a Marxist Leninist group on page 190. He discusses PL and SDS on page 240. Gitlin discusses both Progressive Labor and the Weatherman Underground and the 1969 SDS convention on page 382.
 * You wasted this noticeboard's time, by running here without discussing anything on the page. You further waste our time by failing to read. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the full text of Gitlin's book online. It is detailed and fascinating but above all it is an intensely personal account. I don't find this a waste of the noticeboard's time. How to do justice to Gitlin's account within a short and dispassionate Wikipedia article is something that requires careful consideration. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a waste of time for T4D to have rushed to this noticeboard without indicating what was his POV/non-neutral concern at the article's talk page, especially after I asked him. (It is a waste of time, assuming that T4D or you know anything about SDS, the way it would waste the mathematics project's time to complain that I had written 1968+2=1970.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TFD did take the question up on the talk page before coming here. If you will be patient, you should get some input here to help the page. I have some knowledge of the history of Leftist groups in Europe, less in relation to the USA, but enough background to look texts up and understand them. With luck you will get some further views from noticeboard regulars. The gloss "organized conspiratorially" for a link to democratic centralism contains an interpretation not conducive to NPOV. A better wording would be "following the democratic centralist form of organization". But you need at least one good source for any epithet attached to any group. "Marxist-Leninist", for example, is a minefield in that period. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he did not.
 * He complained about POV/Nonneutrality and lack of references. I provided references and asked him what the problem was. Then he came here.
 * "Conspiratorially" is a standard NPOV explanation for the totalitarian euphemism "democratic centralism". Sidney Hook was correct when he described the Communist Party USA as a conspiracy in his book, "Freedom yes, conspiracy no" (or similar title). Hook's book had some controversy, but nobody serious objected to his characterization of leadership cadre of the CPUSA as a conspiracy.
 * Do you have similar problems with discussing right totalitarians as when discussing left totalitarians? ["Nazis committed genocide" "No, that's point of view. The Nazis said they were providing living space for their race, by reducing subhuman populations.... Your saying that Jews and Slavs and Gypsies are humans is POV."!] Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK it might be good here to get a little less confrontational with people who are trying to help. Regarding the "conspiratorial" issue if it is a "standard NPOV explanation for ... democratic centralism" then why don't I see it in the entry on that topic?  It would seem from first glance to be one way to describe democratic centralism and perhaps not the most common, and it does sound less than NPOV.  Either way though we don't need to describe democratic centralism at all in this other article, we just need to name it and link to it's entry.  IMO the conspiratorial part should go.Griswaldo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, the obvious truth is that that that article, like many on similar topics, is written by communists or anti-anticommunists. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being irritated, but T4D failed to discuss the issues at the page. I have improved the passage, and I'm not going to waste further time, when none of you have followed WP procedure and tried discussing things at the article talk page. This discussion is closed. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: Kiefer, you have a valid point in saying that there should have been discussion on the article talk page before bringing it here... but we don't close discussions on this page because one editor says so. Now that it is being discussed here, there is no harm in letting it continue here until resolved (is it?). Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted before, I have updated the draft on the talk page, which I had understood was Wikipedia's preferred way to improve content. I shan't participate further in a pointless discussion that has no relation to improving the article or the proposed section in question. You are all welcome to help improve the draft at the talk page of the article. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(out) Kiefer.Wolfowitz is using the 1993 version of the book while the on-line version (1987) uses different pagination. Nonetheless I cannot find the specific claims in the on-line version. Even if they were there, the phrasing used violates neutrality.

As anyone can see, there was extensive discussion on the talk page, and it was apparent that it was unproductive. K.F wants to focus the article on the 1960s and present the article from the point of view of the Social Democrats USA, a political group that had several hundred members.

TFD (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TFD now is violating AGF and making a personal attack based on unsubstantiated speculations about my politics. As I have stated before, the history of my editing on this set of articles is easy to check, and certainly does not come because of adherence to SDUSA, but upon following a request of Carrite, who has stated his past membership in 3 organizations from the old SP. Similarly, I provided a discussion of Solidarity, not because I am a reader of "Against the Current" or a believer that militancy can solve all problems but because of a concern with presenting the most interesting political groups with integrity. I would urge TFD to emulate the intelligence and honesty that Carrite displays.
 * I have no idea what TFD is babbling about, with his claim that any phrasing violates neutrality. It is time for TFD to specify NPOV violations or be silent.
 * Why does he object to a paragraph on the leading socialists' roles the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty or SDS? Michael Harrington and Gitlin and Sale seem never to have been members of SDUSA, btw. (A basic knowledge of history would prevent such charges.)
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling one of the three history sections, "Max Shachtman, Civil Rights and the War on Poverty" provides undue emphasis to certain groups, individuals, activities, etc. Your claim that they had more influence then (when they had a membership of approx. 1600) than in 1912, then they owned numerous newspapers, had elected officials and obtained 6% of the vote in a presidential election, is not supported.  It also wrongly implies that the socialists were the driving force behind these movements.  TFD (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If so, your article originated the over-emphasis on a mythic figure called "Shachtman": I quote what you consider neutral language, which is a bastardized version of the pseudoscholarly history inflicted on the public by the PA chair of SPUSA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) In 1972, the Socialist Party was renamed Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) and now had only 1,600 members [Reverses chronology of Isserman, failing to note that the 1600 comes from the SP (while Harrington's UAW friend counted 1000, according to Isserman)]. Dissidents left to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) in 1973, led by Michael Harrington.    The same year another faction of the SPA, including David McReynolds, formed the Socialist Party, USA which continues to run presidential candidates.


 * 1) In the 1960s there was a renewed interest in anarchism, and some anarchist and other left-wing groups developed out of the New Left. Anarchists began using direct action, organizing through affinity groups during anti-nuclear campaigns in the 1970s.  In the 1990s, anarchists attempted to organize across North America around Love and Rage, which drew several hundred activists.  One successful anarchist movement was Food not Bombs, that distributed free vegetarian meals.  Anarchists received significant media coverage for their disruption of the 1999 WTO conference, called the Battle in Seattle, where the Direct Action Network was organized.  Most organizations were short-lived and anarchism went into decline following a reaction by the authorities that was increased after the 911 attacks in 2001.  However by 1997 anarchist organizations had again begun to proliferate.
 * The article discusses anarchism but not civil rights, labor, or the war on poverty.


 * You are getting your sequences mixed. Harrington supported negotiations with the North Vietnamese, while the Shachtmanites wanted to pursue victory.  That was a major cause of his break with that faction, and he later came to support unilateral withdrawal.  I have provided two high quality reliable sources to back that up.  While Shachtman died in 1972, the faction he led may still be called "Shachtmanites".  Providing 1/3 of the history section to a group that had at most 1,600 members, is undue.  And labor is mentioned in the article.  And as sources state, the Old Left largely irrelevant to the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the "War on Poverty" was led by the Johnson administration.  And yes, anarchism is mentioned because there are more anarchists today than members of the SDP.  TFD (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The main social democratic and socialist groups that emerged from the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation (SP-SDF) after 1972.
 * This is the long name, which was never used popularly. All the standard sources refer to it as simply the SP.

Social Democrats USA (SDUSA)

 * 1) The Shachtmanites, called the Realignment Caucus, in the SP-SDF argued that since organized labor supported the Democratic Party, they should join the Democratic Party and transform it into a left-wing party, with the Republicans becoming a right-wing party. Further, they argued that they should support the War in Vietnam to stop Communist expansion.  In 1972, they supported Senator Henry Jackson for the Democratic presidential nomination, and re-named the party Social Democrats USA (SDUSA), dropping the term "socialist".  While they retained membership in the Socialist International, they supported Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election and had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.
 * 2) Compare this with what I have written, which has been edited in other articles by Carrite. They did not support the Vietnam War, as the NYT reports.
 * Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book: it is not terrible, but it is dull and poorly referenced. Busky was a national officer in SPUSA, editing Hammer and Tong and the time of his death. Busky's book declares his COI, his having been a state chair of the SPUSA in PA since 1978.

Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)

 * 1) Members of the Debs Caucus opposed supporting the Democrats and began working outside the Socialist Party with antiwar groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society. Many locals of the SD-SDF voted to disaffiliate.  They re-organized as the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) and kept control of the old Debs Caucus paper, the Socialist Tribune, later re-named The Socialist.  The SPUSA continued to run local and national candidates, although by 2000 they had only about 1,000 members.  In 1972 they supported the presidential campaign of Benjamin Spock of the People's Party.  Their 2000 candidate for president was David McReynolds.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
Although Michael Harrington, who came to lead the Coalition Caucus, agreed to work within the Democratic Party, he broke with the Shachtmanites over support of the War in Vietnam, urging peace negotiations, although not an immediate withdrawal. He led his caucus out of the SD-SDF to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), which became a member of the Socialist International. Although this group never ran candidates for public office, it became the largest of the three groups emerging from the SD-SDF, attaining a peak membership of as many as 10,000. In 1982, it joined with the New American Movement (NAM), an antiwar group that emerged from the New Left of the 1960s, to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Marxist Leninism and SDS
I added references to James Miller's Democracy is in the streets, a history of SDS. Please note that Miller documents the obvious role in Marxist Leninists sects, like the Progressive Labor Party, in destroying SDS, contrary to the confident ignorance stated above. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Analysis
Like many who have been active turning WP articles into propaganda for the SPUSA, TD4 is basing his articles on SPUSA literature. I prefer to use reliable sources, preferably written by honest people of intelligence and academic competence, like Drucker. One of the things that makes Solidarity and Against the Current interesting is that their writers are smart, honest, and hard working---and many of them are courageous in real life.

It is not a minor error to state that Harrington did not call for an immediate pull-out, it is willfull ignorance of the basic facts of the history, one acknowledged from the NYT to Harrington to Drucker. It is not hard to check the sources I gave, but TD4 so far has lacked the curiosity or courage to read others' ideas, swimming cozily "inside the whale". Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliance is made on Democratic socialism: a global survey (Praeger Publishers, 2000) by Donald F. Busky, a professor of political science, for history in the late 20th century.  Your comment "Busky's book is a pseudoscholarly book, not an academic book" is wrong.  If you think the book is inaccurate, then you need to find sources that explain events differently.  Notice that the authors used as sources for the article represent a broad range of views, and very few are socialists of any kind.  TFD (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your paragraphs, quoted above, are based on Busky, apparently. Do you acknowledge that Busky was a SPUSA official and activist, and that you knew that when you used his book?
 * Busky's publisher states his rank as " Adjunct Professor of History and Political Science at Camden County College". I am sorry but being an adjunct professor at a community college is such a low academic rank that it raises more questions about his research competence than it credits him. In fact, his book is a joke, that gets basic facts wrong, and not randomly but always to indulge his prejudices as the Napolean of PA socialist puritanism. But I have pointed out his errors before, and you have failed to learn or reply to specific criticisms. Busky/you state that Harrington supported the war and the NYT states Harrington called for an immediate withdrawal. Only one of these can be correct, and you are wrong. It is time for you to grow up and admit your errors.
 * About NPOV. You seem to think that SPUSA literature counts as a point of view and must be reported on WP. On the contrary, WP has no policy requiring that its article on Jesus Christ report the beliefs of any of the Three Christs of Ypsilanti.
 * The more important question is why you have allowed yourself to use such a bad source and continue to defend it even when persons have admitted its errors elsewhere on WP. Do you see that my edits to SPUSA and SPA and DSOC and SDUSA have not been reverted? Doesn't that tell you that I may know what I am talking about?
 * You should be concerned that you may have naively trusted SPUSA's organizational literature and activists, almost as infallible.
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TD4 has failed to retract and apologize for his violations of AGF and NPA, particularly his charging that I wanted to write history from the standpoint of SDUSA. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about whether or not your edits are neutral. You re-wrote the history section so that half of it was devoted to the SDUSA, and wrote "[their leader] was an extraordinary public speaker and formidable in debate, and his intelligent analysis attracted young socialists... [his] youthful followers were able to bring new vigor into the Party...."  You then refer (above) to other U.S, leftists as " (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially)" and "left totalitarians", then bring up Nazi Germany.  At WQA and here you have accused myself and others of a pro-SPUSA bias.  TFD (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have noted that another editor had plagiarized the SPUSA's "history" in another article. Several editors have noted their COI as officers (some national) of SPUSA and as long-term activists, one long-toothed (!) and esteemed editor noting participation in the Debs caucus at 1972, and I have noted concern that such sophisticated editors had failed to notice the plagiarism of an SPUSA brochure. In any event, these editors have not reverted my edits to this cluster of articles (mentioning SPUSA), nor have they asked for revision on the article talk pages (which would be well within their rights under WP's COI policy). Your article, perhaps because it had naively trusted Busky, had similar biases. You have not answered the question: Did you read Busky's statement that he was an officer of SPUSA or not? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your criticisms of the draft. I have edited the draft, and reduced the discussion of Shachtman's role in the Socialist Party. I had tried to explain why the SP had increased its contributions to American politics because of Shachtman, whose role you first highlighted. Would you please look at the latest version of the article, and see whether you still believe that it gives more than 50% of the history to SDUSA? I don't understand this charge. I also don't understand its relevance, even if it were true: the majority of the SP (SDUSA) had 2/3 of the votes at the 1972 convention, and Harrington had the other 1/3. It would be useful to expand the DSOC material to mention Democratic Agenda and the Democratic Party midterm convention of 1978, which criticized Carter's policies, and also to mention DSOC's role in organizing against draft registration. Please expand the material on DSOC using reliable sources.
 * What is the problem with referring to the Progressive Labor Party as Marxist Leninist? (The Weatherman/national office faction of SDS adopted Marxist Leninist posturing and tactics also, when SDS became a mad-house, at least nationally and at many leading chapters: I do not cite Sale's discussion of "insanity" etc.)
 * For clarity: On this page, I referred to "left totalitarians", but not on the article page. I asked you why you had a problem describing left totalitarians, and asked whether you had a similar problem with right totalitarians. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: Busky.  The main criteria for rs is the publisher, which in this case is an academic publishing company that conducts fact-checking.  Your reference to the NYT is an example - articles are considered rs because they are in the NYT, we may not even know who the author is.  BTW you can read about the convention in The other American by Maurice Isserman, p. 290, which shows that Harrington supported the compromise resolution rather than the one for immediate withdrawal.  TFD (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You first mentioned Busky's being a professor of political science, to indicate why his book is not a joke. If you want to backpedal, you could at least acknowledge that you had referred to his qualifications before. It is hard to continue ascribing good faith to you, when you fail to acknowledge any errors or bad arguments, and just keep changing the arguments as your previous arguments are found to be faulty.
 * Regarding your latest defense of Busky: Busky's publisher is one of the weaker academic presses, if it is even considered an academic press, of course. It is not the U of Chicago or Cambridge or Oxford or Harvard, which are leading publishers of history. Regardless, his book is a joke: We can discuss this with the projects on American history or journals, which have expertise in such matters, if you want to lose again. An honest academic can read one page of Busky and see that it's unprofessional and unreliable---although it is infinitely better than the SPUSA's literature, which has been plagiarized in other WP articles. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Harrington supported other compromises at earlier conventions. He led call for an immediate withdrawal, according to the NYT in December 1972, the only one discussed in the article,because it was the name change convention after which Harrington resigned and founded DSOC and after which the small SPUSA was formed.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliability of Busky's book is a question better addressed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard than here. It seems to be a normal scholarly book, and if it has a bias towards one political party then that could be addressed by adding material from other sources with a different bias. Anyway, does someone want to post on RSN for further views? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Judith, posting on another noticeboard would be an even greater waste of time because the book is a joke. Have you bothered reading any pages? You are quite wrong about its viewpoint balancing others. WP requires reliable high quality sources, not nonsense by political activists. Please read what T4D wrote above and compare it with the coverage in the present article to see how biased he has been (and apparently still is). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now posted there. TFD (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

SDS
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) The article has the following paragraph on SDS: Harrington, Kahn, and Horowitz were officers and staff-persons of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), which helped to start the New Left Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The three LID officers clashed with the less experienced activists of SDS, like Tom Hayden, when the latter's Port Huron Statement criticized socialist and liberal opposition to communism and criticized the labor movement while promoting students as agents of social change. LID and SDS split in 1965, when SDS voted to remove from its constitution the "exclusion clause" that prohibited membership by communists: The SDS exclusion clause had barred "advocates of or apologists for" "totalitarianism". The clause's removal effectively invited "disciplined cadre" to attempt to "take over or paralyze" SDS, as had occurred to mass organizations in the thirties. Afterwords, Marxism Leninism, particularly the Progressive Labor Party, helped to write "the death sentence" for SDS,   which nonetheless had over 100 thousand members at its peak.

DSOC/DSA
18:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC): This is the present state of the description on American Left, which uses reliable sources (rather than Busky, whose reliability has been contested here):
 * Quoting article:

Michael Harrington resigned from Social Democrats, USA early in 1973. He rejected the SDUSA (majority Socialist Party) position on the Vietnam War, which demanded an end to bombings and a negotiated peace settlement. Harrington called rather for an immediate cease fire and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. Even before the December 1972 convention, Michael Harrington had resigned as an Honorary Chairperson of the Socialist Party. In the early spring of 1973, he resigned his membership in SDUSA. That same year, Harrington and his supporters formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC). At its start, DSOC had 840 members, of which 2 percent served on its national board; approximately 200 had been members of Social Democrats, USA or its predecessors whose membership was then 1,800, according to a 1973 profile of Harrington.

DSOC became a member of the Socialist International. DSOC supported progressive Democrats, including DSOC member Congressman Ron Dellums, and worked to help network activists in the Democratic Party and in labor unions. It had 10,000 members at its peak of membership, making it the largest democratic-socialist or social-democratic organization in the United States.

In 1982 DSOC established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) upon merging with the New American Movement, an organization of democratic socialists mostly from the New Left. Its high-profile members included Congressman Major Owens and William Winpisinger, President of the International Association of Machinists.

Closing this discussion?
I trust that this notice can now be closed. (I repeat that the original notice was premature, and would urge TfD to allow talk-pages a reasonable time before coming here again.) 16:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TheFourDeuces wrote, "The NPOV issues have been resolved.
 * Peacefully, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice
Apparently I'm one of those people who just has to do everything myself, since even though the burden is on the editors adding this information, I'm the one posting here. Anyway, there are a couple of related issues at Catholics for Choice, some of which could be addressed at other noticeboards individually but which together make up something best addressed at NPOVN. (And yes, before you say so, I think the answers to these questions are obvious, but clearly some of the other editors at this article do not.)


 * Is an anti-CFC rant published in Insight on the News, a far-right magazine that happens to be notorious for making things up, a reliable source on CFC's funding?
 * Is an organization that calls George Soros a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" a reliable source on his activities?
 * Is it undue to include self-published criticism of CFC by far-right groups like the Catholic League and Catholic News Agency, particularly when we already detail the (also self-published) criticism from the Roman Catholic Church and other criticism published in reliable sources?
 * Is it necessary to have the criticism of CFC's funding be over four times as long as the actual information about its funding, particularly when most of said criticism is mostly cited to the worst possible sources, as noted above?

--Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, no, yes, no. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely ditto. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most definitely ditto. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific : Bolivian declaration of war
The current article War of the Pacific states that:
 * However, under international law at that time [ before the Chilean declaration of war ] neither side had actually declared war.

User MarshalN20 asserts that the wording of the current version is correct.

User Keysanger asserts that the wording is biased and pretend to elude the fact that Bolivia declared the war first and refused any negotiation with Chile looking forward to Peru's help. (For a better understanding of the text: H. Daza was at that time dictator of Bolivia, Lavalle was the Peruvian envoy to Chile short before the war)

For this asserts, that there was no Bolivian declaration of war, the User MarshalN20 presents following sources:

 Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) : "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy." Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]." William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 : "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner." <li>Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 : "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations."</li> <li>Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."</li> </ol>

The user Keysanger means that the wording (however), facts (neither side had actually declared war) and interpretations (under international law) don't show the overwhelming opinion under historians, that is there was a Bolivian declaration of war and Keysanger presents following sources:

<ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman;"> <li> William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states:
 * Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.</li>

<li> "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: ''On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ...''</li> <li> "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile</li> <li> "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."</li> <li> "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March)</li> <li> "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory</li> <li> onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help.</li> <li> country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...'</li> <li> andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ...''</li> <li> globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,...</li> <li> Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance.</li> <li> "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ...</li> <li> "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: ''The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ...''</li> <li> "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war.</li> <li> "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...".</ol>

Old Discussion in Talk page of the article
There was a long discussion in the talk page, where the parties didn't agree about the issue. You can see the thread here:

' == Template:Undue weight == 


 * However, under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war.[23][24]

It is astonishing that 2 sources are enough to write in the that there was no Bolivian declaration of war. One of the sources (a broken link) is the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon", known not for its scientific art but for his anti-Chilean resentements.

I found 15 sources that state that there was a Bolivian declaration of war and such a overwhelming opinion about the Bolivian declaration of war must be included in the text and as the common view of the historians. The no-declaration-of-war theory can also be included but as a rand view. Here the list of sources: <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman;"> <li> William F. Sater in "Andean Tragedy", page 28 states:
 * Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.</li>

<li> "Documentary History of the Tacna-Arica dispute, University of Iowa studies in the social sciences, Vol. 8", by William Jefferson Dennis, here, page 69: ''On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile. ... Godoi advised President Pinto that this move was to prevent Chile from securing armaments abroad ...''</li> <li> "Andean Tragedy", William F. Sater, page 39:Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend ..., also page 42in March he suddenly declared war on Chile</li> <li> "Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899" By Robert L. Scheina, page 376: On March 18 Bolivia declared war and confiscated all Chilean property in Bolivia and under the terms of a secret treaty ..."</li> <li> "Wars and Peace Treaties, 1816-1991", By Erik Goldstein, page 182: As result of this action Bolivia declared war on Chile (1.March)</li> <li> "The history of Chile" By John Lawrence Rector, page 100: Bolivia declared war and attemted to expel all Chileans from its territory</li> <li> onwar.com: Bolivia then declared war on Chile and called upon Peru for help.</li> <li> country-data.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1, ...'</li> <li> andrewclem.com: ... , but Bolivia declared war on Chile and made known its “secret” alliance with Peru in March, ...''</li> <li> globalsecurity.com: Bolivia, in alliance with Peru, declared war on Chile on March 1,...</li> <li> Encarta: Bolivia declared war and was joined by Peru, a partner in a secret alliance.</li> <li> "The geopolitics of security in the Americas: hemispheric denial from Monroe ..." by Martin Sicker here: and Bolivia declared war on 14 February 1879 ...</li> <li> "A history of Chile‎" - Page 326, by Luis Galdames, Isaac Joslin Cox - History - 1941 - 565 pages: ''The government of Chile refused to accede to this. Meanwhile Peru mobilized its army rapidly, Bolivia declared war against Chile, and the press of those ...''</li> <li> "Chile and the War of the Pacific"‎ - Page 9 by William F. Sater - History - 1986 - 343 pages Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war.</li> <li> "The Bolivia-Chile-Peru dispute in the Atacama Desert" by Ronald Bruce St. John, Clive H. Schofield here: "Once Bolivia declared war on March 14 1879 ...".</ol>

Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bolivia didn't declare war. Even the first source you present states it: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." "Undue weight" doesn't apply here since even Daza explains that the decree he presented was not a declaration of war.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You forget the 14 others, what about that?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 23:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can provide 100+ sources on the topic, but the article already presents:
 * The view that Chile saw Daza's decree as a declaration of war.
 * The view that his decree was not a declaration of war.
 * The only new thing you have provided which is important to note is that Daza announced, on March 18, that he did declare war. You can take it to an administrator's forum, but like in the other issue, it will lead you to nothing.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 03:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi MarshallN20, Keysanger seems to have provided quite a bit of support for his position here. Do you have reliable sources that also state that this decree was not a declaration of war? Generally, in situations like this, it is appropriate to note in the article that there is disagreement in the reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have reliable sources for this matter. First, a quick analysis:
 * William F. Sater is used 3 times in his list, and the source contradicts itself. (P. 39) "Thus, Daza's declaration of war was a godsend". (P. 28) "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March." Something is incongruent with this source; how is it possible for a decree to not be a declaration of war in Page 28, but then become a declaration of war on Page 39?
 * The Iowa source does not support Keysanger's view as, "On March 14 Bolivia advised representatives of foreign powers that a state of war existed with Chile", does not translate into "Bolivia declared war on Chile".
 * Please quit trying to trick users with your lists. You have been warned of this plenty of times.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My proposal is to consider William F. Sater as a reliable professor of Latin American History at California State University (others, ). I am convinced that such a source is more reliable than the Peruvian newspaper "La Razon". If you have better sources, please feel free to let us know more. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 15:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sater is one person, not multiple persons. It's illogical to gather 3 sources from the same author and try to pass them off as different; writing: "I found 15 sources". It's also surprising that such a reliable source as Sater contradicts himself within the same book. If Daza is the author of his presidential decree, and Sater explains that Daza stated his decree was not a declaration of war; then how is it possible for a few pages later for Sater to claim the decree was a declaration of war? Sater places himself in a position in which he contrasts with Daza's opinion of his own decree.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 ===MarshalN20 Sources===  <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman;"> <li>Ramiro Prudencio Lizon (Historian and Diplomat) : "In order for Chile to be able to advance further north an official war declaration was necessary. And it wasn't this country but rather Bolivia the one who sent an internal decree which was afterwards interpreted as a true declaration of war. [...] Obviously, Daza had no interest in declaring war, because he knew that Bolivia was not in conditions to affront a campaign against a country much superior in belligerent resources and which counted with a powerful navy."</li> <li>Atilio Sivirichi, "Historia del Perú" (1932), page 193: "[Daza's decree] was skilfully interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war and as a justification for its occupation of the [Bolivian coast]."</li> <li>William F. Sater, "Andean Tragedy", page 28: "Two weeks after the Chilean occupation of Antofagasta, he declared that Chile had imposed "a state of war" on Bolivia. Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March."</li> <li>Tommaso Caivano, "Historia de la guerra de América entre Chile, Perú y Bolivia", pages 61-62 : "[Daza's decree], as can be clearly read within it, does not do anything more than dictate a few measures relative to true the state of war in which Bolivia and Chile found themselves after the invasion of [Bolivian territory] by [Chile], and, like it textually and carefully states, "while this state of war imposed by Chile upon Bolivia", was interpreted by Chile in an extremely original manner."</li> <li>Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán, "Narracion Historica de la Guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia". On Page 80 he presents the Bolivian March 1st declaration and explains its nature (at no point describing it as a declaration of war). On Page 86 makes first mention of a declaration of war, this coming from Chile to both Peru and Bolivia. Text from Page 86 : "War having been declared by Chile, it needed to justify its conduct upon the neutral nations and, at a loss of good reasons founded in law and corroborated by deeds, opted for falsity, presenting a series of situations under a distortion of reality, and others completely false. [Chile] said among other things that Peru did not gesture Bolivia in time to lead it towards a good path and procede with fewer recklesness and violence in its determinations."</li> <li>Valentín Abecia Baldivieso, "The History of Bolivia in International Relations. Vol 2.," page 73: "But in reality no such declaration of war took place. The decree (Hilarión Daza's decree) to which this characteristic [of declaring war] is attributed only alludes that "Chile has indeed invaded the national territory", stipulating that "all commerce and communication with the Republic of Chile is cut for the duration of the war that [Chile] has promoted upon Bolivia." He later states that Chileans should vacate the country given deadlines in cases of emergency and taking action on property belonging to them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute that Decree the characteristics of a declaration of war, because under the international law of the time, it was not. The steps taken were for security because Chile had taken Antofagasta. On April 3 the declaration of war by the Chilean Congress was approved, and by the 5th it became known throughout the press."</li> </ol> These sources are more than enough to demonstrate that Daza's decree was not a true declaration of war. Not only does Daza explain this, as sourced by Sater, but the information is backed up by historical analysis. On the other hand, the sources presented by Keysanger are merely textual parrots, merely stating that Bolivia declared war without any further analysis. It's important to mention that the article does present Chile's view about Daza's decree. However, Keysanger is trying to use the WP concept of "Undue weight" to present Chile's POV as supreme and leave the analysis of Daza's decree (including Daza's own opinion about his decree) as "minority views".-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is broken because you contradict yourself: W.F.Sater, is a source for or not for a Bolivian Declaration of war?. Now you say that he is a source for NO declaration of war. Above you say that he was cited three times. What about the other two?. Do you have also reliable sources?. Best Regards, --Keysanger (what?) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand what it is you are trying to state. I have already provided the necessary amount of sources to discard your "Undue Weight" claim.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, I am inclined to agree that Keysanger has made a point here, and that it is probably too strong to have Wikipedia assert as a fact that, "under international law at that time neither side had actually declared war". That is an absolute statement. I think the statement should be attributed, i.e. "According to X, ...". When Wikipedia's voice makes an absolute statement, it should be a statement of an uncontested fact. Also I am finding it confusing that Keysanger's sources do indeed say that Bolivia declared war - not just that Chile thought Bolivia declared war. If these historians are wrong, the article doesn't help me to understand why they are wrong. I am happy to be persuaded otherwise? Also (a suggestion to both Keysanger & MarshalN20), having multiple threads open discussing multiple disputes at the same time is probably not ideal. Should we try to resolve this point first? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not Keysanger's point, but rather your point Alex. Keysanger's point is that there is "Undue Weight" in the article, which is not true. The sources I have provided are from a long timespan (starting from the early 20th century all the way to the 2000's) of different historians from different nationalities (including Daza's own explanation of his decree). Your point, Alex, about the "International law" part and its status as "uncontested fact" is correct. Going back in time, I found this old consensus statement, proposed by me, in which the four users discussing this same issue at that time agreed :

"!*//MarshalN20\\*!"
 * This discussion reminded me of the existence of this consensus statment. I no idea what happened to it until now: . It turns out that Keysanger massively deleted the consensus statement and sources in order to impose his POV. Strangely enough, he is trying to do the exact same thing at this point, except that now he tries to use the concept of "Undue Weight". I don't believe in history repeating itself, but this sure does seem like a case of Déjà vu. What I plan to do at this point is propose another consensus statement, which may take a few minutes.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Marshall's list of 6 sources has severe problems. Atilio Sivirichi, Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán are Peruvian and Valentín Abecia Baldivieso and Ramiro Prudencio Lizon are Bolivian historians. They represent a rand view that see Peru and Bolivia as victims of the Chilean agressor. Tommaso Caivano is an Italian historian and is a primary source (1886). This 5 sources recognize that Bolivia declared a state of war and interpreted by Chile, and the majority of historians, as declaration of war.

The only one neutral historian in MarshalN20's list, is professor of Latin American History at California State University W. F. Sater. Perhaps is that the reason why MarshalN20 has so many problems to understand Sater's passage: "Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March.". Instead the complete sentence MarshalN20 reads " Apparently this decree did not constitute a formal declaration of belligerence, which he announced on 18 March. " and lose sight of the fact that the other two books of Sater, also given in my list, repeat the same fact: "in March he (Daza) suddenly declared war on Chile" and "Two weeks after Chile occupied the disputed territory, Daza declared war". Therefore MarshalN20 presents one of Sater's books as a support for his theory.

Other neutral historians in my list are Dr. Robert L. Scheina, William Jefferson Dennis, Martin Sicker, John L. Rector (professor of history at Western Oregon University), Erik Goldstein (Professor of International Relations and History. (BA, Tufts University; MA, MALD, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; PhD, University of Cambridge, Specialization: Diplomacy, International Relations, British Foreign Policy), etc.

Of course I plead for a cite of the MarshalN20 view, I think we can show to the reader rand views, but the due weight must be correct. MarshalN20's view is a rand POV even in Perú. Jorge Basadre a famous Peruvian historian tell us about the declaration and why Daza was interested in a early declaration of war (See Jorge Besadre, "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile"):

"Pero las pasiones excitadas no se enfriaron. El dí­a 18 de marzo se abrió un nuevo perí­odo de la misión Lavalle. Ese dí­a fue recibido en Santiago, desde Tacna por correo y desde Caldera por telégrafo el decreto expedido por el Presidente Daza y notificado al cuerpo diplomático el 14 de marzo estableciendo el casus belli con Chile con todos sus efectos y consecuencias, junto con otros decretos de ruptura de relaciones mientras durara la guerra y de expulsión y confiscación de bienes chilenos en Bolivia. Esto ocurrió a pesar de que Quiones y Doria Medina acordaron el 5 de marzo las bases para la mediación peruana. La versión chilena fue que Bolivia quiso impedir que Chile se armara. En realidad, Daza buscó la forma de malograr la misión Lavalle. Una vez más la legación peruana en La Paz había fallado porque, según el tratado secreto, un acto de esta especie debía haberse hecho previo acuerdo de las partes. Al no estar declarada la guerra entre Chile y Bolivia, Chile no podía pedir al Perú que se mantuviera neutral. Porque la había declarado Bolivia, la exigencia chilena de neutralidad peruana era inevitable. La declaración boliviana de guerra era (dice el historiador chileno Bulnes) un palo atravesado en las ruedas del carro empujado por Lavalle. La situación que se habí­a ido agravando mes a mes y semana a semana, se complicaba ahora día a dí­a, hora a hora, minuto a minuto. El Perú se veí­a envuelto con rapidez creciente en un conflicto tremendo, sin tiempo casi para presentar la acción conciliatoria propia y sin haber buscado una acción análoga de Argentina, Estados Unidos o las potencias europeas" Tranlation by Keysanger: "...on 18 March was the begin of a new phase in Lavalle's mission. This day was received in Santiago from Tacna by post and from Caldera by telegram Daza's decree that notified on 14 March all diplomats about the casus belli against Chile with all efects and consequences, together with other decrees of rupture of relations as long as the war lasted and of expulsion of Chileans and confiscation of his goods. The Chilean version saw that Bolivia ['s declaration of war] aimed to impede the purchase of weapons to Chile. In reality, Daza intended to eliminate Lavalle's mission. Once again the Peruvian legation in La Paz [Bolivia] failed because in accordance with the treaty such act [declaration of war] should have been done in agreement between both [Peru and Bolivia]. As long as no state of war between Chile and Bolivia existed, Chile couldn't require neutrality from Peru. Since Bolivia declared the war on Chile, the Chilean request of Peruvian neutrality was inevitable. The Bolivian declaration of war on Chile was (as stated by Chilean historian Bulnes) a traverse fault through the wheel of Lavalle's handkart. The situation worsened month to month ..." (Bold by Keysanger)

As we can read there is nothing in Besadre's "Historia de la Republica, La guerra con Chile" about a lacks of Bolivian declaration of war. Best Regards, Keysanger (what?) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Alex Harvey is helping us out in the talk page of the article. At this point you're making forks of the discussion, and make a poor job at trying to discard my sources as unreliable when they are all written by reliable historians from different times in history. Thanks.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 23:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld
I believe the langauge in this section which deals with host Greg Gutfield's comments violate NPOV policy

"In a September 28, 2010, Rolling Stone article, President Barack Obama made another political attack[75] [76] [77] on Fox News Channel by accusing the cable network of having a "point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle-class."[78] [79] Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld responded to this particular political attack by Obama with his following September 29, 2010 Greg-alogue:[80] [81]

"Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the History of the Universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it’s the only network that doesn’t have a 'thrill up its leg'? Obama is like a sports team who owns the Ref, the fans and the field, but refuses to play ball until the kid in the 10th row stops chewing gum."

"And this is why the Crybaby-in-Chief needs us. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying 'those Americans.' He can just say Fox News instead. One thing is for sure: If you go after a collection of talking-heads, you're going to get an earful back. And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, taurophobe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.220.21 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC) [75] http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/10/29/11561946-sun.html Toronto Sun "White House 'war' with Fox News" [76] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?ref=media New York Times "The Battle Between the White House and Fox News" [77] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html?pagewanted=all New York Times "Fox’s Volley With Obama Intensifying" [78] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-in-command-br-the-rolling-stone-interview-20100928?page=2 Rolling Stone article w/Obama quote [79] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/ AOL "Obama Slams Fox News and Greg Gutfeld Slams Him Back" -article includes 9-29-2010 Greg-alogue by Gutfeld [80] http://www.aoltv.com/2010/09/29/obama-slams-fox-news-and-greg-gutfeld-slams-him-back-video%20&%20transcript/ AOL "Obama Slams Fox News and Greg Gutfeld Slams Him Back" -article includes 9-29-2010 Greg-alogue by Gutfeld [81] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601642,00.html Fox News transcript of 9-29-2010 'Greg-alogue' by Gutfeld -footnoted sources added by: --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC) -footnoted source's titles added --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's a blatant NPOV violation but it could use some cleanup. It should simply say "President Barack Obama criticized Fox News Channel..." and "responded to this criticism from Obama with..." instead of "political attacks". The phrases "another" and "this particular" are subtle POV phrases. –CWenger (<font face="Webdings"> ^  • <font face="Webdings"> @  ) 06:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Greg Gutfeld, the host of Red Eye, specifically said that he was responding to "this particular" quote by President Obama in Rolling Stone. (addendum: Also see the title of the AOL footnoted source above[79]. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)) That is not a POV - that is a fact and sourced with complete transcript of episode containing the complete Greg-alogue, which is not shown above. The phrases "another political attack" is also not POV because the White House Anita Dunn publicly announced in the New York Times and elsewhere that they would be making many political attacks against Fox News and their on-air personalities from now on in response to what they saw as political attacks by Fox.  This is also all fact - not POV and many political attacks soon followed which were all reported as such, including the Rolling Stone Obama quote, even by the New York Times which warned the WH that it was unwise to attack Fox News and their on-air personalities in this way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ...if someone could please make these changes as the current author to the page keeps changing these attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.220.21 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a look and it looks obvious that an editor or editors are expressing a POV that Obama has made political attacks, not criticisms, against Fox News. The wording is contrived to reiterate that they were 'political attacks' and about 10 sources have been added to "prove" that Obama has made "blatant political attacks". I'll try to clean it up. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The user IP 118 that wants this change is a long-time banned user known originally as Jackjit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit/Archive He libeled the host of Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld, calling him a racist in the Red Eye article without any source, so he is not capable of judging NPOV or having fairness on this Red Eye article. He has a LONG history of shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP using his banned shared/revolving 118 IP address, avoiding his block. He was just recently blocked again after avoiding his block. Over the past months, many other editors have reverted these changes Jackjit/118 wants to the Red Eye article, as well as his other vandalism to the article, so he is not being truthful here saying it is only one editor reverting his changes/vandalism. In fact, many editors across Wiki are reverting his vandalism to Conservative/republican articles. He should not be here shopping around for help (he's supposed to be banned), but especially since I was NOT notified of this discussion here but discovered it on my own by mere chance. I suspected this when user Alexh suddenly showed up out-of-the-blue on Red Eye article deleting the same well-sourced material as Jackjit/118IP.

As to Alex Harvey (talk) false/uninformed accusation that 10 references were added over time, it is only three reliable sources that have always supported the term "another political attack", which is toned down from "war" and "battle" which is used in the two "New York Times" sources and Toronto Sun source. Ten more could have been referenced, but three is plenty to support the language some people might find objectionable. These sources also use the term "attack". WP:NPOV is being followed here because the language used is netural when compared to the reliable sources language, which is much harsher POV and tone toward Obama administration's political war/battle against Fox News and how unwise the Obama administration was to announce a war against Fox. Also, WP:NPOV does allow objectionable language to be used, even if some or many may find it objectionable or more likely WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I have always been open to some changes to this particular section and have allowed several to remain in the past without challenging them, even though I thought the references fully supported keeping them. It is not fair for one editor (Alexh) to go delete material that has been well sourced without discussing it on the Talk page of the article first, especially since this is a very obvious attempt at shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP and Alex Harvey (talk) willingly took the bait and then stated falehoods here. He obviously did NOT look at the footnotes because if he had, he would have known there were three sources cited supporting the term, not ten as he stated above (addendum: and not 6 either, as he incorrectly stated below --RedEyedCajun (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)). That also proves he did NOT even bother to read the source material to see if it did support the language before he deleted the content (but he did leave many references hanging so a 'bot' wouldn't immediately revert his edits as pure vandalism); therefore, his only real objection is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT! It is false that anything was "contrived" - it was all well-sourced. The term "political attack" is an often used term which describes an attack that is of a "political" nature, which is fully supported by the three references which Alexh didn't bother to read before making his uninformed deletions and forcing his political POV into the article without any discussion.

Please compare my talk page/contributions to Alexh and Jackjit and see who is more capable of compromise, following NPOV and being fair with deletions/helpful edits/adding references/talk. I like debating issues such as this, but the proper place is the Red Eye Talk page where other interested editors, who wanted to keep the language in question and have in the past reverted these same edits by Jackjit/118IP (and now, Alexh), could have commented. Jackjit/118IP knew many there didn't want that material deleted, so he went shopping for help WP:FORUMSHOP to get someone else to respond to his deceptive untruths and then make his edits, which is always his MO when he can't get his way by simply deleting well sourced material without discussion. So much for banning a user on Wiki - even one as bad as Jackjit still edits deceptively on Wiki and spreads untruths to get his way. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Red Eyed Cajun, is it fair to say that this is a pretty strongly worded response? For the record I am Australian with no interest in US politics and no prior knowledge of this subject. One doesn't always need prior knowledge to see that something is biased, and that is the case with the section discussed here. It's true that I didn't actually count the number of sources you've given to justify your wording 'political attacks' and 'blatantly attacking'. So now I have counted and you have 6, 3 on the first wording and 3 on the second. Generally, there are a lot of footnotes "proving" various bits of wording in that article - probably more than I've ever seen actually. The NPOV policy states,
 * "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone."
 * Actually, if you had ever bothered just once to go read the footnotes and sources, you would know that I did not try to "prove various bits" with footnotes. That is outright false. There are 3 footnotes (not 6 or 10 footnotes like you incorrectly stated above) that show this was 'another political attack' by Obama. Any one of those three sources alone would have supported 'another political attack', but I knew if I only put one, someone would be complaining one is not enough. The first sentence was a combination of a Rolling Stone Obama quote and another source which used the word "attack", all properly footnoted at the end of the sentence. I'm so sorry if you just don't like properly footnoted content on Wiki, which is Wiki policy. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The one thing I have sadly learned about Wikipedia is that political ideology knows no borders. Jackjit/118IP is a liberal New Zealander who vandalizes USA conservative/Republican type articles constantly.  So saying you are Australian Alex Harvey  doesn't prove you are any less biased than me or anyone else when it comes to NPOV on USA related articles. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you feel that your section is consistent with this policy? Do you feel you have used a disinterested tone? (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In 20/20 hindsight, I should not have gone with the word "attack" which the reliable sources used (and thus mislead me). I should have instead replaced "attack" with the term "political comment", i.e. "President Obama made the political comment that Fox News was a destructive force..." That would have been a lot better than the current wording which uses the biased weasel word "criticized" which automatically implies there is something bad that deserves criticism. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody here has complained once about "destructive force" being very pejorative. Yet they delete Gutfeld's response quote of "Crybaby-in-Chief".  The section is now in violation of WP:NPOV as long as "destructive force" is allowed without being balanced by Gutfeld's "Crybaby-in-Chief" response for clarity/balance. In an ironic way, by removing Gutfeld's "crybaby" quote, Gutfeld's 'Greg-alogue' response cannot be properly judged in context by the reader. Many on the left might well say Gutfeld's political response to the President's political comments proves Fox's on-air personalities are "destructive forces". Do you really think Gutfeld's response was helpful to Fox News' image? The Huffington Post bloggers didn't think so.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To re-quote NPOV policy: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." And objectionable material you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete and eviscerate a section using WP:NPOV as a sledge hammer, because sometimes you lose the very clarity, balance and unbiased content most are seeking to present on Wiki articles. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex, Cajun. I've gone through the section and trimmed it. There's no reason for using a pejorative term ("political attack") when a non-perjorative term ("critcise") will suffice. Alex, this list may both amuse and depress you; I've seen far worse than two pairs of three citations on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem at all leaving the edits you made to the article. We shall see if others who disagreed in the past step up now and revert your edits or not. I will let others decide the fate of this section. But I don't think a banned user like Jackjit should be allowed to edit/vandalize this article or others, using WP:FORUMSHOP by asking above "...if someone could please make these changes..."  I did NOT think further describing the kind of "attack", which was the word used in many reliable sources, by adding it was an obvious "political" attack was pejorative.  It's all political and don't we all know this.  I think it was also fair of these same sources to say some of Fox's "attacks" were political in nature and the WH had every right to respond sometimes. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will offer here what was never offered to the interested editors of the Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld article: I am copying this discussion (minus the banned user Jackjit's comments) and moving it to the Red Eye TALK page, which the NPOV noticeboard policy clearly states was the proper place to discuss such major changes to content of the article. --RedEyedCajun (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Coatracking at George Packer?
An editor has removed the following brief text from the George Packer article based upon the claim that it is coatracking:


 * From 2004 to 2005, Packer contributed $1,000 to Democratic organizations and candidates.

This is sourced to this article by investigative journalist Bill Dedman, where Packer is disussed:


 * George Packer is The New Yorker's man in Iraq.


 * The war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the acclaimed 2005 book "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq," Packer gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004, and then $250 in 2005 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio.


 * In addition to his reported pieces, Packer also writes commentary for the magazine, such as his June 11 piece ruing Bush's "shallow, unreflective character."


 * "My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere," Packer said. "If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn't do it. Fortunately, it doesn't."

In addition, an article in The Washington Post also mentions Dedman's reporting about Packer's contributions.

The dispute has been discussed here.
 * I don't know about "coatrack", but my feeling is that for a biography as brief as this one, it would be a BLP violation and undue weight to include material that arguably puts a question mark over his political neutrality. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith
The article concerns the first critical biography of Mormon founder Joseph Smith written by Fawn Brodie in 1945. A recent conflict has arisen between me (a non-Mormon) and all the other current editors (who are Mormons), over whether research by a Mormon geneticist and publicized only by a LDS-owned newspaper and a Mormon apologetic organization should be so labeled. The Mormon editors oppose allowing readers to be aware of these connections. Here's the | diff.

Here's a | link to the discussion segment. There's more, but this section is probably more than you want to read anyway.--John Foxe (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned that this isn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and puzzled why it hasn't been if the author is as prestigious as our article makes him sound. Ugo A. Perego has a PhD in genetics and has some respectable publications but he doesn't seem to have published this outside of Mormon-related venues. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, John Foxe only assumes that all editor who have opposing viewpoints are "Mormons", by which he means are members of the LDS Church. They are not.  I am not a member of the LDS Church, the brand of Mormonism he is assuming that everyone against his viewpoint is.
 * Second; Perego and SMGF has outsourced all of its laboratory work to Sorenson Genomics, which is accredited by three "independent peer reviewed scientific" accreditation companies. They are capable of establishing familiar relations in a court of law.  Weather Perego is Mormon or the Deseret News published the findings is irreverent.
 * Third; The real issue is that Foxe wants to introduce a NPOV bias by insinuating that any research that comes from a "Mormon" or is published by the Deseret News is "Flawed" since it comes from "Mormons". His own viewpoint that only a "non-Mormon" can objectively edit a Mormon related topic.  This shows the bias he is attempting to add to this page.  My favorite addition of his was this edit where he added "Mormons attempted to discredit Brodie by citing DNA profiling performed...".  So the only reason anyone would care if JS had children was to "discredit Brodie"?
 * If we are to keep a NPOV in this article then the "Mormon" status of Perego should not be included since it is no more relevant to his findings, the statement included in the article, nor articles subject, any more then the "religious" status of the lab tech at Sorenson Genomics who ran the actual test or the religion of Foxe or myself.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dougweller - Actually this has been published in an independent peer-reviewed scholarly journal, the Journal of Mormon History. While a bit niche, it is a respected and well known publication on Mormon studies. It has also been published in the peer-reviewed John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, which might be less independent (I think it is somewhat affliated with CoC) but is still a well-known publication in the field.
 * In general though, it is hard to have meaningful debate with someone who makes a habit of using other editors' religious affliations as ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. That is another reason why John Foxe's suggestion should be opposed - if he constantly points out other editors as "Mormons" (whether they have openly said they are or not) as ad hominem attempts to dismiss them, how are his intentions any different when he wants the article to go out of its way to identify sources as "Mormon"? --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While the Journal of Mormon History is a fine peer-reviewed history journal, Dougweller asked why Perego did not publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and why he "doesn't seem to have published this outside of Mormon-related venues." Those are still good, unanswered questions.--John Foxe (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion
Several editors at this article want the lead sentence to say there is no such thing as abortion after about five months of pregnancy (i.e. when the fetus becomes viable), notwithstanding definitions in reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary. So, the lead sentence of the article now recites a narrow medical definition, while excluding all other definitions, and this lead sentence has been installed without talk page consensus regarding how to change the previous lead sentence that existed from 2006 to 2011. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia rather than a strictly medical text, and the subject of this article is not merely medical, but also social, legal, historical, etc. Favoring a narrow technical definition to the 100% exclusion of all broader viewpoints in reliable sources seems contrary to NPOV, and seems to be intended to reduce the scope of the entire article. Any advice?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Demand sources... if there are reliable sources that define abortion as ending at around five months, then "present the disagreement"... neutrally note that the term is defined in dictionaries as X, but is defined in these other sources as Y. Don't try to say which is "correct". Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you even looked at the article? Because what essentially could be templated advice is not particularly useful here. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I tried "presenting the disagreement" before posting here, without success.  The sources have been provided, but there's been unwillingness to use anything but those sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's been a clear emphasis on using professional-quality secondary sources for this article on a medical event. Almost without exception, those use the viability-based definition. JJL (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been thoroughly discussed at the Talk page. JJL (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * JJL, we know your opinion on this. Let's hear from the broader community. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice‎‎
This page basically looks like an attack page. There have been attempts on the talk page to engage in discussions, but to no avail. Some extra eyes/opinions would be helpful here. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While it could be phrased differently, reliable sources describe it as being funded by the U.S. Department of Justice in order to push their POV on drug policy. If you disagree with that assessment then you need to find rs that present a different view.  TFD (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Provide reliable sources for any such claims - right now all I see is a big hatchet <g>.  WP does not require negative sources to disprove an uncited claim, by the way.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Garcia
Someone please keep an eye on this. I am fighting against some South Carolina homers that want to remove all references (properly sourced) about this athlete's criminal history. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone who wrote "he's more of a criminal than an athlete" in an edit summary is clearly seeking a neutral point of view. Underage drinking and discharging fire extinguishers hardly makes someone a "criminal". Oh, and this user is also using multiple IPs to avoid violating 3RR while pursuing this POV agenda. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd have a valid point if the criminal acts weren't properly sourced. Remove your bias, and approach this with a neutral point of view. 99.65.186.186 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this user has chosen to use his other IP to add to the discussion. Well, both have now been warned about using multiple IPs to edit war and POV-push. PROTIP: sourcing does not equal NPOV. People have been hiding behind "properly sourced" edits to push POV on Wikipedia since Day One. Maybe you shouldn't have exposed your biased agenda against the subject of an article in that edit summary. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This was his fifth incident. That's the number 5, preceded by the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4.  If it were one isolated incident, your logic would be correct. Sadly, as this person has a clear history of criminal behavior, that is entirely relevant to his wikipedia article.  I am very sorry your bias prohibits you from understanding this. 99.65.186.186 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you consider stupid collegiate behaviour (incident 1,2,3) is criminal behaviour, I think the United States have a severe problem with there youth. I guess that 50% of students will be considered criminals. Even George W. Bush daughters were arrested for underage drinking, are they now criminals? The last two incidents have effect on his college footbal career, so they are relevant. But the others are just stupid behaviour and not relevant at all. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  13:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) and Reagan administration


"[ Social Democrats, USA ] had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.[Busky, Donald F. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2000., pp. 163-165]"

Is this "POV-pushing"? It appears to be the consensus view of observers of SDUSA. Reagan appointed Jeane Kirkpatrick ambassador to the U.N., and Carl Gersham was her assistant. Elliot Abrams was Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and a major figure in the Iran Contra affair. Linda Chavez (the Fox News contributor) was Reagan's Director of Public Liason. Other leading members (including DSUSA chairmen and officers), who could be considered to have moved to the right include Sidney Hook, Tom Kahn, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce McColm, Douglas Payne, Arch Puddington, Bayard Rustin, Penn Kemble, and Joshua Muravchik. While the term right-wing is relative, the Reagan administration would normally be considered to be to the right of the Socialist Party of America (the original name of SDUSA). TFD (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't even cite the correct article :
 * This is another WP:BLP violation, which you have been warned about. There is no evidence that Kirkpatrick, Chavez, or Abrams were members of SDUSA, as I have told you before. Read Kahn's critique of Kirkpatrick.
 * What is your problem? Why are you running here without talking on the talk page, again. You are breaking policy and wasting people's time, again.
 * You don't even have the decency to link the RS Noticeboard discussion of the piece pseudo-academic hackwork by Busky, who was an SPUSA officer for 30 years.


 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is possible that they left the Socialist Party of America before its namechange, and Kirkpatrick and Chavez organized events for SDUSA as non-members. But what specifically do you challenge:
 * 1. SDUSA had moved right by 1980
 * 2. many of their members served in the Reagan administration
 * 3. SDUSA members were able to serve in the Reagan administration because SDUSA had moved to the right
 * TFD (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I challenge your judgment in wasting this noticeboard's time, once again, in crying here rather than discussing things calmly at the talk page. As I wrote before, write your proposed sentence at the talk page, solicit comments, and work for consensus. Of course Busky is not a reliable source, and you shall have to use high quality reliable sources. You should also review the distinction between "many" and "Gershman" or "a few", among other issues if you want to be serious. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here again, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You have no references to support the charges about 2 living persons, and nothing about Kirkpatrick. (Apparently, one or more of them were at at least one YPSL event before 1972, but they were not members of SDUSA, to the best of my knowledge, which is based on discussions by people who would know, as well as an exhaustive knowledge of the published literature. I believe that Kirpatrick was an outside speaker at one event, just as they had outside speakers from their left, but otherwise I know of no connection.) You have left a BLP violation here, which I have not corrected,. you and this noticeboard just do nothing. You guys should get serious, at least about BLP, or resign being administrators.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RuBisCo Stars
has attempted to add what I would call blatantly biased and disparaging text to the RuBisCo Stars article. I'll stipulate that the article is barely past the stub stage, and appears to be completely unreferenced at this point in its evolution, for which it could face deletion due to questionable notability. However, I do not equate its lack of references or any question about its notability with tacit permission for another editor to add a quote from a Russian professor which calls the project "eccentric" or "frivolous", especially when the quote itself appears anecdotal and is unsupported by anything other than the professor's word and reputation. As my own exposure to radioastronomy is limited to long-ago general science lectures and long-term participation in SETI@home, I'm eminently unqualified to determine whether the professor's commentary has merit. Still, belittling remarks, that are in themselves unreferenced except as the opinion of a scientific peer, do nothing to improve an article. I've been discussing the matter with on their User Talk page, but I feel like I'm hitting an impasse, so I'm asking for some additional eyes on the matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that METIfan has some useful specialist knowledge. Unfortunately he appears to be incapable of constructive editing. The text he added is unsourced and not NPOV. This is not the first offence. The issue is primarily one of conduct and should perhaps be addressed elsewhere. Brmull (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Genius and Historiometry
Historiometry is a scientific field which studies genius. Despite this, an editor objects to having a section on Historiometry in the Genius article because it is "undue" and "it's only tangentially related" and "An entire section about an obscure and minor field of study is certainly not needed here". IMO it is obviously not tangentially related and while it is not a major field it is not insignificant either: 3000 hits in Google Books: Miradre (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Historiometry is not focused on studying genius, so I disagree with having a whole section for it on the article. However, I also disagree with the other editor's position that a "see also" entry is enough. Historiometry deserves at least a few sentences (if not a paragraph) in the "Historical Development" section, along with a "see also" entry. I hope this is a good solution for both parties.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 22:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll note that I made a very similar suggestion on the talk page: "I suppose an inline link in the Psychology section might be worthwhile." This suggestion was not welcomed by Miradre. aprock (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It deserves some description as stated above and not just a link.Miradre (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, which is why I said "inline link". aprock (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Then I will add some material. Although not to the psychology section. It is not a subfield of psychology but rather inter-disciplinary.Miradre (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Aprock here shows his true colors. He deleted almost all descriptions of the field and moved it one sentence in "Galton" setion. Obviously inadequate considering that the long ago dead Galton gets numerous paragraphs. Also, it is not just a "historical development" but a currently active field.Miradre (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the need for a section or subsection on historiometry, but I also disagree with aprock's approach to minimize the information. I would suggest you expand the sentence on historiometry with the necessary descriptions and sources, but without losing the link to Galton (which is considered one of the pioneers of the field, according to the historiometry wiki-page). Regarding the term "historical development": history doesn't equal to old or obsolete; history is a mixture of both past and present. You could explain that historiometry is still an active study. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | <font color="Red">T <font color="Yellow">a <font color="Yellow">l <font color="Red">k 00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Charles Murray (author) is mentioned in Historiometry as a principal modern researcher, but that article doesn't mention Historiometry as an interest of his. Overall looking at both those articles the methods looks pseudo scientific and I get the very strong feeling it is some sort of unholy union between a conservative think tank and a tabloid newspaper. The real point though in Wikipedia terms is do sources about genius mention historiometry with some sort of weight or is it just that articles about historiometry mentions genius? The first means it should be in the article and the second means it should at best be a see also or one liner. Using the google test I got 20 thousand mentions of historiometry on its own. I searched for all three of study psychology genius together and got 7 million replies. So it seems to me that even in the study of the psychology of genius historiometry probably has fairly low weight. And that's using statistics which historiometry supposedly makes great use of. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article about Charles Murray is not good evidence regarding him. The book Human Accomplishment describes the work as Historiometric. Historiometry is not a pseudeoscence with numerous academic papers published. A general Google search is not particularly relevant for status in academic works. There are about 1000 books both mentioning Historiometry and Genius in Google Books. As such relevance seems demonstrated.Miradre (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I make that 336, which I work out as about one twentieth of what one gets for morphic resonance. I do hope you're not trying to use google counts for showing something is reputable science? Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure you used Google Books? Regarding the question if it is a pseudoscience, there are of course numerous peer-reviewed articles in the field (see Google Scholar) as well as for example this textbook by Yale University Press: Miradre (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I used it properly, try counting them if you really think there's more. There's twenty times as many 'scholar' articles on morphic resonance as well. As I said though the main thing is it has so little weight in the context. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is my search result for Google books: There are about the same number or articles in Google scholar for "morphic resonance" and "Historiometry". But that Historiometry should be a pseudoscience is not a criticism I have ever heard. It is certainly more quantitative than most historic research. I note that "Anders Ericsson" and "Genius" gives 209 hits in Google Scholar and "Anders Ericsson" is mentioned in several paragraphs in the Genius Article.Miradre (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And have a look at the last page of that, try with +'s instead. Charles Murray has a BA in history and a PhD in political science and works for a conservative think tank. You think I should deem his ratings of scientists over the ages with great respect? We haven't even fully accounted for the Flynn effect and that uses actual measurements rather than sticking a finger in the air. And the other one working on it went and stuck out ratings of the intelligence of the various US presidents. What else should I think except tabloid newspaper? The various cartoons making fun of that had it right I think. Dmcq (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem is nor relevant. It is like dismissing political or historical research by Chomsky because he is far left and a linguist. I am not aware of any cartoons making fun of Historiometry. It certainly is not simple a measure of intelligence but includes various aspects such as creativity, ambition, luck, education, and whatever else makes an individual outstanding. I repeat that it is very strange to have several paragraphs about Anders Ericsson in the Genius article and not one about Historiometry.Miradre (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a widely read cartoon . Hmm so I've got to debate all the junk output by political think tanks on a case by case basis otherwise it is an ad hominem attack. As to political and historical research it is a stamping ground for everybody and their dog anyway so who am I to complain about anybody speaking their piece? However this was supposed to be scientific and as the article says "Dr. K. Anders Ericsson is a Swedish psychologist and Conradi Eminent Scholar and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University who is widely recognized as one of the world's leading theoretical and experimental researchers on expertise". I think that counts. Dmcq (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept that it is considered a science whatever about my opinions of it. I have experience in using statistics from unlikely sources and I just don't buy it all except for very broad brush work - this identifying individuals from different ages just looks like bullshit to me. I just see the study as a minor aspect and the number of references confirm that to me especially since it should be popular in newspapers with its findings, and that other author you mentioned gets results by actual measurements which is much more convincing. So no great development of the topic there just a quick summary and reference over is my feeling. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only suggesting a paragraph, preferably in a section of itself. Which is much less than Anders Ericsson gets despite having very few hits for Genius as per above.Miradre (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes looking again I think that would be okay. Mentioning the Human Accomplishment book made me really turn against the straightforward mention of the subject. If you really need to mention something how about a work by Dean Keith Simonton? At least he has credentials in psychology instead of history and political science whatever else about what he writes. Dmcq (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology at female genital mutilation
Following a successful rename of what is now female genital mutilation, a user has replaced virtually all instances of "female genital cutting" (and FGC) with "... mutilation" (and FGM).

Some brief background. Google Scholar indicates that the term FGM is used more frequently than FGC; the gap has narrowed over time but the ratio is currently about 3:1. Having said that, among the sources that have specifically addressed the question of terminology, there is some controversy about the term "FGM". Sources have argued that it may not be regarded as mutilation, that the term FGM is judgemental non-neutral and has been criticised as political. Many of these sources favour the less loaded term FGC; some (eg., USAID, UNHCR, UNICEF, and UNFPA) use both together, in the form "FGM/FGC" or "FGM/C".

There are two main arguments for the edits noted above: that they are consistent with the new title, and that FGM is the most commonly-used term and should therefore be used by Wikipedia. I believe, however, that they are incompatible with NPOV's requirements that we "Prefer non-judgmental language", maintain an "impartial tone", and "Avoid stating opinions [ie., that FGC mutilates] as facts".

Attempts to find a compromise have so far been unsuccessful. Unfortunately substantial canvassing has taken place, complicating the consensus-building process; I'm therefore posting this to get input from uninvolved editors. Jakew (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am involved, see Talk:Female genital mutilation. The long discussion on the article talk page, and this report, cannot progress unless a proposal is made. We need some wording in the current article and a brief explanation of why that wording might be an NPOV problem. It is not the role of Wikipedia to rule on whether "mutilation" is a neutral term in regard to this issue, although specific wording in an article can of course be assessed. Are you suggesting that an article on "female genital mutilation" should not use the term "FGM"? Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously we need to use the term in the first sentence, in quotations, and in discussion of terminology. Elsewhere, however, it seems to me that a more neutral alternative should be preferred for use within the article.  I'd also add that it is incorrect to imply that no proposals have been made; in fact, I've already made two proposals: first, to revert the edits in question, restoring the neutral term "FGC", and second, as a compromise, to use "FGM/C". Jakew (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am involved, see Talk:Female genital mutilation. For any potential editors which are thinking about becoming involved in this discussion, I would encourage you to read the NPOV arguments which have been presented under the terminology section on the talk page, as well as the on the Requested Move. Jakew's interpretation of NPOV was unanimously rejected on the Request to Move, and I have pointed out the methodology problems with Jakew's google searches to him. For instance, while it is true that google records more results for the term FGC over time, many of these results are discussions of why the term FGC should not be used (see the 3rd, 4th and 6th results on the first search page for 2010 []). Additionally, only a minority of the overall sources discuss any neutrality problems, and the usage of the term FGM has support from the majority of legal, academic, and non-governmental sources including the World Health Organization. The canvassing that Jakew is referring to is in his assessment alone, consensus on this issue was already established on the Request to Move, and multiple editors have already pointed out to him that the consensus on the use of the term FGM in the title extends to the usage of the term in the article. It is unfortunate that Jakew has attempted to prime/influence potential editors by advancing his previously rejected argument under the guise of a "brief background". Vietminh (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already explained several times to Vietminh why a consensus regarding the application of WP:TITLE to the title of an article does not imply a consensus regarding the application of WP:NPOV to the content. There seems little point in repeating that here.
 * Of more importance is Vietminh's claim that "many" articles document reasons why FGC should not be used; (s)he cites the 3rd, 4th, and 6th results of a Google Scholar search. The 4th does not appear to refer to FGC, and is presumably a mistake, so I'll ignore it.  The 6th and 3rd are very similar, and it is clear to me that Vietminh has misunderstood both; I'll quote the 6th to illustrate: "Under WHO guidelines, FGM is classified into four types: Type I, excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris; [details of types II, III, and IV omitted for brevity] The WHO classification is preferred over terms generally used by the public, or even some scholarly reviewed publications, which include female genital cutting, female circumcision, female Sunna circumcision and Pharaonic circumcision."  Note that the source describes not the term FGM as superior, but the classification: the source isn't saying that the term "female genital mutilation" is preferred; it's saying that the classification scheme by which FGM is divided into four types is preferable to the use of single terms that do not distinguish between the types.  The 3rd result similarly prefers the 'classification'. Jakew (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have re-checked the google scholar results and it is now the 3rd, 5th, and 6th top results for 2010 which refute the use of FGC, this must have changed since I did the initial search a couple of weeks ago. Page 2 of the 3rd result specifically says "The World Health Organization (WHO) classification is superior to terms used by the public or even some scholarly reviewed publications. The latter terms include female genital cutting, female circumcision, female Sunna circumcision, and Pharaonic circumcision." (check the source here yourself: []). The very first sentence of the 6th result specifically says "The World Health Organization (WHO) defines female genital mutilation (FGM) as all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the female external genitalia and/or injury to the female genital organs" before it goes on to say that "The WHO classification [which uses the term FGM] is preferred over terms generally used by the public, or even some scholarly reviewed publications, which include female genital cutting, female circumcision, female Sunna circumcision and Pharaonic circumcision." Notice that Jakew chose not to display the 3rd result which specifically refutes his argument by calling it "similar" to the 6th even though they use different wording. Also notice that when displaying the 6th result he left out the very first sentence which gives context to the content which follows. Lastly, notice that the title of the 5th result is "female genital mutilation" despite being in the search result for "female genital cutting", this is what really shows that Jakew's google methodology is not indicative of the true usage of these terms, despite his insistence to the contrary.
 * It is truly sad that you would accuse me of canvassing and then come onto this noticeboard and attempt not once, but twice to frame the argument in terms favourable to your own view instead of allowing editors to come to the page and make their own conclusions. If you were trying to avoid "complicating the consensus process" you certainly did not accomplish that goal with what you have done here. Also the RM unanimously supported my interpretation of WP:POVTITLE which is nearly identical to the relevant section of NPOV (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming), you offered your interpretation of NPOV during the RM and it was resoundingly rejected at that time, and has continued to be rejected afterwards. Vietminh (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's rather odd that you invite me to "check the source here yourself"; if you look, you'll see that I linked to exactly the same source myself, and commented on it, noting that like the 6th it asserts the superiority of the classification, not the term. Incidentally, you've misquoted the 3rd, which does not include the words "(which uses the term FGM)".   The correct quote is: "The World Health Organization (WHO) classification is superior to terms used by the public or even some scholarly reviewed publications. The latter terms include female genital cutting, female circumcision, female Sunna circumcision, and Pharaonic circumcision." Jakew (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was inviting other potential editors to check the source themselves, not you. Unlike you I don't attempt to prime people's opinions before they have even read the content for themselves. Incidentally, for someone who has and I quote "published several letters and articles...in academic journals." you seem suspiciously unaware of common format conventions. Brackets are used inside quotations to provide context to a quote in light of the sentence or paragraph in which it is placed. Any publisher worth his salt would know that they are not meant to be taken as part of the quotation itself. Vietminh (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSQUOTE requires the use of square brackets for such purposes in Wikipedia. In any case, these are usually best as sources will often use parentheses themselves (as indeed this does), thus presenting ambiguity. Jakew (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted and changed, though Wikipedia policies don't explain your confusion in this regard. Vietminh (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But per WP:GEVAL, we don't necessarily need to avoid "judgmental" language for all topics. This is important; we do not blindly apply NPOV to everything! For example, we don't need to find neutral terms to describe ethnic cleansing, genocide, or infanticide. Similarly, we don't need to go out of our way to find a non-judgmental term for female genital mutilation when, by consensus, we have determined that that is the common name for the subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest using the abbreviation FGM throughout. It is extensively documented in the article that the word "mutilation" is predominant but not universally accepted. The abbreviation is a neutral compromise. Brmull (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher: Can a short list of controversies be NPOV?
This dispute centers on a statement in the lede of the MoMK article that I and some other editors don't believe is properly sourced or NPOV. The paragraph in question is:

''' The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions, ' coverage in the news media ' and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor. ''' The first sentence is unsourced, and the word "much" is subjective. However, the major problem is the second sentence. The word "It" suggests that the entirety of the case is controversial which is untrue. The phrase "widely described as controversial" exists in no source; it is a subjective assessment by editors based largely on U.S. media coverage. In my view it is WP:WEASEL, not least because the sentence goes on to list four "questionable" areas which just happen to be defence talking-points. It's a lawyerly way of saying, "Almost everyone thinks the defendants are being railroaded."

Other editors have made comments about the problematic nature of this paragraph. I would like to replace the original paragraph with the following sourced text:

"The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States, and aspects of the case are controversial. "

I've not been able to work with the three who are reverting the article most of the time. I believe it's important to get this right because it is the lede in a highly-trafficked article and in a sense it sets the editorial standard for the whole page. I appreciate your input here and/or on the article talk page. Brmull (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * From my own view what makes the case controversial is unclearly stated. Yes there is a question of validity of convictions and police investigation but I would group that together as one item clearly in favor of the defendants.  Coverage of media can go both ways but is vague.  Really why is this case controversial?  A disputed trial with competing stories?  That's hardly unusual.  What I see though that is not touched upon are the nationalist undercurrent and sensationalist aspect.  Satanic orgy anyone? Lambanog (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Brmull (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A mediator is now available to hear arguments from parties to this dispute. Brmull (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Coconut oil
The coconut oil article is not objective and attempts to improve it have been met with dogmatic resistance by editors who do not appear to have much knowledge of the subject but have a history of obstructing article development of articles not to their taste. Independent third-party editors are requested to have a look. Among the biases evident: the amount of warnings given about coconut oil making sections of the article read like something one would find on a cigarette carton despite the evidence not being based on coconut oil per se and there being controversy on the supposed consensus. One of the more positive things said about it in the article (good for frying) is false. One of its great uses (in soap making) is absent in the discussion.

From the links below one can see attempts at a better article have been made.

A link to a previous article version with more sources and information. Diff with current version.

Reasons for not adopting that version despite being superior appear nebulous. Notice no attempts to significantly improve the article have been made by those editors responsible for blocking the more complete version despite there being ample time and information available to do so. Lambanog (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been down this road before, see this archived discussion. Yobol (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The NPOV banner that was in effect at the time was recently removed. But consensus was never reached.  I placed another NPOV banner to express dissatisfaction with the continued non-neutrality of the article but it has been removed without discussion—which is a similar tactic employed in the earlier attempts to reach accommodation, making this a live issue once again and why it has been brought up here.  Compare the Wikipedia article with this New York Times article: Once a Villain, Coconut Oil Charms the Health Food World.  The Wikipedia article fails utterly to address the controversy involved.  Lambanog (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The version by Lambanog is well-written and provides more information, but it is definitely biased toward the "coconut oil is miracle substance" side of the debate. It also seems overly detailed to me as regards extraction methods. I think the ideal would be somewhere between these two versions. But that's just a non-expert's first take. Brmull (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've tried to integrate what was worth keeping in Lambanog's above diff (see ). The production material is basically what I could dig out of google books.  There's not much MEDRS- and NOR-compliant nutritional information that I could find anywhere after some digging.  The differences between versions are exaggerated because of the placement of images.  Some stuff I couldn't keep because of OR concerns, and much of the health/cooking information has been discussed at length and rejected because of undue weight concerns.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Groupthink
In "Diverse Perspectives on the Groupthink Theory – A Literary Review", the author writes, "Despite the diversity of perspectives and the limited empirical support, the groupthink concept continues to see broad application. As can be seen on Table 7, groupthink has been applied to juries (Mitchell & Eckstein, 2009) and hockey teams (Rovio, Eskola, Kozub, Duda, & Lintunen, 2009). Ko (2005) described how Chinese culture affects groupthink. Shmidt, Zopalaski and Toole (2005) assessed the interface between strength of relationships and groupthink. Klein and Stern (2009) drew an interesting parallel between groupthink and academia." That is the only mention (other than in the chart) he makes of Klein and Stern's essay, which was published by a journal owned by a libertarian thinktank. What weight should we give to this essay in Groupthink? TFD (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If this requires specialized knowledge maybe it should be posted on the Psychology Noticeboard. Otherwise I would ask what is the text in question, and what is the proposed change? Have you agreed that "Diverse Perspectives" is a reliable source for this topic? Brmull (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not see this section but it is completely misleading by only mentioning one of the discussed sources. Regarding this particular source this application of groupthink theory is not criticized and receives about as much space as the other applications mentioned. The original source is from a peer-reviewed journal. Also, it is just one of many peer-reviewed articles on this subject. See the section "Groupthink in higher education" below which also includes a link to the above article.Miradre (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Groupthink in higher education
Academic sources:
 * James D. Rose. "Diverse Perspectives on the Groupthink Theory – A Literary Review", Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 4 Iss. 1, 2011, pp. 37- 57. 2011 Link:
 * Daniel B. Klein, Charlotta Stern. "Groupthink in Academia: Majoritarian Departmental Politics and the Professional Pyramid." The Independent Review, 13(4), (2009), 1086-1653. Link:

General newspapers:
 * The Left-Leaning Tower, John Tierny, The New York Times, July 22, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edl-24notebook-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
 * Va. attorney general off to rocky start with state colleges, Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, May 23, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052101777.html
 * A left-wing monopoly on campuses, Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, December 2, 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/02/a_left_wing_monopoly_on_campuses/

Specialized newspaper for education:
 * Liberal 'Groupthink' Puts Professors at Odds With Most Americans, Report Says, Chronicle of Higher Education, Robin Wilson, October 19, 2006.https://chronicle.com/article/Liberal-Groupthink-Puts/119297/
 * Why So Few Conservative And Libertarian Professors?, Education News, Daniel B. Klein, August 1, 2010. http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/38325.html

All of these sources without doubt show that there exists is a significant view that groupthink is one possible explanation for the liberal overrepresentation in higher education. Despite this there is some who refuses to include this application of groupthink theory in the Groupthink article. I fear that this may be opposed by some simply because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Further views would be appreciated.Miradre (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Miradre was told about the previous report (see above) here by TFD. This seems to be a case of WP:CPUSH to insert undue content prominently in an article. Mathsci (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked for outside opinion. I know your already. I did not see TFD's section above but it is completely misleading by only mentioning one source in a biased way.Miradre (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please learn to read what other users write on talk pages. Forum-shopping because of a content dispute is poor form. Not the frst time either. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Spare me your incorrect ad hominem. Again, I asked for outside opinions.Miradre (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is obviously a brief overview. The issue is whether this including this information would be a NPOV violation via WP:UNDUE. The 2004 Boston Globe article above does not directly support the assertion. The other sources raise the concern of WP:RECENTISM. Do you have any other sources, preferrably a text or review article that discusses the specific issue other than a brief mention? Brmull (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The second peer-reviewed article as well as both articles in the education newspapers are mainly about groupthink in higher education. Most of the sources mention groupthink in higher education as a significant theory and all mention it. Anyway, I am not arguing for more than a brief mention. As is the case in the literature review of groupthink (the first source). Klein and Stern put the theory forward in their 2005 peer-reviewed papers so it is not that recent.Miradre (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether "there exists is a significant view that groupthink is one possible explanation for the liberal overrepresentation in higher education" but whether it is signficant to the groupthink article.  (It could be that the theory belongs in an article about academia.)  A review of the literature shows that it is not.  TFD (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The literature review does not criticize the application and give it equal space to other applications. Certainly the Wikipedia article should give a similar brief mention as the literature review.Miradre (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I note that TFD is not an outside view on this issue.Miradre (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Outsider's view... The fact that the sources include peer reviewed academic journals indicates to me that this definitely deserves at least a brief mention in the article. It passes the bar for minimum inclusion per WP:UNDUE.  However, since the idea is controversial, that mention should be phrased as an attributed opinion and not stated as accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Using primary sources to determine weight is WP:OR. Note that the only peer reviewed secondary source that mentions the relevance of Klein's work does so in passing, not giving it significant coverage. aprock (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aprock is not an outside view. Literature reviews and newspapers are not primary sources. The literature review gives the application of groupthink in higher education the same space as other applications of groupthink and does not criticize it.Miradre (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have a problem with this journal "Emerging Leadership Journeys". It seems like a journal for student projects. Brmull (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. It prints articles by PhD students at Pat Robertson's Regent University.  TFD (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. And that's the best source. aprock (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Disagree with that source. Still leaves many other peer-reviewed articles, newspaper, and specialist newspapers for education.Miradre (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that groupthink in education has entered the popular discourse to some degree, but it's still pretty much a single pair of authors' work and has received little attention in the professional literature. As such I don't know how to handle it. Perhaps a brief mention in the Criticisms and recent developments section? The concept is certainly not as well established as the other items in Real-world application. So to put it there I think would be undue weight. What do others think? Brmull (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the very low quality of sources provided, it seems that is is more a case of searching for anything which can be used to justify inclusion rather than a sincere attempt to improve the article through conscientious development based on reliable secondary sources. Until robust sourcing is provided, it seems difficult to justify inclusion of this controversial viewpoint. aprock (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)