Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 27

Beat Up a White Kid Day
So far as I can tell, this is an isolated incident that our article has turned into a 'custom' which has now propagated to the web as fact. I'd like both help and eyes on this article (someone suggested on the talk page it be deleted as a '15 minutes of fame' article, but I'm not sure that would fly.). Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten the AfDs (linked on the talk page) which are worth reading. There have been some basic changes since the last AfD, see which have changed the article's pov. I also suggested a name change at one time but no one responded, but I think to make it NPOV it should be considered. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The assault that the story is based on is probably not notable enough for its own article. So the logical solution is to merge with May Day, using the newspaper sources to write up a paragraph, at most, in the USA section. It's not a notable topic in its own right, having only surfaced to national attention on this one occasion, and to international attention never. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course the material does fit in May Day because this is the same day. May Day has been known for many different events, wide variation across time and space, this is just one small dimension of it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There is some precedent for an article of this type, namely, Kill Haole Day. I wonder if the two could be merged somehow. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Israeli social justice protests
Hi, my problem is about these parts of the article: I can neither speak, write, read nor understand hebrew. I can therefore by no means verify the expressiveness of the used sources. Furthermore, imo youtube videos are not adequate sources. Additionally, my initiative to refer to this article of Haaretz, one of the greatest israeli daily papers, to prove that no "conspiracy" was involved as the mentioned meetings have been conducted in broad daylight and participants even boasted about it, was rejected. I also think that the content of the above edit is not notable as it has not been propagated by any media, except the far right (e.g. Rapture Forums).

I therefore have the feeling, that User:Shuki (possibly supported by User:Ynhockey) is pushing his right-wing political views and is determined to use even obscure and inadequate sourcing, excluding sources that do not match his political prejudices, to do so. I would be glad if some of you could also look through this discussion and give their opinion on the talk page.

Also if I am on the wrong page here and there is a page better suited for my problem I would be glad if you showed me the way. -- 92.206.226.112 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These additions don't appear to be adequately sourced. Also, while Haaretz is a reliable source for news, the article you link to has, to a certain extent at least, the nature of an opinion piece and is not as reliable as the paper is generally. Those who propose to add material based on Hebrew-language sources should supply English translations of the excerpts they wish to use. Editors should also help others by explaining the status of sources they use, i.e. is it a newspaper, an online political magazine, a blog, etc. YouTube is not acceptable as a source but some of the videos on YouTube may be reliable sources in their own right. For example if the Secretary General of the UN gives a speech, that is a highly reliable source for what the UN's stance is. Whether the speech then appears on YouTube is neither here nor there. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 92, thank you for the courtesy of letting me know you mentioned me at a different discussion and it is getting hard to continue AGF with you. It is actually you who is making an effort to remove and belittle the opposing voices to this protest and suppressing additional sourced viewpoints. I have brought secondary sources from RS. I have also explained on the talk page a few times that the primary sources I brought are perfectly compliant of WP:PRIMARY as reference for the section and not used as sources themselves. I am not analyzing the primary, the reporter at the RS newspaper is given WP credit for that. You continue to assume the reporter is right-wing and therefor not an RS. I have stated that the article sourced is not an op-ed opinion piece and an admin has also rv you for removing that. I think another editor accused that RS newspaper for being right-wing, and frankly, besides that being OR, if it were true, it is nonetheless an RS. I cannot edit the article all day long, and I am adding more info little by little, the latest being an assistant editor at an RS claiming that his colleagues in the media are silencing an opposing views.


 * Itsmejudith, I understand the right of an editor to request a translation, but is it required to translate the entire article, or ok if the requestor asks for clarity for specific sections after using google translate? --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely translate the relevant sections; translate the whole article if necessary, i.e. if someone would have to read the whole article in order to understand the argument being made. If you are bilingual in Hebrew and English by all means use Google translate as a starting point, but then go through it and ensure that the English version is comprehensible and matches the sense of the Hebrew. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, might we get your opinion specifically regarding the paragraph in dispute in the lead? It is the opinion of three editors (according to my count) that consider this paragraph giving undue weight to a single journalist, while it is only Shuki who insists on having the paragraph in the lead.  Rami  R  08:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Higher Colleges of Technology
There's been edit-warring for at least a year over the inclusion of a criticism section in this article. I've fully protected the article for a month and warned the relevant parties in order to try to stimulate the D part of WP:BRD, but I'm not especially confident that will work. Any outside input on the inclusion of the disputed content would be welcome. &mdash; Scientizzle 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you alerted WikiProject Universities, so I hope that various project members will come to the rescue. Sadly this kind of content dispute is quite common in relation to universities. And I'll do a quick rewrite to take out the worst of the wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Except I can't because it's fully protected. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nano-thermite


Some editors interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories have been adding some coatracking to the article on nano-thermite. More eyes please? causa sui (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

DeconGel
Could I get some more eyes on this? There have been two user accounts and an IP making serious (in my opinion) point of view edits that are also spamming/advertising in nature.--v/r - TP 17:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to a non-spammy state, and will watchlist it. The article could probably be expanded a little again, if anyone can find more third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

VestAndPage
I would also appreciate an extra pair of eyes on this article. Serious POV edits with excessive images (I havent removed any yet). I have trouble understanding the context of some parts, so if someone could review my latest revisions with the history and make sure I understood it all completely I would appreciate it.--v/r - TP 18:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Marc Ostrofsky
Can someone else look at this page? I'm sick of it and the subject. Thanks - Richfife (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that the article is highly promotional and there appears to be some COI issues. If I may ask, what will happen if I try to make it more NPOV Brmull (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * When I first worked on it, I got an angry email from the subject wanting to know why I was messing with his "resume" (his word, not mine). I explained the situation to him.  In real life, he uses a large number of people as fronts to hide the scope of his domain name reselling business and has been caught a number of times.  There used to be referenced material about that but I decided I didn't want to be the one guy constantly putting it back.  You'll note the high number of SPA's that only edit this page the one about his book.  So, what will happen?  Probably appearances by SPA accounts.  It's not exactly a hotbed of POV crime, but it's been going on at a low burn for years. - Richfife (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI
The inclusion of the category Propaganda organizations in the article Middle East Media Research Institute has been challenged on the grounds that it is a violation of NPOV. The two sources provided on the talk page to back the inclusion of the category are as follows: Is it a violation of NPOV to include MEMRI in this category?  nableezy  - 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia."The article then details those two incidents
 * "p. 182: However, MEMRI is conspicuously—even more than the two book just discussed—a function of the Arab-Israeli conflict, acting like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services. ... If such biased inventories and anthologies are of any use beyond propaganda, it is as a barmoeter of the ideological and intellectural regression currently under way in the Arab world. That undertakings of this sort no more reveal the 'Arab attitude' than they do 'the reality in the Arab world' does not mean that those who compile them invent the quotations they proffer. What they do is put manifestations of the regression on prominant display, while often taking them out of context; selected, assembled, and concentrated in a single stream, these exhibits project a deliberately distorted image of the Arab world's intellectual production. Nevertheless, as long as one keeps in mind that this material is being used for propaganda purposes ..."
 * The Brian Whitacker piece in the Guardian isn't a news article in any real sense. The Guardian may have classified it as such, but its language is clearly subjective, and news reports are supposed to be objective in nature. Whitacker also uses irony, which is inconsistent with factual news reporting. For example, he calls MEMRI "a generous institute" – but he doesn't mean it literally. This perhaps raises a deeper issue relating to the Guardian as far as its reliability, but it's safe to say at least in this case that the Whitacker article is not news in the manner news is typically defined and shouldn't be used for making far-reaching claims like labeling MEMRI's activities "propaganda."—Biosketch (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By describing it as a "far-reaching claim" I think you have probably called into question your reliability in responding to this question to some extent. It isn't a far reaching claim to neutrally describe MEMRI as a propaganda organization. I can understand that some people have qualms about the use of the word propaganda because they imbue it with things that are absent from a neutral academic definition of the term. The Whitacker piece is discussed and taken seriously by a reliable source (i.e. not us) in the book Translation and conflict: a narrative account by Mona Baker.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Random House defines Propaganda as "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." Labeling an organization a "propaganda organization" is therefore a far-reaching claim, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. WP:YESPOV instructs us to "Avoid stating opinions as fact." The Whitacker article is underlyingly an opinion piece – his own opinion.—Biosketch (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is another source listed. And other definitions, such as the OED's The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view. The other source listed says that MEMRI acts like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services and it, in a biased manner, systematically spreads information in order to promote a political cause or point of view. In other words, the definition of the word propaganda. Do you have any comment at all about the book published by Macmillan that says that this organization engages in propaganda?  nableezy  - 08:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Biosketch, I honestly have no idea how you go from the Random House definition to a conclusion that describing MEMRI as a propaganda organization is a "far reaching claim". Random House's definition fits MEMRI perfectly although it's OR for me to say that and of course there is many definitions of propaganda. Also, for the record, I don't have any feelings. This has nothing to do with me. It's to do with the nature of propaganda and how RS apply that term. Think of it like putting Hamas in Category:Islamic terrorism.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Biosketch. I suggest you stop discussing sources and start discussing core guidelines. I have personally tried adding a category calling a group of people terrorist and was met with:
 * "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." WP:CAT. So disregarding the discussion altogether: If you want to say it in a cat then you should be able to say it better in prose. Cptnono (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's going on here? Usually it's just me and User:Sean.hoyland at these hours of the day. But you're right, of course. There should be content in the prose of the article establishing whether or not or to which extent MEMRI is a propaganda organization. Cats are supposed to be derivatives of article content – all the more so controversial ones.—Biosketch (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "...So disregarding the discussion altogether: If you want to say it in a cat then you should be able to say it better in prose"? Could someone please explain this to me? Prunesqualor   billets_doux  02:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Explanation: Prose actually go into detail and have sources. They are not a definitive description in Wikipedia's voice like a cat could be interpreted as. There is no reason to rely (or even argue for the use of) a cat since the prose should do the heavy lifting. If something needs to be said: Say it in the article's text instead of the cat. I once disagreed wit this reasoning but the community appears to not have consensus on if a cat is a label or not while the reader certainly does not understand if it is a label or not.Cptnono (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the problem with the statement that "Cats are supposed to be derivatives of article content – all the more so controversial ones" is that such a broad interpretation means that any organization that is accused of producing propaganda could potentially be listed in this category. Given that this category has only 27 organizations listed, all of which seem to be run by governments, terrorist organizations, or have long since ceased to exist, it seems that simple accusations of propaganda are insufficient to justify the inclusion of an organization on this list. Furthermore, the term propaganda, in addition to being extremely perjorative, is also a widely-used insult or accusation. MEMRI may be bias, but it hardly meets the requirements to be placed on this list.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC))


 * You are making a lot of judgement calls. Propaganda is not perjorative unless the propaganda organisation is extremist. It is not an insult when applied but a suggestion of fact. What percentage of MEMRIs reporting is negative to Arabs/pro Israel? Is MEMRIs free distribution of translations meant to influence the media. Can you find evidence that MEMRI reports objectively? And the most important of all, can evidence that the critism is unjustified be found? We need to look at MEMRIs reporting as a whole and answer these questions. Quite a few RS have been provided to support the category but to date, no one has supplied a RS to support MEMRIs objectivity. MEMRI has even been critisized by it's own supporters for misquoting pro-Israel Arab sources to cast them in a negative light. The Propaganda category is NPOV and relevant. Wayne (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll deal with your above statements point-by-point:
 * First, several sources under the "Praise" have describes MEMRI as invaluable and reliable (this hardly sounds like a propaganda organization) and MEMRI's work is quoted by major Media outlets across the world - if MEMRI's inaccuracies and distortions are so obvious and easily refutable, why is their work cited so often?
 * Second, you argue that "We need to look at MEMRIs reporting as a whole" - Good idea: MEMRI has produced thousands for Media clips and releases, and of these a grand total of only about 6 or 7 have been questioned (and in some cases, the only source is the actual person who claims he/she was misquoted.)
 * Third, The RS that you have cited simply make broad statements that MEMRI produces propaganda while citing only a handful of alleged inaccuracies, or simply none at all. Making broad allegations such as this is both perjorative an insult. Also, all of these RS are actually just a handful of academics and journalists who are moderately or extremely anti-Israel. A few allegations from such sources aren't exactly the most convincing evidence.
 * Fourth, You ask the following questions: What percentage of MEMRIs reporting is negative to Arabs/pro Israel? and Is MEMRIs free distribution of translations meant to influence the media? These are rhetorical questions - Aside from the fact that it is extremely unlikely that anyone has done a percentage-based analysis of MEMRI's reporting regarding Arabs/pro-Israel, any such analysis would be complicated by the fact that the terms such as "pro-Israel" do not have universal definitions. Your second question Is MEMRIs free distribution of translations meant to influence the media? - Well, MEMRI's material is also freely available to the public, but more to the point: any organization that freely releases material is trying to influence the media or public in some way. Should they all be labelled as Propaganda organizations?
 * Finally, you have pointed out that MEMRI may not be completely objective. When it comes to the Middle East, very few media organizations can claim to be objective - it is a very dividing and intracable conflict. If you are arguing that a real or preceived lack of objectivity is sufficient to label an organization as propagandistic, then this category would contain hundreds of entries, and not simply 27.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Your first three points are totally irrelevant strawman arguments. Being "invaluable and reliable" has nothing to do with propaganda and "inaccuracies and distortions" are not required for the classification at all. Propaganda can be accurate and reliable information presented in a one sided manner. Does the news MEMRI provides consistently promote a negative view of Arabs? Do they distribute extreme views not held by the average Arab? Do they omit news from the same sources that are more indicative of Arab views? Do they report events in a NPOV manner, ie:what percentage of published news is from Israeli sources that are critical of Israel? If you are making claims that anyone who makes a claim of propaganda is biased then supply sources. Some media (such as FOX) may not be objective but their overall reporting does not concern the middle east so editors bringing up other media is not constructive. Claiming that the term propaganda is perjoritive is likewise not helpful as that is a regional view not global. There is nothing perjoritive with the classification, it is purely a descriptive term to most of the world. Wayne (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My Response:
 * Your claim that there is nothing pejorative about the term "Propaganda" is incorrect. "Propaganda" is an extremely pejorative term; How many people identify themselves as propagandists? or enjoy being labelled as one or openly admit they produce it? Being accused of producing propaganda implies that a person or organization is dishonest, collusive, etc. (these aren't terms which are used in a positive light). Do you really think that MEMRI's critics who have accused it of promoting Propaganda simply mean it in a "descriptive" way and have no pejorative intentions?
 * I will repeat that MEMRI's work is quoted by major Media outlets across the world - if MEMRI really is the massive and overt propaganda chimera that its critics say it is, why is they work cited so often by the mainstream media? Why do the only accusations come from comments (or a paragraph in a book) from a handful of academics and journalists who are hostile towards Israel?
 * You repeat the rhetorical questions: "Does the news MEMRI provides consistently promote a negative view of Arabs? Do they distribute extreme views not held by the average Arab? Do they omit news from the same sources that are more indicative of Arab views? Do they report events in a NPOV manner, ie:what percentage of published news is from Israeli sources that are critical of Israel?" These are all extremely subjective questions. But more to the point, the RS you have cited can only cite a handful of examples (less than 10 out of several thousand) to base their conclusions on (some sources don't cite any examples). In other words, the questions you have asked haven't really been answered by your critics in a scholarly or objective analysis - only through accusations.
 * Also, with regards to your last question: "what percentage of published news is from Israeli sources that are critical of Israel", MEMRI usually doesn't cover Israeli news because Israeli news is usually available in English(as well as Hebrew). The majority of the Arab sources covered by MEMRI are not available in English.
 * Also, I doubt anyone has done a percentage-based analysis of MEMRI's reporting (if you can find one, please provide it).
 * You imply that I am "making claims that anyone who makes a claim of propaganda is biased". I have never stated that "anyone who makes a claim of propaganda is biased." What I am arguing is that the term propaganda is widely used as an insult by opposing sides of a conflict to discredit each other (and I doubt their interpretation of word Propaganda is the same as yours - not everybody reads Wikipedia).
 * You state that "Some media (such as FOX) may not be objective but their overall reporting does not concern the middle east so editors bringing up other media is not constructive." Really? I lot of people accuse Fox News of presenting information "in a one sided manner" (your words). They are certainly accused of doing this on numerous issues (not just the Middle East) but does that really make a difference under your definition? The fact is that under your definition, Fox news would certainly be added - the fact that it is accused of presenting information "in a one-sided manner" on more than one issue doesn't really qualify it for an exemption.
 * And finally, (and I keep mentioning this), if every organization that is accused of engaging in Propaganda under your incredibly broad definition (i.e. "Propaganda can be accurate and reliable information presented in a one sided manner."), this category would contain hundreds if not thousands of entries since everyone organization that is accused of promoting "information presented in a one sided manner" would be present - yet it only contains 27. It seems you are making the assumption that the requirement for adding an organization to this category in Wikipedia is that it simply meets your definition. However, this is clearly not the case, given the very limited number of organizations listed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC))
 * It is not my claim that the term "Propaganda" is not perjoritive, it is the dictionary definition. I'm not arguing that it can't be used in that way. I also dont see how the term implies dishonesty yet it seems to be a major point for you. Your point number two requires an answer. why is their work cited so often by the mainstream media? Because it is FREE. Several media outlets such as CNN have said they would not use MEMRI if they had to pay for it. Why do the only accusations come from comments from a handful of academics and journalists who are hostile towards Israel? Please provide sources for a claim of universal hostility (bias) as I have seen critism from very pro-Israel sources. "Under my definition" no mainstream media can be in the category. They are not primarily propaganda outlets no matter how one sided they are. They are in bussiness to make money, not direct public views. MEMRI on the other hand only publishes news that supports their own view. If they are not propagandists then give me refs for some of their pro-Arab articles. A small percentage of pro-Arab news in their overall reporting is all that is needed to avoid the category and save all the hollow arguments to keep them out. If they are not propagandists then that will be a very, very, easy task. Wayne (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My response - point by point
 * You have claimed that outlets such as CNN have said they would not use MEMRI if they had to pay for it. Really? Aside from the fact that this claim is original research, that doesn't imply that MEMRI's work is inaccurate or untrustworthy (or can be labelled as propaganda). If MEMRI's work was so widely accepted as being inaccurate or propagandistic (as its critics keep claiming), major media outlets wouldn't repeatedly cite it, even if it was free, to avoid condemnation and charges of bias. More to the point, MEMRI does charge membership fees to access much of its material - including all of its archives. Your broad claim that MEMRI is "free" is at least slightly disingenuous, if not incorrect.
 * You are correct in the dictionary definition of Propaganda. However, "the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples" (to quote Wikipedia). You seem to believe that this fact should be either ignored or isn't relevant to this debate. On the contrary, the way in which a term is commonly used (especially in a almost exclusively negative context) is someing that cannot be ignored in Wikipedia under NPOV. Being described as a "propaganda organization" would be considered to be derogatory and insulting by nearly anyone. Does MEMRI consider itself to be a "propaganda organization?" For that matter, does any organization? If the term propaganda is so innocuous, then why is it universally used in such a negative manner?
 * You have argued that "no mainstream media can be in the category. They are not primarily propaganda outlets no matter how one sided they are. They are in [sic] bussiness to make money, not direct public views." Do you really think that organizations like Fox news isn't trying to influence people with their reporting? Your argument seems to be that as long as an organization is for-profit, then they can't be accused of trying to influence people and can't be accused of producing propaganda. If they are making a profit and influcing people, why don't they meet your definition? Along this same line, is every piece of material produced by MEMRI propaganda? (Not all of MEMRI's clips are even related to the Arab-Israel conflict - many deal with internal cultural and political issues within or between Arab countries). If not, then I guess MEMRI doesn't meet your definition either.
 * You have stated "If they are not propagandists then give me refs for some of their pro-Arab articles." This would be original research and I'm not sure what you mean by "Pro-Arab." Do you mean providing an Arab point of view? - MEMRI certainly does this - your claim seems to be that MEMRI attempts to depict all Arabs as radical or extremist (i.e. anti-Western, anti-Jewish, etc.) If this is the case, here are links to transcripts of several MEMRI clips which are none of the above:
 * Abdessalam Jalloud, Former Libyan PM who Recently Defected, Calls Al-Qadhafi a "Throne-Sick" "Tyrant"
 * Syrian Journalist Samira Musalima Criticizes Syrian Army before Being Dismissed from Her Post as Editor-in-Chief of Syrian Govermnet Daily Teshreen
 * Facebook "Orange" - 75-Year-Old Illiterate Iraqi Woman Becomes Computer Savvy
 * Syrian Civil Rights Activist Ammar Qurabi: The Syrian Regime Is a Gang that Kills Children in Cold Blood
 * Syrian Blogger Milad 'Umran: "We Have Seen the True Face of the Regime" and It Can No Longer Hide the Truth
 * Egyptian Poet Ahmad Abd Al-Mu'ti Higazi Defends the Civil State: "Mixing Religion with Politics Is Dangerous"
 * Egyptian Screenwriter Wahid Hamed Attacks the Muslim Brotherhood and Says: Both a Military Regime and a Religious Regime Will Lead to Dictatorship
 * Syrian Liberal Intellectual Muhyi Al-Din Al-Ladhaqani Compares Al-Assad to the Godfather and States: "We Are Facing a Vague 'Democracy,' Adopted by All Those Who Do Not Believe in Democracy"
 * Former Saudi TV Host Rania Al-Baz: Bin Laden Was a Black Stain on the Lives of Muslims
 * Saudi Songwriter Alaa Wardi Sings of Lack of Opportunities for Facebook Generation in the Arab World: Help Me Get a Visa Before I Go Crazy!
 * None of these clips portray Arabs as anti-Jewish, Anti-Western, or as ruthless or irrational and none are related to the Arab-Israel conflict. Contrary to claims by its critics, MEMRI does not only cite extremists in the Arab world. Also, among those which do deal with the Arab-Israel conflict are:

Lebanese Performer Karol Saqr, Daughter of the Leader of the Guardians of the Cedar Organization, Demands Separation of Religion and State and Peace with Israel
 * And finally, (again) if your intepretation of the requirements for Wikipedia's Propaganda category are correct, why does this category only contain 27 entries? Shouldn't it contain hundreds of organizations that are accused of promoting propaganda under your definition? Are there really only 27 organizations that fall into this category? (No. Probably because this category would otherwise become a dumping ground for every organization whose critics accuse it of promoting propaganda).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC))


 * How do you get "original research" out of something CNN said? Why have you mentioned "inaccurate or untrustworthy" again when it has no real bearing on this argument? Leave it out of the argument. MEMRI charging membership fees to access some of its material is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that they supply negative material free. Your arguments seem to be a case of not seeing the forrest for the trees.
 * Please supply a source supporting your claim that being a propaganda organisation is universally used in a negative manner. MEMRI is not advocating that Arabs be wiped out so how is distributing pro-Israel propaganda negative? I can point out that the majority of people in my country consider America manipulative and jingoistic but we dont view America negatively. Political campaign groups and lobby groups are all temporarily propaganda organisations that have no negative connotations attached to being so. If MEMRI want to portray Arabs in a negative light then they have the right to do so but we should call a spade a spade and avoid dancing around the obvious.
 * The majority of Mainstream media content is not meant to influence how people see a specific area of interest. Leave it out of the argument.
 * As far as your examples are concerned, how do you conclude that Arabs critisizing other Arabs is pro-Arab? Give me some links showing where MEMRI reports Arabs supporting Israel. I know they are around because I have read them and many people such Sari Nusseibeh are newsworthy enough that their speeches should have been picked up and distributed by MEMRI.
 * Finally, an organisation should be notable to be included in the category to keep the number in the category low. However, the number at the moment does look artificially low and should be expanded. MEMRI is notable enough for inclusion. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have stated "Please supply a source supporting your claim that being a propaganda organization is universally used in a negative manner." I will answer as before: How many people or organizations call themselves propagandists or open claim they produce propaganda? How many people consider being accused of promoting propaganda to be a compliment? You keep citing the dictionary definition but as Wikipedia's entry on Propaganda notes that "propaganda in its original sense was neutral" but that "the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples," You seem to believe that this should be ignored when applying the term. I disagree. Being accused of promoting propaganda (at least here in Canada) is taken as an insult. I would think it is the same in Australia.
 * So you saying that MEMRI is as notable as the state-run media outlets run by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Terrorist groups, etc.? Really? I'm sure MEMRI would be flattered that you think they are that notable, but frankly, a tiny non-governmental organization doesn't even hold a candle to them in terms of size, historical significance, etc. Also, many of the smaller organizations listed have not existed for decades or more.
 * This category carries a pejorative label and its entries are limited for that reason – otherwise, any organization that is accused of promoting propaganda would be listed here. If MEMRI is notable enough, there would be hundreds of similar organizations whose critics label it propagandist for whatever reason.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Agree with Hyper. Whole reasoning behind MEMRI status as a propaganda organization is predicated on a minority of extremely partisan sources. If MEMRI is the standard, then it will open the flood-gates for what constitutes propaganda in the minds of wikipedia editors. Virtually every news or media organization will be placed into the category as all have at one point or another been accused of promoting propaganda. Fox News, BBC, and The Telegraph were all exposed of promoting propaganda on behalf of governments during the Iraq War. Shall we throw those articles in the category? Wikifan Be nice  02:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * what would you call an organisation that sources a significant proportion of it's reports from blogs and op-eds, supplies them free to not only the mainstream media, which then often publishes them as reliably cited (MEMRI) news...which by coincidence are mostly anti-muslim in tone, but also supplies them free to politicians and lobbyists? If not propaganda I cant see the point of providing this "news" to politicians etc. Again (how many times is it now...10...50..?) I ask SPA Wikifan to provide sources for his claim that only "extremely partisan sources" call it propaganda. I also ask him to stop continually pushing strawman arguments, mainstream media are not primarily propaganda outlets and it is dishonest to keep bringing them up as equivalent to MEMRI. If you have nothing constructive to add dont waste everyones time. Wayne (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I wasn't actually aware until today that Former head of the CIA's counterintelligence unit, Vincent Cannistraro, said that MEMRI "are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud. They simply don't present the whole picture." from this Forward article. While I guess he might qualify as an extremely partisan source he's probably not the kind Wikifan is referring to.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cannistraro has been cited before...and dismissed as "only an opinion" although I dont see how opinions from notable experts dont count. Apparently only opinions from MEMRI supporters with no expertise in the area count as they are continually cited to support MEMRI's unbiased and reliable reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors should stop skewing the argument. We are not discussing if they are propaganda or not. We are discussing if it is appropriate to say in Wikipedia's definitive voice. WP:CAT says no. That is a guideline based argument. Nothing else matters. Since editors promoting continued inclusion have not made a clear argument based on policy or guidelines (the ones actually not related as opposed to whatever wikilink works while bickering) I will be removing the cat. I have already asked for this on another discussion where it looked clear so I am again mentioning it here. I don;t know why we cannot get away from multiple discussions in the topic area so I am just going to start pulling the trigger on all of them if needed. Ignoring other discussions about the exact same thing seems to have precedent.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The objective of discussing the extent to which RS describe them as a propaganda organization or not is to establish whether the categorization is "uncontroversial". Saying it is controversial doesn't make it so. Obviously there has to be an actual controversy evident in RS-world. That can only be established by sampling RS. It can't be established based on our opinions about the meanings of words and the nature of the organization. You already know that. As CAT says "editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles". That means that categorization must reflect and summarize in some sensible way what RS have to say on the matter since neutrality can only be achieved that way. Many useful categories that represent the way RS describe things aren't based on formally defined and objectively measurable properties. Some of them are far more complicated and wooly concepts than propaganda and yet we use them routinely because they're useful and match the way RS (and readers) model things. Articles are included because it's "clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". It might be obvious to you that adding this category to the MEMRI article is inappropriate based on all sorts of criteria you use to decide these things but it isn't obvious to me by just looking at what RS say. I don't have a preference for whether it's included or not but I would at least like to be able to understand the decision procedure in terms of taking information from RS, applying policies+guidelines to it and producing a policy consistent and repeatable result that is useful to readers and works for this article and others.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I reading the wrong WP:CAT page? This page has three main bullet points for "Particular considerations for categorizing articles":
 * Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs.
 * It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
 * Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article.


 * The MEMRI article seems to pass all three in spades and this discussion has been primarily on whether the RS are reliable enough to satify point two. I have attempted several times to "get away from multiple discussions" and concentrate solely on whether the category applies but Hyperionsteel (inaccurate or untrustworthy Vs accurate or trustworthy) and Wikifan  (if MEMRI is categorised then so should Fox News, BBC, and The Telegraph) insist on keeping irrelevant arguments going.Wayne (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant to point out that this category only contains 27 entries? and how is it irrelevant to point out that the term Propaganda carries an extremely perjorative label? Listing MEMRI in the same category as the state-run media organizations run by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union isn't something to be taken lightly.

Anyway, can we get a ruling on this soon? I'm really getting tired of arguing about this and its clear we can't reach an agreement. Should I submit a request for arbitration?


 * Why do you keep bringing up the two most extreme examples in the category? Let me paraphrase your example in a NPOV manner: "Listing MEMRI in the same category as the Voice of America isn't something to be taken lightly." As the Voice of America is restrained by U.S. legislation to be reliable news, this example is more relevant as a comparison. It clearly supports the case for MEMRI's inclusion and (slaps head) I can now see why Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are continually used as examples. Wayne (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how other members of the category are relevant. The Military of Syria is in the same category as the Military of Singapore. There's no guilt by association. Categorization should be an objective source based process. Mobster is a perjorative label too but we use it extensively in categorization.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, who is already in the category is irrelevant. However, Hyperionsteel has made it his most important talking point for MEMRI's exclusion and continually uses Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to support his view. There is no denying that other examples in the category are less propagandistic than MEMRI so I hope he will now drop that argument and instead concentrate on the category guidelines as Cptnono has suggested. Wayne (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the MEMRI article should remain categorised as a propaganda outlet, as the pejorative interpretation of the word propaganda is only an aspect of its broader meaning. Propaganda can be and often is positive. Certainly, it is always positive to somebody. Binksternet (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Wayne's Head slap
 * Voice of America is the official external broadcast institution of a federal government (i.e. it is run by a government, in this case, the United States). MEMRI is not a government organization - it is a private non-profit that is only run by itself. As I said before, arguing that comparing government controlled media outlets are the same as small privately-run non-profits is the issue here. If this category was that inclusive, there would be hundreds of entries, not just 27. I guess that when Wayne slapped his head, this difference must have eluded him (maybe he needs to slap his head again?).
 * Also, with regard to Binksternet's statement that "Propaganda can be and often is positive." Really? How many people or organizations call themselves propagandists or openly claim they produce propaganda? Are their any associations of Propagandist organizations? When someone states that you are producing propaganda, I don't think many people will take that as a compliment (or even as a neutral evaluation).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Google 中共中央宣传部, the department run by Liu Yunshan. I think they're pretty proud of their work.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 22:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is also a government-controlled institution (all media in China is state-run). But, let's compromise: We will only add organizations to this category that actually admit they produce propaganada and are proud of doing so.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Why does a propaganda organisation have to be state run? Organisations do not usually admit to propaganda simply because it invites more scrutiny to acertain the informations nuetrality. It has no bearing on the reliability or nuetrality of the information itself. Propaganda only becomes perjoritive when the information is not reliable or nuetral. All we need to do is determine if MEMRI satisfies WP:CAT. So far no argument has been supplied to support that it does not. Wayne (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1
That's quite enough already. Lots of organizations are accused of being promoting propaganda, and attempting to include this source is just another skirmish in the interminable Wikipedia I-P propaganda wars. As soon as I see Nableezy or Wayne or Sean add Electronic Intifada to this same category, per the citations provided above, I'll take their views on the subject more seriously. Until then, please stop playing "I'm going to add a nasty category to an article about something I don't like" games here, and go edit productively instead. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Really Jay? You are free to edit Electronic Intifada in whatever way you see fit. My one edit at that article, ever, was to revert the sock of a banned user. I dont edit that article, and I dont intend to start to satisfy some unknown requirement that I edit to your satisfaction. The article that I do edit, MEMRI, does however have reliable sources saying it promotes propaganda. That is what is relevant here, not the always entertaining, but never valid, game of WP:OTHERCRAP.  nableezy  - 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having never read the WP article or anything on the Electronic Intifada website (I assume it is a website) itself I have no opinion, but if it fits the propaganda organisation category then it should be listed. Making unfounded accusations and calling propaganda organisations a "nasty category" is not constructive. Wayne (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, you're both just going to continue playing these silly POV games. Shame! Very well. What reliable source states that MEMRI is a "Propaganda organization"? Please quote one that does so. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this. The game here is the nonsensical argument that because I myself have not added a category to another article that means the argument for adding it to this article is somehow less valid. The sources have already been provided, if you feel that they are insufficient for inclusion you can make that point without hypocritical allegations of POV-pushing. To turn this around, as soon as I see you make an edit like this to an article like this I might start taking you seriously when you claim others are playing silly POV games.  nableezy  - 03:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, ok. Anyway, back to the topic at hand: what reliable source states that MEMRI is a "Propaganda organization"? Please quote one that explicitly does so, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Propaganda organization is not a "nasty category", how about we only include organizations that call themselves propagandists?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Reliable Secondary Sources that states that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation :
 * Gilbert Achcar, "The Arabs and the Holocaust. The Arab-Israeli war of tales", 2010, pp.286-287 in the French version writes -among other things and based on several arguments and other people opinions - that "[Memri] is an official office of the Israeli services of propaganda"... but here is a report in English (and in popular media, detritus from the pro-Israel watchdog MEMRI.
 * Jérôme Bourdon, Director of the Media department at the University of Tel-Aviv, published a book in 2009 dealing with the "propaganda war" between pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians. Title is : "Le récit impossible. Le conflit israélo-palestinien et les médias" (The impossible record. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the media). p.67-68 also explains all this battle on the internet ; p.229, he also adds as propaganda webstes: www.adl.org and www.camera.org.
 * An article in Le Monde diplomatique talks about "désinformation à l'israélienne" refering among others to Memri.
 * 81.247.84.166 (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Achcar would make that (fairly obviously false) claim that MEMRI is "an official office of the Israeli services of propaganda" - kind of detracts from the reliability of anything he says on the subject. Also, I doubt an opinion piece by Mohammed El-Oifi would be considered a reliable source on the topic. In any event, as stated before, what reliable source states that MEMRI is a "Propaganda organization"? Please quote one that does so. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Achcar is not saying MEMRI is "an official office". A better translation from the French would be that MEMRI behaves as if it was ie: may as well be so to speak. The Le Monde article for example says much the same. We have plenty of other RS that state that MEMRI is a Propaganda organization, with several speaking from authority such as Ken Livingstone and Vincent Cannistraro. What we need are RS that support that MEMRI should not be in the category if it is to be excluded. You cant keep dismissing as biased every source that makes the claim without providing proof of bias while at the same time refusing to supply sources that support your own case. Wayne (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * MEMRI is entirely formed by, composed of and funded by, people who support one side of the Arab/Israeli conflict - pro Israeli parties do not complain about MEMRI, yet pro Palestinians have near universal contempt for them (a Google search of "MEMRI propaganda" should satisfy editors on this point) – reliable sources overtly say they are a propaganda organisation, yet not one overtly says they are not. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  03:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * reliable sources overtly say they are a propaganda organisation? Excellent! Quote them doing so. We need to see the words "propaganda organization" in the quotation. Jayjg (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a fun word to throw around since it is so emotive. Of course you will find some sources saying something emotive (note that some are not at all good enough or expected to not be making a point). But it does not matter. All of the comments here are a waste since we already know it is controversial. That makes it a violation of WP:CAT. This ngoing discussion (of how many now?) shows that enough repeating of arguments will grind collaborative editing to a halt. People would really rather bicker for weeks over a cat instead of making sure the prose is clearer? Wow. Cptnono (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So if it is a violation of WP:CAT, what course of action should be taken? Should MEMRI be removed from the category, or should the category be renamed to something like "Organizations accused of promoting propaganda"? Or should the category itself be deleted?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
 * The topic is only controversial with WP editors and arguably the uninformed public. If it was controversial in academia then it would be reflected in the sources which it is not. We have sources making the case that it is a propaganda organisation but there is an obvious lack of sources making the opposing case. If the claim was seriously disputed there would be ample refuting sources. Yes, the repeating of arguments is grinding collaborative editing to a halt but the repetition can be avoided if requests for RS are answered, only one side is providing the RS while the other relies on unsupported arguments. It is telling that opposing editors are quick to clutch at any excuse for exclusion short of actually supplying the RS per WP:V. Wayne (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding the article about MEMRI in any kind of category is not the real issue. The issue is whether to use MEMRI as a reliable source of information given numerous academic sources underline (or consider if some prefer these words) this as a propaganda organisation. There are several steps in NPoV. Neutral sources is the best to use but in some (or many) cases, sources disagree. When they have the same level of reknown (eg universitaries), that is not an issue : we take into account all the pov's. But when there are different levels of quality (academic vs journalists vs propagandist organisation/think thank etc), the most reliable must be given priority and others rejected. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedy : 1st pillar.
 * Anyway, if the issue is the category name anyway, "Media war in the Arab-Israeli conflict" could solve this because it doesn't claim if they are propagandists or if they re-establish the truth (re-inform as many of these say).87.66.164.103 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I anticipated that you would make that claim, WLRoss, and precedent and a little common sense counters it. For example, this exact issue came up with the sinking of Icelandic whaling vessels at 1986 Hvalur sinkings where I argued your point. We had plenty of sources calling it "terrorism". We did not have any secondary sources saying it was not. But "terrorism" is a loaded term. Everyone knows it is. "Propaganda" is also emotion grabbing and sensationalist (something even RS sometimes do). It does not take a source to know that. If it was not controversial we would not be having this discussion and I can only assume you at least understand that.Cptnono (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, because of the game-playing, we've been forced to move to strict enforcement of policy. Has anyone yet found any reliable sources that describe MEMRI as a "propaganda organization" or "propaganda organisation"? If so, please quote them explicitly doing so. If not, it will have to be removed from the category, per WP:V and WP:NOR. No hand-waving either, thanks - we just need explicit quotes. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CIVIL and stop wasting peoples time. Wayne (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Your advice is appropriate for yourself only. Now, have you found any reliable sources that describe MEMRI as a "propaganda organization" or "propaganda organisation"? If so, please quote them explicitly doing so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought keeping within the standards of a guideline was sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that, in modern usage, the term propaganda is not only perjorative, but it is routinely used as a common insult to discredite those with opposing views. Countless organizations have been accused of promoting propaganda; Trying to use this category to sort out which ones are actually propaganda organizations and which aren't (especially since the Arab-Israeli conflict is a very devisive topic) isn't an appropriate use for an encyclopedia. The criticism section of an article - where the sources claiming that the person/organization promotes propaganda are easily identifiable - is sufficient for this purposes, and is certainly far more NPOV.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Cptnono:Terrorism and propaganda can not equated. Terrorism is always a perjoritive term while propaganda is not. What I do understand is that there is no controversy in academia, MEMRI as a propaganda organisation is not disputed. If it were it would be easy to refute. The category is within the standards of the guideline. Hyperionsteel:As I have said before, propaganda is not perjoritive when the information is generally reliable and factual etc, or are you claiming MEMRI is not? Where do you get used as a common insult to discredite? I have never heard it used this way. All the category does is inform a reader that an organisation claims to be non partisan but holds a particular view and should not be used as the sole source for an area of interest. Wayne (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read Wikipedia's Propaganda article? (i.e. "the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples"). Do you really plan to ignore this reality? With few exceptions, being accused of promoting propaganda isn't take as a compliment or even as a neutral evaluation - Do you think any of MEMRI's critics who have accused it of propaganda don't mean it in a perjorative way?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

"hat I do understand is that there is no controversy in academia, MEMRI as a propaganda organisation is not disputed." Really Ross? Wikifan Be nice 07:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In order for the assertion that MEMRI is a propaganda organisation to be considered controversial, surly there have to be reliable sources which state that it isn't a propaganda organisation. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a logical fallacy. X, y and z say MEMRI is a propaganda organization - these people are among a very vocal minority. On the other hand, numerous organizations cite MEMRI and say it is reliable. Do sources have to explicitly refute accusations that MEMRI is a propaganda organization? No. If that were the case, every media organization accused of propaganda would have to be entered into the category. I doubt the wikipedia community is prepared to see Fox News, BBC, The Guardian, etc...in "propaganda organizations." But if MEMRI becomes the standard that is what must happen. Wikifan Be nice  22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wikifan – You stated that " numerous organizations cite MEMRI and say it is reliable ". One does not have to provide unreliable information in order to be defined as a propagandist, as the dissemination of selective truth is an accepted propaganda technique (Wiki's propaganda article contains a short subsection on this subject). Ie your point says little or nothing about MEMRI's status as a propaganda organisation since they are accused of providing selective information. As for the BBC and others you mentioned, If you think the case for including them in the category is as strong as that for MEMRI, I can't see much harm in opening a separate debate, though I personally don't agree with your opinion that if MEMRI is included in the cat the others must be (they are very different organisations). Prunesqualor   billets_doux  23:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reverse is true Prune. A minority group of people label MEMRI as propaganda, yet we as editors accept their description, ignoring the challenges made by other sources? What makes Baker and Whitaker more reliable than someone else? I don't think editors understand the gravity here. If MEMRI is going to be the bar for propaganda organization, every media organization will be inserted into the category. BBC sexing up the war in Iraq, Al Jazeera taking orders from the government, Fox News acting as a sockpuppet for the Republican Party, etc. And far more reliable sources exist supporting these accusations than the condemnation from partisan figures against MEMRI. I doubt the wikipedia community will accept this. Wikifan Be nice  00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting, and you're making quite valid points Wikifan, but the bottom line is that (and before anything else), for Wikipedia to categorize MEMRI as a "propaganda organization", we need reliable sources that explicitly describe MEMRI as a "propaganda organization", per WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the problem is there is a conflict between respected sources and reliable sources. Mona Baker is a notable figure, but is she reliable for accusations against MEMRI? What about Brian Whitaker, a veteran Israel-Arab conflict journalist? MEMRI continues to sit in the category. If a minority opinion is required and this is acceptable than I would argue any organization accused of promoting propaganda be placed into the category. Wikifan Be nice  03:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RS have been supplied. Continually ignoring that refs have been supplied, and a blatant refusal to supply the requested refs to support your own view is disruptive. Wikifan12345 has made no valid points at all as they have all been refuted...multiple times but he inists on bringing them up gain and again and again. Continually highlighting a few marginally reliable sources while completely ignoring authoritative ones is dishonest. If you contend that the "minority" claims of propaganda have been challenged by other sources then I challenge you to prove it so I can move on. Bring substance to the argument not rhetoric. You have repeatedly been asked to supply refs...do so and refrain from disruptive argumentum ad infinitum. Wayne (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any RS that explicitly describe MEMRI as a "propaganda oranization" though, per WP:V and WP:NOR? Continually ignoring this simple request (and policy requirement) might also be viewed as "disruptive". Or, to quote you: "You have repeatedly been asked to supply refs...do so and refrain from disruptive argumentum ad infinitum". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wayne, I'm not the only one disputing MEMRI's status as a "propaganda organization" in terms of what known reliable sources tell us. The article contains positive reception of MEMRI and critical reception of MEMRI. Editors have decided the critical reception - and the select sources that describe MEMRI as a propaganda organizations - as definitive. The problem is MEMRI is not funded by a government. Hyper noted several times its status as a non-profit organization. If MEMRI is the standard then the community is opening the floodgates for what qualifies as "propaganda." I was responding to the questions made by Jayjg. Much of the discussion has been about the reliability of individuals like Mona Baker and Brian Whitaker in terms of credibility and neutrality.  Wikifan Be nice  05:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If Wiki's "flood gates" must be opened in terms of the possibility that not all propaganda organisations are state run, then I think that is entirely healthy (ie private funding does not exclude the possibility of a skewed agenda). As for the validity of "RS" presented – yes we seem to have a division of opinion. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "opening of floodgates" as mainstream media obviously does not comply with the category requirements no matter how you spin them. Even if we exclude Mona Baker and Brian Whitaker we are still left with MEMRI's original mission statement that lends support for the category and other reliable sources that call MEMRI a propaganda organisation not to mention that the requirements of the category have been met. We have as yet no RS that refutes the claim. The state of play consists of six editors supporting the category and five opposing with one of those a SPA. As there is little chance of any of those five changing their view where do we go from here? I'd like more editors to weigh in but this appears to be one of those controversial topics that editors dont like to get involved in. Wayne (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In their own words: "The Reform Project (www.memri.org/reform.html) is devoted solely to finding and amplifying the progressive voices in the Arab world." (from the letter sent to Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan History Department, threatening him with a lawsuit over blog comments). Seems to fit the definition given by Random House, "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." DS Belgium (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Antagonistic sources and due weight at Catholics for Choice
(Brought over from RSN after discussion there established that it was more of a weight issue than a reliability issue.)

Background: The pro-choice Catholic organization Catholics for Choice has a campaign, called the "See Change" campaign, to designate the Vatican as an NGO at the United Nations. At one point, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution against this campaign.

Our article's information on said resolution can be traced to three sources:
 * 1) This page from the Washington Post. Part of a database that catalogs every vote.
 * 2) This article from EWTN, a conservative Catholic network. EWTN describes the campaign as an "anti-Catholic attempt to expel the Vatican from the UN." Elsewhere, they describe Catholics for Choice as a "militant pro-abortion group" (with "Catholics" in scare quotes in the group's name) and a "pro-abortion Catholic cartel that operates within the Church for the express purpose of creating confusion," and state the wish to "destroy the credibility" of CFC. A significant part of their website is dedicated to advocating an anti-abortion agenda.
 * 3) This press release from CFC themselves.

I argue that 1 and 3 do not confer weight on this event. 1 is a database of votes, not a news story; we don't write about every vote in that database. And 3 is a press release, not independent; we don't write up every press release from an article subject, since we are not a press release service.

Which leaves us with 2. A source that not only advocates an opposing agenda as a significant part of what they do - a source that not only disparages the subject at every opportunity - but a source that has explicitly stated a wish to damage the subject's reputation. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me to let such a source determine the article content.

--Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Anyone? Bueller? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to believe the EWTN source is false. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevance of this comment? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you questioning the content of the article or the notability of the See Change? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning why we are including information on a House resolution that was only picked up by a source with a stated desire to take CFC down. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone home? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, you have misrepresented things. EWTN has not said that they should destroy the credibility of CFC. They have only answered, in a probably informal FAQ entry, that "The only way that something substantive could be done about Catholics for a Free Choice and their use of the word "Catholic" would be for the Bishops of the United States to make a concerted effort to destroy the credibility of the group and repeatedly focus on the fact that they are not Catholic.". They are talking here about something that the college of bishops could do, not something that EWTN does. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Second, the article would be poorer without that piece of information. It is very relevant. The fact that it hasn't been picked by many secondary sources is explained by the fact that it happened 7 years ago (so the newspaper pages, if any, have probably already been deleted from the web) and the fact that few people cared about the "See Change" campaign at that point. But when writing an article section specifically about the "See Change" cmapaign, that piece of information is very relevant. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * GNews archives stuff from much further back than seven years (as does LexisNexis), and the large amount of newspaper coverage cited in the article belies your claim that the lack of coverage is just because no one cares about the campaign. The failure, by any source that doesn't have a history of disparaging the subject and a stated wish for their reputation to be destroyed, to take notice of this event is evidence that it doesn't belong. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The EWTN article cannot be called neutral in any sense of the word. It uses charged terminology and gives voice to only one side of the issue. Its value to Wikipedia is nil. Binksternet (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but only Wikipedia itself has to be neutral. WP:NPOV doesn't apply to any of our sources - they are free to voice their own opinion. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the issue. It's not whether EWTN is a reliable source (we were already at RSN, which basically passed the buck to NPOVN) - it's whether a source with a stated desire for the reputation of the article subject to be destroyed should be the arbiter of the article content, ie. due weight. If no mainstream/neutral sources picked it up, why are we including it? (In the same way, a CFC press release certainly isn't a neutral source, but it's reliable for statements about CFC - nevertheless, if it's the only source on an event in CFC's history, what makes that event important enough to include in the article?) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An attack published by an extremely biased source is undue weight. We should not give them the soapbox; we should wait until a more mainstream source discusses the event or discusses the EWTN article. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't for the life of me understand the objection. "Undue weight" arguments usually involve disputed points of view.  This isn't a viewpoint issue; it's a simple matter of fact. There's no dispute that the House resolved to oppose CFC's campaign.  There's no dispute that CFC considered it notable enough that it issued a press release specifically denouncing it.  EWTN isn't the "arbiter" of what goes in Wikipedia. We are, and this is clearly relevant. Cloonmore (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many things are factual that nonetheless, not having been picked up in mainstream/neutral sources, do not merit the weight they are given. I'm puzzled by your argument that the CFC press release attests notability; would you be arguing that if it was sourced only to the CFC press release? Because CFC has its own website. We don't cover each and every one of its press releases. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * EWTN, on the subject of CFC, puts out one hateful diatribe after another. Despite or because of this consistently acid vehemence they have been sidelined by the press: no other reliable source will touch their CFC attack articles. If the press has turned their backs on EWTN, I hardly think quoting them is appropriate regarding CFC. It is undue weight given to an extremist position. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From the EWTN article: "The current effort to expel the Holy See from the Vatican". Is that really what he said? Maybe the accuracy of the source should be questioned, back to RSN anyone? ;-) ... DS Belgium (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of Ron Paul
In addition to the usual hagiogaphy problems of any Ron Paul-related article, this one suffers from big fat swaths, including entire sections, which consist primarily or completely of regurgitation of Paul campaign statements. I tried to take the "we" (meaning the U.S.) out of one little section, and got scolded as a foreigner messing with "us"! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC) (fifth-generation U.S. or more, on his white side; more on his Cherokee side)


 * I glanced at the article and found a number of problems. I'll go through it in more detail now, then post a review on the article's talk page, recognizing that you or somebody else may have changed some of it by then. Kansan (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I have done so. Kansan (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the floodgates for such articles as this were opened quite a while back. As an example, I brought Political positions of Newt Gingrich to AfD, but it was closed as a nearly-uncontested keep. I still think, as I did then, that such articles are non-WP:NPOV at their core, provide undue coverage, and are promotional at best. However, WP:CONSENSUS appears to disagree with me, so I simply avoid editing such articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the inherent POV, but it would be interesting to add specific comments pro and con to Paul's position on the issues in place of some of the extremely long Paul quotes. Do I think the pro/con views be allowed to remain?  That's a different story ...  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One specific editor, User:Snettie, keeps inserting lengthy swaths of cut-and-past from Paul's own writings, and includes angry edit summaries insisting that there is no copyright on Paul's works, along with the occasional sneer at me for my profession. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He got a block as a present for his single-minded edits on two articles. I wrote at UT:Jimbo Wales about the "silly season" editing on political BLP articles. Collect (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone else is interested in this topic, perhaps the NPOVN section above could reach a more permanent solution to this perennial problem. (I contacted the five editors on this post already.) Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Skull and Bones
Currently has a trivia section ("in popular culture") which I think may be of exceedingly marginal value to the article. Another editor wishes to enlarge the section. I am unsure whether this is a POV issue, but this is the closest thing to the right noticeboard I found. Might others weigh in on the value of any "in popular culture" trivia sections in articles? Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Popular culture sections can be usefull. My rule of thumb sets the bar at whether the information will be of interest to readers. For example, in this article the first two examples appear to be of interest while the third needs to have a ref specifically making the connection as the name lends itself to these types of movies while any link to the real Skull and Bones is likely coincidental. Wayne (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect. Generally, "in popular culture" sections are really a collection of (usually unsourced) trivia often some OR/SYNTH. In this case, it's not that way, but I don't see it adding much to the article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one has mentioned it yet (perhaps because everyone is aware of it) the relevant guideline is WP:IPC. This actually sets a pretty high bar for the inclusion of pop culture references/trivia by stating that "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." This seems to suggest that just listing references that indicate there was a mention is not enough, the sources have to indicate that the mention is significant. Like a lot of editors I have struggled with these lists. Some editors just delete them on sight, but very often they are just gradually built up again. The best solution I have come up with is to turn them into sourced prose (as I did at Humpty Dumpty). The trouble of having to make grammatical and logical sense and provide sources is usually enough to discourage endless listing of trivia. Hope that helps.-- SabreBD  (talk)  07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, WP:IPC is an essay, not a guideline. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I rewrote a bit, with a new heading, see what you think. The bar is maybe a bit too high, asking for secondary sources for each mention. Doonesbury and The Simpsons are at the quality end of popular culture; they are easily verifiable and should be able to stand as their own references. There is never any reason to limit cultural references sections to popular culture alone. Are there no mentions in novels? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

new essay: Be neutral in form
Hello everyone. I wrote a new essay called "be neutral in form". I see neutrality disputes as coming from three sources:
 * An article about a topic that naturally attracts controversy (pseudoscience, Israel-Palestine)
 * Someone adds a POV statement to an article. (Opinions masquerading as fact, a fringe theory, an unattributed viewpoint)
 * An article that is neutral-in-fact, but organized to give undue weight to one aspect.

The essay focuses on the third one. I would appreciate some feedback. If you basically agree and want to add or tweak anything, go ahead. If you basically disagree, I'd ask that you raise it on the talk page so that I can address it and make it better.

Thanks everybody! Dzlife (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

International Marriage Broker Regulation Act - Neutrality Dispute
Bit of an edit war going on at International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, an obscure bit of legislation that has a group that really hate it (specifically, men who order mail order brides). The article was previously highly anti-IMBRA to the point that someone on the talk page complained; I rewrote the article, and now an IP user is complaining that the article should be more anti-IMBRA again. Input appreciated at Talk:International Marriage Broker Regulation Act. SnowFire (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the IP user is not requesting for the artical to be written anti-IMBRA. The IP user wants to artical to be neutral but as it stands now, the artical is mostly pro-IMBRA. The law is contoversial and is considered to be very unconstitutional. The author refuses to answer questions, for example as to why the most important element of IMBRA that effects the MOST people (the regulation of all communication by consenting adults) is not mentioned in the first, introductory paragraph? He seems to be afraid of explaing how draconian the law actually is. The author has a problem with the word 'contoversial' and mentioning the fact that there are 'thousands upon thousands of loving, happy, successful international marriages between Americans and foreigners'.

One more thing, the author continues to use the DEROGATORY label 'mail order brides" (example right in his first sentence. This is considered a false, offensive label.  When two consenting adults decide to join an international penpal service, nobody is being shipped thru the 'mail', nobody is being 'ordered', and nobody is neccessarily getting 'married'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SnowFire, do you really think that "men order mail order brides"? You are badly misinformed, which explains why you have a biased opinion. You do not understand how 'international corresponding' works. When two consenting adults decide to join an international penpal / matchmaking service, nobody is being 'ordered' or neccessarily getting married. In fact, after the first person decides to introduce himself/herself to the second person, the second person is free to decide to answer back or not, which is similar to the way large-American dating services work. Also, you are oblivious of the offensive label: 'mail order bride'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.26.30.5 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

John Edward
Is it neutral to simply do this and plainly state that this television personality is a psychic medium without qualification? Since the definition of mediumship is someone who speaks with the dead and there are those who say that John Edward is not speaking to the dead, is it okay to simply call him a medium? Isn't the previous wording more neutral? I ask here, because it looks from the history of this article that this wording is EXTREMELY contentious with one editor (User:Dreadstar) seeming to want simply call John Edward a medium and leave it at that without any qualification.

76.119.90.74 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * that edit corrected grammar - "...whose works as a medium." does not make sense. If you want to propose modifiers preceding the word "medium" I suggest you use the article talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * well, you get the picture, "who works as a medium" seems to be a fair way of putting it. The question I put before you is, "Is that a more neutral way of describing John Edward than just saying he's a psychic medium?" Is there something I'm missing here, because Dreadstar's edit summary says that it's simpler to just say "medium", but it seems that there is a long history in that article of Dreadstar removing such qualifiers from the lead. I just wanted another opinion from a NPOV expert. See Talk:John Edward for more of this controversy. It seems to have been going on for years and I thought that it might be better to bring it up to experts. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life (Christianity)
This recently created article has been subject to what appears to be extended non-neutral lobbying by one user (Alan347). In my opinion the article has become far less neutral as a result, despite very extended discussion on the talk page. Having been blocked for 31 hours already, the pattern of behaviour by Alan347 leads me to expect they are likely to be blocked again, but I would appreciate any independent opinions on the article talk page or direct advice for Alan347 on policy and how he can get his viewpoint in the article without blanking alternative views as this may help re-introduce calm improvement rather than relying on edit-warring followed by blocks. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear "theological articles" are far from amenable to "NPOV" intrinsically. Collect (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that they attract disputes, but actually it is quite possible to write NPOV articles on such topics. As always, it's a matter of finding the best sources and summarising what they say. WikiProject Christianity can usually advise. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida Legislative Investigation Committee
This is a particularly disturbing incident in US history, but the article is not up to Wikipedia standards. There are a number of sentences like: "Victims of the witch-hunt felt differently, however" which at a minimum, need to be rewritten. I'm also concerned that most of the links in the inline citations are no longer accessible. There's also a very heavy reliance on a student documentary film as a source which should be examined. GabrielF (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states
Has a POV tag. And no one who supports the POV tag has given any actual suggested edits (well - one seems to have an ultimatum that the lede must be written in a specific manner to reflect his own POV) (IMO, but his points are all thoroughly covered in the body in any case). Consensus oterwise is that the "tag in perpetuity" concept has outworn any utility on Wikipedia. Would additional neutral eyes kindly weigh in here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see quite a few POV#Impartial_tone, WP:ALLEGED, MOS:NOTED, WP:EDITORIAL problems that need to be addressed, the way it is now, it reads like anything but an encyclopedic article.

Some examples to illustrate, on their own they're not really remarkable, but the article is full of them:
 * followed by their forcible and illegal incorporation into the USSR as internationally unrecognised constituent republics.
 * the Soviets pressured Finland and the Baltic states; The Estonians had no choice but to accept
 * but still intended to rule through puppet regimes
 * The Soviets organised a press campaign against the allegedly pro-Allied sympathies of the Baltic governments
 * Lithuanian government had no choice but to agree to the Soviet ultimatum. President Antanas Smetona proposed armed resistance to the Soviets but the government refused
 * new "popular front" governments were formed in each Baltic country, made up of Communists and fellow travelers.
 * Under Soviet surveillance, the new governments arranged rigged elections for new "people's assemblies." Voters were presented with a single list
 * The Baltic states, recently Sovietized by threats, force, and fraud, generally welcomed the German armed forces when they crossed the frontiers.
 * The area was ruled by Hinrich Lohse who was obsessed with bureaucratic regulations
 * the Nazis managed to provoke pogroms locally
 * the Baltic states had no governments in exile located in the West. Consequently, Great Britain and the United States lacked any interest in the Baltic cause while the war against Germany remained undecided.
 * The discovery of the Katyn massacre in 1943 and callous conduct towards the Warsaw uprising in 1944 had cast shadows on relations; nevertheless, all three victors still displayed solidarity at the Yalta conference in 1945.
 * The period of stagnation brought the crisis of the Soviet system. The new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and responded with glastnost and perestroika. They were attempts to reform the Soviet system from above to avoid revolution from below.
 * To clarify my objections to some examples: elections with one list and opposition excluded, that's pretty obvious without mentioning "rigging the election" (especially when it doesn't even fit the description in the wikilink); no choice when they refuse an alternative? "Germans managed to provoke pogroms", denying responsability a bit?
 * The use of wikilinks is problematic, too many, and frankly, I got the impression I was reading the encyclopedia of communist terminology. And it doesn't help your NPOV claim when the wikilink calls it "a pejorative term" (fellow traveller).
 * You probably can defend every example I give in some way, but you cannot call this non-judgmental language. And that has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the article. DS Belgium (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean no POV - but rather "no net POV" -- the examples you give fall on both sides of each issue.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that partial tone and loaded language is ok when it's used to represent both sides? Not to mention that there are no two sides to this issue imo.
 * I also notice that most of these seem to come from Hiden & Salmon (1994). 30 references, from page 110 up to 191. Is it coincidence that the style is so consistent, or are these lines taken verbatim from the book? DS Belgium (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no diea about that comment. WP:NPOV however is clear.  representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources  means that POVs are to be presented, the requirement is that no specific POV be given disproportionate weight.    Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process clearly stresses that the balancing process is achieved by adding material with other points of view, not by removing all points of view with some sort of magic wand.   If you find a copyright violation or plagiarism, then it is proper to note that on the article talk page, on a copyright noticeboard, or simple excision of such violations entirely.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you just being stubborn? I'm talking about the TONE of the article, not the content! And I don't have the book, so I can't check if these are verbatim quotes, but they read like a book, not an encyclopedia. DS Belgium (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, the tone of the article is set by its sources. If one dislikes the POV of the sources, NPOV says to add other sources.  Meanhwile there are certainly disparate sources with disparate POVs in the current article.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I've got better things to do. No one else is interested, so you win. Seems most people who believed in the NPOV policy have left years ago. Cheers... DS Belgium (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a discussion about your comments on the article's language. Grey Hood   Talk  20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll have to get this foot out of my mouth first .. DS Belgium (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to acquaint yourself with Baltic history. "Occupation" is a "bad" word, is judgemental, et al. has been used in the past to attempt to reduce representations of the Soviet assault on the Baltics as less bad than it really was. That's a bit of an old trap you step into. As I have explained at the article, there is no kinder gentler middle ground between two accounts of history, Russian nationalist-patriotic versus Russian liberal-democractic, Western, and Baltic, which are irreconcilable. Using words as they are used in reputable and reliable sources is the appropriate "tone" for an article. That said, if you have reliable/reputable sources which navigate a middle ground, those are welcome as are all reputable sources. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not over the term "occupation", but over the term of "annexation" (or lack thereof in the title). Annexation seems a very reasonable middle ground between the Russian "joined freely" and Baltic "got occupied". How many reliable sources do you need in support of the use of the term "annexation"? (Igny (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Annexation appears where appropriate in section titles. I've already explained why "annexation" does not belong in the title and why there is no artificial fictional middle between "joined freely" (legal) and "occupied" (illegal) in examining, in particular, the official Russian position regarding legality according to international law. Best, P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosalind Hursthouse


Lone editor battling to include the highly subjective phrase "Hursthouse... is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today." Managed to finally find out that the statement does exist, in the compilation of essays called "A Companion to Philosophy in Australia & New Zealand" which is fortunately available online in full from the publisher's site. Its also the only source currently being used for the article; I would like to cleanup and expand this article but am stymied by the owner of this article who simply blind reverts any edits I try to make. We are now hung on this one bit of hagiography. Quote is from Daniel C. Russell, an associate professor of philosophy at Wichita State University. He's written two books; one I could find no reviews for and the other I found a lengthy review which was through, and serious, and was not very complimentary. Russell fails WP:PROF and does not have his own article. The issue, of course, is that it is an extraordinary claim; it is clearly a statement of value and as such must be both clearly sourced and attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. User:Conservative Philosopher wants to include it as a statement of fact. I personally think that even including it as per policy as "Daniel Russell, associate professor of philosophy at Wichita State University, has stated that..." would be biased; it gives undue weight to the opinion of someone who is clearly not a leader in his field; but CP won't even discuss the matter. Note that although a Google search will turn up repeats of this claim, they are all Wikipedia clones or quotes; the book is the only source. Hursthouse, although notable and well-known, is not even mentioned by some sources regarding virtue ethics; she is granted mention in others; she is given prominence in this one instance. See talk page for more. See also other contribs for CP, most notably this gem here. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * KillerChihuahua provides a biased and one-sided account of this dispute. She is as much a "lone editor" at that article as I am, and no one has taken her side in the content dispute between us. I am glad that she has finally succeeded in finding Daniel Russell's statement that Hursthouse is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today, but I note that she has falsely accused me of adding my "personal analysis or commentary" to the article. Inasmuch as the statement that Hursthouse is the world's best-known virtue ethicist working today is backed up by Russell, it is not my personal analysis or commentary, and KC's caution on my talk page was out of place. Note, incidentally, that KC's statement that I have reverted all her edits at Rosalind Hursthouse is false; I have reverted many of them (because they weren't good edits), but not all of them, as anyone who checks the article's edit history carefully will see. I would be happy to have some sort of compromise at the article to resolve this issue, but KC is having none of it. KC is also trying to drag in unrelated issues at other articles; I find this regrettable (and think it borders on a personal attack), but I'm not going to respond to it. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrasing "personal analysis or commentary" is from a standard user warning template which was placed on CP's page by me, a uw-npov2. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that WP:PROF deals with whether professors deserve their own articles, not whether they can be used as sources, so I do not think it is the best tack to be used (and KC's comment implying that the Wichita St. professor is a bad professor was certainly unfortunate, as "rate my professor" type sites are far from reliable sources, and a few undergraduates' opinions of their professors have no bearing on the work of said professors). Having said that, I agree with the argument made on the talk page to the extent that being the "world's best known" is somewhat subjective, and if only one individual is saying that, it's not enough if it's being challenged. I think the word "prominent" is more objective, and still accurately describes the individual. Kansan (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you, I am well aware of what Prof is for; this is why I continued "...and does not have his own article." Perhaps you missed my meaning in your distraction over my comment on talk regarding Russell; the point is that he's not an authority about ethics and ethics philosophers so his singular and extreme view should not be given prominence in the article. I sincerely hope this has cleared up your misunderstanding abotu my meaning. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For a compromise, perhaps could we introduce wording similar to that of "Professor XXX of YYY University has described her as the world's best known..."? That would not extrapolate beyond what he said (as I certainly would not approve of simply citing him as one with the authority to speak for the entire field). Kansan (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have in fact suggested that two or three times already. I do not think it is the best approach, but I have suggested it as a compromise. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue has more or less been resolved. ArtifexMayhem has resolved the sourcing issue (correcting the inept and destructive editing being done by KillerChihuahua), and I am prepared to live with the result. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I will add that I am glad that someone has chided KillerChihuahua for her unfortunate comments about Daniel Russell, and her use of a grievance-mongering website to attack him. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The reliability of a source is not determined by the notability of the writer but by the reputation of the publisher for fact-checking. Sources of course can be wrong, but the correct approach would be to find another source that claims something different.  TFD (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to comment, but I believe you have misunderstood the problem. In this instance, that approach is useless, as the statement is a value judgment. In other words, an opinion. Thus, it is owned by, and relates to, only the author (or speaker) of the opinion. If the statement were spoken, we might want to know the reputation of the publisher, if there were any question that the person actually has that opinion. However, as he wrote it under his own byline, that is not a question. The opinion of citizen X is exactly as notable as X in that field, neither more nor less. Hence, the author's level of authority is of paramount importance. We must attribute the statement, as it is a value judgment, something CP has not discussed doing, although I brought it up several times. He wished to include the statement as fact. This is not permissable, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And we cannot "fact check" an opinion, except to confirm someone actually holds a stated opinion, and this is not in question. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the situation described in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. That policy is very clear: we shouldn't make subjective judgments (e.g. "world's best-known virtue ethicist") in Wikipedia's voice. We have the choice of either a) attributing the view (e.g. "one essay describes Hursthouse as the world's best-known virtue ethicist"), or b) excluding it completely if we feel that the source in question isn't particularly strong or notable. I don't know which of those is the correct approach, since I'm not familiar with the source or subject. MastCell Talk 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this and wanted to chime in. It's unclear to me why Conservative Philosopher is so anxious to promote a claim about Hursthouse's notability. However, contrary to what some editors have claimed, I don't think that the statement in question is either a "statement of value" or a "subjective judgment" (if the term "subjective" is being used the way I think it is). On the contrary, it is a matter of empirical — social-psychological, to be specific — fact whether Hursthouse is the best-known virtue ethicist: the statement is true if and only if more people are familiar with Hursthouse than with any other virtue ethicist. Of course, I doubt that anyone has actually conducted a scientific survey to test the statement, but that does not change the statement's status as a social-psychological (as opposed to value) statement. The problem isn't that the statement is a value judgment or a subjective judgment. Rather, the problem is that it is, as some here have pointed out, an "extraordinary claim". As such, it must be either left out until a large number of sources can be found for it or clearly attributed in the body of the article to its source.
 * Of course, the dispute seems to have been resolved by now, so this comment comes a bit late. I just want to caution people to be careful when using terms like "value" and "subjective". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of the Baltic states
Has had a POV tag. The rationale for which has boiled down to
 * I have looked over the long discussion on the POV tag above, and have failed to see that the dispute was resolved. If anything, it demonstrated that several ways to resolve the dispute was rejected by the pro-Baltic-POV editors here. I guess we would have to wait for more reasonable editors join the discussion to break an apparent impasse. (Igny (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Query: Is an eternal POV tag   (for well over a year) which has been discussed at length on a talk page, and where clear and substantial consensus is that the POV tag is not warranted, proper where the real argument is clearly stated - that the tag sttays until the "pro-Baltic" editors are someday outnumbered in some distant future? And that the current editors and their consensus is not "reasonable"? I note that I am not "pro-Baltic" and added an edit specifically suggested by Igny, and which he apparently finds quite insufficient. I would also note that the number of POV tags placed by some of the participants here on other articles is substantial, and might indicate that the POV problem does not necessarily lie with the "pro-Baltic" editors. Noting that the aim of the POV pushers is to state that there was an "annexation" of the Baltic states by the Soviets in accord with the wishes of those states as stated by:
 * However, the USSR never formally acknowledged its presence in the Baltics as an occupation, and considered the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics as its constituent republics. The Russian government and state officials maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate

Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame Controversy
Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research are the 3 basic principles of Wikipedia. I maintain the NPV basic principle is violated in the article titled  “aspartame controversy”. One side of this controversy is that there are  many government and industry supported studies that show  that there is no harm from the use of aspartame. This side is covered very well. It does however have a bias in that a paper published by Ajinomoto (a manufacturer of aspartame)  is referenced 20 times.

The other side is the tremendous number of people  who have had what they profess are bad experiences with aspartame. Your reference 8 ( from many years ago) mentions  3340 people who have sent complaints  about ill effects and  250 who claim to have had  seizures. In addition there is research  that supports the assertion that aspartame  is dangerous. The problem aries when the NOR principle is used to block the personal testimonials of people about items that were never intended to be research. In this case the NOR causes the NPV principle to be ignored.

Thus if I stepped on a rattlesnake, got bit and got sick from it i would be banned from advising others on Wikipedia to refrain from stepping on rattlesnakes. This does not make sense. I maintain that there is a difference between original research and testimonials acquired from life's everyday experience  when no specific outcome is desired but it occurs anyway. Furthermore I am not advocating broadcasting  the principle that steeping on rattlesnakes is bad but only wish to be heard and have my point considered.

I believe the health of people should be the driving force and while published peer reviewed articles are of much importance  They should be balanced with articles that amount to testimonials from thousands of people  who have had serious health issues from using aspartame. In a court of law testimonial evidence is admissible yet Wikipedia does not allow it’s use. Instead it adopts the term antidotal to suppress the fact that these are personal testimonials.

The article needs to present both sides of this controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What you are asking for would require fundamental changes in the way wikipedia assesses the merit of sources - and this is governed by policy. If you wish to argue for such changes of policy, this isn't the place to do it. And were you to propose such changes, I suspect that there would be vigorous opposition - it would open up the project to all sorts of dubious claims from snake-oil salesmen and the like, all of which can supply 'testimonials' in bulk. Anecdotal evidence is quite rightly rejected by science as it is self-selected, and incapable of objective assessment. If you want to campaign against aspartame, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How would I get a second opinion? Arydberg (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can get more opinions here. I agree with Andy, and would also point out that your rattlesnake example isn't all that good, because Wikipedia isn't here to give health warnings. Does anyone have a different take on this? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that, Judging from the comments on Talk:Aspartame controversy, I've already given you one - or more likely a third or forth opinion at minimum. Numerous contributors have indicated what Wikipedia policy is regarding this issue - and as I say, if you want policy changed, this isn't the place to argue for it. Still, if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of policy regarding the use of anecdotal sources regarding medical issues, they can of course reply here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave you my perspective at your talk page, but I thought Andy's answer was sufficient, so I didn't bother saying anything until you asked for a second opinion. Jesanj (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg was topic banned from aspartame related articles for three months after prolific WP:TE. This has been explained to him multiple times but he doesn't seem to grasp it. Third opinions, forth opinions and tenth opinions will tell you the same thing, if you can't edit Wikipedia without obsessing over aspartame then we're going to have an issue again. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  16:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And he has been told a large number of times that testimonials are useless, and that we don't do 'present both sides' when the evidence suggests one side is not correct and has no data to back it up. However, he keeps this up, this is tiresome in the extreme. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not refering to postings I have made. I am refering to postings others have put up. I do have data to back up what I say from Harvard,  Government Reports,  NIH and others. : here here here here here here here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Second link is http://www.health-report.co.uk/aspartame-toxic-effects.htm  Arydberg (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE. STOP THIS PLEASE. I encourage others to read the talk page archive of Aspartame Controversey.Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like to stop. It’s just that i cannot when accusations are made against me that are demonstratively false. Also, Would someone kindly tell me why this thread does not appear until the user signs on,    Does Wikipedia have two active versions of this thread?Arydberg (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the NPOV noticeboard. You asked why anecdotal evidence wasn't permitted in the aspartame controversy article, and policy was explained (again) to you - it doesn't matter who is trying to incorporate it, it still isn't going in. If you have concerns about 'accusations' being made, you should raise them on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than here. As for your problems with seeing the thread, I'd suggest you ask at Village pump (technical) - it sounds like a glitch to me, probably something to do with purging the cache or the like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you explained it and I was remiss in not thanking both you and  Jesanj. Thank you. It was the statement that said “ He has no data to back it up”   that  was untrue and prompted me to post links. Was I out of order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As someone wholly uninvolved, the simple fact is that first-person testimonials are never reliable on Wikipedia. A small number of people disagree with this, but, it is probably one of the most widely accepted requirements on Wikipedia (that is, the WP:OR and WP:V policies).  But if you want to know why, think about it this way: in your example, you assert that it's okay to mention on the Wikipedia article about rattlesnakes that you stepped on a rattlesnake, and got hurt, so people should be careful not to step on rattlesnakes.  Would it also be okay for me to add a statement that says that I stepped on a rattlesnake, it bit me, and then after that I became significantly stronger, healthier, and more morally upright?  And what if I had thousands of people that said the same thing?  Because, in fact, some Christian groups, who practice snake handling, claim exactly that.  Would that be okay to include in the article on snakes?  No, certainly not, except perhaps as a minor, single sentence, pointing out that the practice exist, just like in Snake right now.  The key question, which WP:NPOV addresses, is that we may only represent information in proportion to its real life importance; and, for medical articles, we have the stricter standard that medical info should whenever possible come from secondary "meta-studies" and research reviews.  Now, you may not like this policy, and if you want it to change, the place to go is WT:V or WT:OR, and ask for some sort of special exemption written in for personal testimonials.  Of course, you'll never get the community to agree, but technically that is what you have to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can accept that OR is and will be ignored. I understand that you really mean well in implementing this rule, but the links I posted strongly suggest that the use of aspartame may be dangerous. I simply want to suggest that an article titled “controversy” you tell both sides of the controversy. Again this thread disappears when I try to access it and do not sign on? Arydberg (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are Becker's Hospital Review lists worth including at hospital pages, and if so, how much weight is due?
Becker's Hospital Review seems to have nowhere the level of acceptance as U.S. News and World Report hospital rankings, so I'm of the opinion it's probably not worth including (until other reliable sources give us an independent assessment of its worth). I looked for such an assessment in newspaper archives and google scholar but came up empty. If we do include it I think giving it equal weight with U.S. News and World Report is undue. A google scholar search comparison of "Becker's Hospital Review" hospital rankings vs. "U.S. News & World Report" hospital rankings yields 1 hit from a random website vs. many hits in respected medical journals. Sure, some of those hits in medical journals could criticize U.S. News and World Report, but it appears nearly no one cares about Becker's to cite it. So how can we cite it without being undue? I had a previous discussion with a new editor (User talk:Tgoldst5) about this and I just saw this version of a hospital page, prompting this thread. Jesanj (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Query concerning article talk page post
shows what I think might be an interesting way of handling POV accusations at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Is such a post a proper means of handling a NPOV dispute where the person does not have nor does he seek WP:CONSENSUS for his edits?
 * If no fresh arguments will be presented in close future, I'll revert the changes made with violation of the edit restrictions. If these changes will be restored, the AE request will be filed against the editor who restored them. We already have an opinion of one experienced admin that confirms that the procedure had been circumvented by the users who made this edit, so the request will likely be successful. 

This is a query and not a complaint, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Priority for the concept of the constant speed of light
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion has occurred on the talk page of the speed of light article, about who has priority for the idea that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference. We have a reliable source showing that Lorentz was the first to deduce this and show its relevance to relativity: "Lorentz was justified in asserting that: . . . the chief difference [is] that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced ...". In fact the only significant difference between Lorentz' 1904 paper, "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light", and Einstein's 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", is that Einstein formally discarded the concept of the ether. Whether or not the ether is exists is irrelevant to whether or not the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the source or inertial frame of reference, as Poincare published in 1889: "It matters little whether the ether really exists: that is the affair of the metaphysicians. ..., whereas, no doubt, some day the ether will be thrown aside as useless." Thus, Einstein's paper is not notable for making a significant step forward regarding the subject of this article, which is the speed of light.

Another editor and I have attempted to demonstrate this point on the talk page. The discussion has devolved to editors refusing to engage in discussion, and simply editing what they want to see into the article without sufficiently demonstrating its validity. It would be helpful if some outside eyes could review the situation and at least restart discussion. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You might actually want to read footnote 30, of the source you quote. This states quite clearly, that although Lorentz could have deduced that the speed of light is independent of the frame of maotion from his 1904 paper, he didn't do so until 1909. End of discussion.TR 11:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact it was Maxwell that first deduced that the speed of light was constant, as the lead states: "In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the constant speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism." The lead then goes on to state:"In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that "the speed of light with respect to an inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source",[4] and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism." The constant speed of light (which by definition is independent of inertial reference frame) was taken as a postulate by Lorentz and used to derive his theory of relativity in 1904, ie. "showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism", as can be seen by his use of the constant throughout the paper, in 1904. This sentence is demonstrably misleading. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the worst part of that quote is crediting Einstein with "showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism." This claim is also repeated later in the article. Einstein did not do that at all in his famous 1905 article. Poincare did. Poincare used c for clock synchronization in 1900, said that c was an upper bound for all velocities in mechanics in 1904, and said that gravity waves propagate at a speed of c in 1905. I inserted a sentence about Poincare, but it was removed. Roger (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that much can be said against Stachel's quotation, resulting in the well referenced phrase": "In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that "The speed of light with respect to an inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source."" Hundreds of references can be found for this to demonstrate the validity of the particular statement in the article. I also don't see what this has to do with wp:NPOV. On the contrary, from your edits, it looks you (and Schlafly and some 'passerby' anon) are pushing some kind of minority view on the matter. DVdm (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the Stachel quote is correct, and is better than the previous text that misstated the postulate. However I also think that it is very misleading to imply that the constant speed of light was something new in 1905. My textbooks all say that the crucial experiment was in 1887, following theory by Maxwell. I am not pushing a minority view. While those books sometimes criticize the views of Lorentz and Poincare, they all agree that Lorentz and Poincare were explaining the 1887 experiment and constant speed of light before Einstein. Roger (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User who opened this thread blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing to see here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biography of Hans Eysenck.
Hans Eysenck was a controversial German/British psychologist.

• The most recent modification is biography has added material which appears to me to be a) POV, containing phrases such as 'recipients of Pioneer Fund grants reads partly like a "Who's Who" of scientific and political racism', and b) irrelevant, since such comments belong (if anywhere) in the article on the Pioneer Fund and not Eysenck's biography.

• I have attempted to revert this edit, but my revert has been overridden.

• To avoid an edit war, I therefore request adjudication by an independent referee.

Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Paul, There seems to be a rational discussion on the issue that has just begun on the talk page. Let's give the discussion some time to work itself out. If a problem persists than I would suggest you post the content dispute at WP:BLPN and get input from the community. Thanks for you participation in this collaborative process we call WP. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Haqqani network
Can someone please help me neutralize the intro of Haqqani network, which is an insurgent group based in Waziristan tribal region of Pakistan fighting along side the Taliban and al-Qaida militants against NATO-Afghan forces, but an editor who appears to be Pakistani is claiming that the group originates in Afghanistan. His version makes no sense because if this group was in Afghanistan, there are 300,000 NATO-Afghan troops and they certainly would have elminitated it in a few weeks.--Jorge Koli (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given that the Haqqani network was started to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan back in the 1980s, I find the idea that it might have originated in that country quite plausible. This does not mean it stayed in Afghanistan once the Soviets left. It easily could have moved its operations to other places (such as Pakistan) in the decades between that conflict and the current one.  But the real question you should be asking is what do reliable sources say?  Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're talking about the 1980s multi-national Mujahideen fighters, they were assembled and trained inside Pakistan by Pakistan's military with fundings from USA (go to "6:29" of this CNN video), the same way they are being trained today in Pakistan. They crossed the Durand Line border into Afghanistan and fought with Soviet and Afghan forces, the same way they are doing with NATO-Afghan forces today. All the reliable sources say that the Haqqani network is operating from Pakistan and the US is using drone attacks in Pakistan to kill its members. Just because its leader is originally from Afghanistan it doesn't mean all of the insurgents are Afghans.--Jorge Koli (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: it looks like this potential neutrality issue has not yet been discussed at the article's Talk page. Perhaps the discussion should happen there first (and also, notify the various WP project that are inolved, so editors from those projects can provide input). If the Talk page discussion does not reach consensus, then bring it back to this POV noticeboard. There may be several editors interested in the article who are not aware of this noticeboard thread. --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That maybe a good idea. I wanted to attract experts on the subject so I came here because a POV-warrior keeps removing the dispute tags from the article and when that happens readers will not know about the dispute.--Jorge Koli (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Bias towards the British National Party on Wikipedia
As a member of the British National Party I've long been disgusted by the amount of bias and blatantly anti-BNP garbage that is on the Wikipedia article page for the BNP.

After reviewing the page, not only did I uncover broken links to out dated documents, but also loads of Tabloid sensationalist and distorted stories and allegations from primarily left-wing media and staunchly anti-BNP websites. Many of these stories have been carefully positioned and presented on the page with selective wording to present a negative image of the BNP. Several of the RS used to backup claims of the BNP being "fascist" are from authors with a Jewish/left-wing/communist political background, which hardly makes them impartial or reliable.

Quotes by ex-BNP officers or by Nick Griffin the party Chairman, are often quoted in the wrong context or selectively muted, or twisted to appear to be something they were never intended to be. Old issues are presented as current news. Negative stereo-type words and blanket terms like "racist", "nazi", "fascist" frequently occur over the article in an obvious attempt to smear the party and influence readers.

The whole page has a strong anti-BNP feel to it and an extremely negative bias about it. There is no mention of any the wrong-doings to the BNP or the good work the party does at the local or national level.

Attempts by myself and a couple of other individuals to just raise and address some of these issues and try to get the page factually correct and accurate, have been met with strong opposition from those moderating the page who clearly have an anti-BNP agenda which is apparent from messages exchanged on Talk. Even the broken link I removed to the out-dated (and now illegal) constitution was put back, even after I explained to the editor why it should be removed for accuracy and legal reasons. A compromise of linking to both the old and new constitutions was ignored.

I offered a small section called Violence against the BNP which covered in brief detail some serious assaults on BNP personnel and members. This was intended to offer some balance against the "Association with Violence" section. My section was backed up with reliable RS's, however it was swiftly removed. At least 5 other small additions or changes I made were removed without explanation.

When I questioned why they are using such biased RS's which are clearly anti-BNP (Guardian Newspaper, Searchlight etc) they said because they are RS. When I asked the purpose of the article, whether it was to provide information about the BNP as a political party and explain its history, policies etc (like other parties on Wikipedia) or whether it was to serve as an anti-BNP page to deter people from the BNP, the answer I got was..

"The purpose of the page is to explain how the BNP is seen in reliable sources such as Searchlight and The Guardian. It may be that those sources have an agenda, but you must take it up with them. I suggest you contact the Press Complaints Council, get the sources to publish retractions, and then we can correct the article."

One other editor who has made significant contributions to the article to make it more balanced and unbiased has been removed today as an editor.

It's sad that, Wikipedia which presents itself as an impartial and useful source of information, has fallen under the control of mind-benders and truth-deniers who seek to use it to use Wikipedia to promote their own political agenda by brainwashing and denying people the freedom to make their own informed opinion on things with accurate and unbiased information.

I would welcome any assistance, feedback or comments. I appreciate the BNP is not popular due to its negative image, but surely we have a duty as a community to stay true to the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality which seems even more important in areas of politics. It is after all one of the most basic of all human rights that people have a right to share information on political parties and support whatever political party they choose. At the moment a few editors on Wikipedia are denying those rights.

Truthprovails (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And why should we pay a moment's attention to somebody who believes in the existence of a "Jewish... political background"? You've hung yourself by your own rope, mate; read WP:BOOMERANG. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the anti-semitism, we ought to take neutrality seriously, and not just in facts, but in presentation. Neutrality is owed to everyone, not even, but most of all to those who blur the line of common sense or sanity. A cursory reading of the "Policies" section shows that there are critical and unacceptable transgressions of the neutrality policy. In general, the purpose of this section is unambiguously to disparage the British National Party and frame it as a fascist or neo-Nazi organization. causa sui (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Without looking at the contents of that section, it is alternatively possible that, if it does give the impression that the BNP is a fascist or neo-Nazi organisation, that might be entirely in keeping with our policies, which say we should depict the organisation as reliable secondary sources depict them. I'm not saying they are necessarily decisive, but these sources are normally considered good-quality RS:, , , . When considering an issue to do with far-right politics, is it really a good idea to lend support to the ideas of a user "without commenting" on their anti-Semitism? --FormerIP (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer the last question first, it is a good idea to take neutrality seriously, whether the person reporting a failure to adhere to the neutrality policy expressed anti-semitic attitudes in their complaint or not. To the other question, in principle, yes that is a strong possibility -- but the article in its current form does not take that tack. The sources in general appear to be reliable, but that does not excuse the slanted presentation that obviously and deliberately leads the reader to a favored conclusion. causa sui (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was an answer to a different question, which I didn't ask. I think that a plea beginning "As a member of the British National Party..." and then complaining about "Jewish/left-wing/communist" bias rather tells against itself. The "policies" section of the article is quite detailed, but I can't specifically see where it might be slanted. Its not a matter of dispute that the subject of the article is a racial nationalist political party, so I think it is natural for this to figure fairly prominently. A discussion for the talkpage, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be better to sometimes seek a different and wider forum; I've noticed that on fringe topics such as the BNP that there is a tendency to use RSes in a way to say why an ideology is wrong while giving it a veneer of "we didn't say that, they did". The whole "political tendency" section, for example, gives way quite quickly to a list of political figures denigrating the party and name-dropping scholars instead of documenting its move from overt to covert racism. At the same time, there isn't that much discussion of the party's immigration policies by secondary reliable sources; a lot of the "Policies" section seems to be regurgitating their manifesto. In that respect, a careful rewrite of the entire section would be in order. And is it really notable that Griffin was alleged to be in a homosexual relationship? If this was about a normal politician, that shit wouldn't fly. Sceptre (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthprovails, you misunderstand the policy of neutrality, which is "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It does not mean that we should correct inaccuracies in reliable sources or provide parity to pro-BNP sources.  If you disagree with the policy, then you are free to press to change it.  TFD (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need changes in the NPOV policy to be concerned about this. A severe defect of the common understanding of neutrality is that we become obsessed with facts and do not map bias in structure, presentation, and framing - bias which that article is rife with. And if you think far-right groups like that ought to be recognized as lunatic fringe (as I do), you ought to want the most impeccably neutral and unbiased article possible, so that they can hang themselves with their own ropes. We don't have that today. causa sui (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case it would be good to ensure consistency across political party articles. I would suggest to WikiProject Political Parties that it consider drawing up article structure guidelines. I saw that National Front (France) is a Good Article, perhaps it would be useful to consult it for ideas about what to include and not to include. That's not to say that I find anything really bad in the BNP article as it stands or that I think we should respond to the OP's agenda. It's just that there is always room for discussion about improvement. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the issues is wikilayering, the fact that it must be a fact RS have said it attitude. Thus we have apage that refelcts what self confessed opponets (the sources not edds) have said about the BNP. Whilst at the saem time sayiong the BNP are biased about what they beleive (thus are not RS for thier own views). As such (I think) that page fails as an encyclopdic entry, but also as a piece of anti-BNP propoganda (becaseu it will be seen to be baised, thus unreliabel).Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not support your political ideas, but if the article is biased, something should be done about is. To take the cautious approach: Can you make a draft in your own user space? That is probably the easiest way a) to make clear where the hotspots are located, and b) to start a discussion without the risk of an editwar in the encyclopedia itself. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Master Cleanse
This article about a fad diet has a long history of NPOV violations by "it worked for me/a TV star I admire" editors; lately, a new cause-warrior s.p.a. account keeps trying to restore a spammy version in its defense, removing actual scientific criticisms. Could somebody have a look at it? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Death panel
The article Death panel, which previously had some WP:NPOV problems but could have been fixed with a little work, seems recently to have evolved into an article dedicated to refuting the claims of Sarah Palin and others regarding health-care rationing. Kelly hi! 00:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How so? Jesanj (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think before getting into specifics I'll let the editors here glance over it and make their own conclusions. But the lede of the article does a good job of capturing the tone. Kelly  hi! 00:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. FWIW, a couple editors gave it a thumbs up in a recent and archived peer review in which I asked for it to be looked over for neutrality concerns. In my opinion, the lead correctly captures the tone of reliable sources. After all, the NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. Jesanj (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look like some POV has grown on that article. I sympathise with the POV, as it happens, but that's not the point. A lot of the material looks well-researched, but the topic probably doesn't need such a detailed article and the tone of the whole thing needs turning down a couple of notches. noting the peer review, Jesanj, but I would say that the reviewer displays a bit of blind-spot. I say this whilst appreciating that you have put a lot of work in. --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think Evil empire or Two Americas would serve as models for this type of article on a polemical political term - analysis of the claim probably belongs in the ObamaCare article. Kelly  hi! 00:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. The death panel myth is a verifiably false political rumor. I don't think we have a model. Also, the end-of-life consultations were dropped before the ACA passed. It is mentioned at H.R. 3200, however, where the phrase had its origins. Jesanj (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that you refer to it a "myth" reveals a little bit of POV. And there were plenty of people who disagreed with the premise of the other political terms, but those viewpoints are dealt with in Cold War and social stratification, not in the articles on the terms. Kelly  hi! 01:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did create the redirect. Are you suggesting the article doesn't meet WP:NEO? Jesanj (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jesanj already linked the FAQ, but I think there's a more relevant head here: "equal validity". NPOV does not entail pretending that death panels are real. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the OP needs to detail the specific POV problems they see in the article, preferably on the talk page of the article. I had a read and I see no particular problems. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article could do with some copyediting to make the tone less severe. For example, in the "Prelude" section, every other word seems to be "false" or "falsely". It's just not necessary to labour the point so much. Then in the next section, we have an op-ed from the St. Petersburg Times presented in Wikipedia's voice. However correct you might think the opinion is, it needs attributing. I'd go on, but it's quite a long article and there are problems like that through much of it. --FormerIP (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that could do with some copyediting. It is much better to not mix things up so one statement should be that someone claimed something and the next point out that it is rubbish rather than pushing the assessment of the claim into the first statement. That is the sort of thing I think can be dealt with by directly editing or if there is a number by listing the various points on the talk page first. But the OP simply asserts there's a systematic problem without showing any specific example of it at work. If they think there is a systematic problem they need to say what it is in a much more specific way by detailing cases. Do they really expect people to suddenly open their eyes to some new wisdom if in effect they are simply told there is a problem and they are the cause with their blinkered attitude? That is simply unconstructive polemic. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * FormerIP, good catch with the bad citing on my part; the St. Petersburg Times reference was a reprint of PolitFact post and I've now cited it their website. And an experienced copy-editor is planning on coming over soon. I've notified them of this discussion and your concern with the Prelude section. How about this though, for discussion and potential progress' sake: can you identify an example of one unnecessary use of the word false in that section? Jesanj (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Abusive sysop
A sysop is trying to bully user in order to get an edge in edit dispute. He refuses to take the issue to the talk page. He keeps deleting the whole section, removes references, and issues warnings for vandalism in what is a content dispute. Where should he be reported. Since this is a POV issue, I am writing here, but there must be some way to deal with abusive sysops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangleetodd (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wangleetodd, why don't you create an article about your event including reaction? Just don't include your own assertions without reliable sources and don't claim that the event is relevant to general subjects like Chinese culture or Taoism or God or Hu Jintao, etc.  Wknight94 talk 11:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Allegations of sysop abuse can be reported at WP:AN/I, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. As it happens, is now blocked 24 hours by  for edit warring. causa sui (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of...
I think all of our Political positions of... articles violate NPOV because "neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints," while these articles encourage editing from one viewpoint. Similarly, WP:RS says we should include "all majority and significant minority views". What all these articles should be are Reception of... articles, such as this one on an organization. Reception articles would lead to a neutral article with encyclopedic value that encourages contribution. A comparison between an October 2010 and a current version of Political positions of Barack Obama is not inspiring. Consider, in contrast, how many words have been published in reliable sources analyzing his positions/performance. And the scant discussion at Talk:Political positions of Newt Gingrich was dominated by Gingrich's own communications director. These articles are all unencyclopedic soapboxes. Jesanj (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I am afraid there is no systemic solution for it. "Politics of" and "Reception of" articles can be WP:COATRACKs or they can be legit WP:SUMMARY articles - this needs to evaluated on a case-by-case basis - we should be vigilant of coat-racking, but also understand that not all forking is bad, or that because some articles are forked it means all articles should be forked, as you seem to suggest. As to the Newt Gingrich COI issues, a quick look tells me the comm director for Gingrich is DOING-IT-RIGHT - and while we should be careful in the edits, his edits are indeed helpful and real improvements. NPOV never implies a "equal time" for all POVs, it implies a need to cover all views. For example, in the case of the edit regarding health care, correcting the reported position of Gingrich on the issue was a necessary edit, as indeed the article said something the source didn't say, however it could be tempered by commentary on this position that is sourced and verifiable saying this was not the case. Just because one has a COI it doesn't mean one cannot do good edits, it just means that the edits will never be in other direction of NPOV, it is up to other editors to provide the appropriate policy-based editing responses. I care very little for Gingrich, but we have a responsibility to make an NPOV encyclopedia, and that includes providing a fair view on his politics as he understands them, tempered by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them. --Cerejota (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But my point is that these articles do not allow tempering "by a due-weight response both in the form of criticism of these positions and support for them" because they encourage editing from only one viewpoint—that of the subject. Jesanj (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but I think you are wrong in this appreciation. They encourage editing on the topic, period. And there is nothing not neutral about the title "Politics of Candidate X". If someone argues there should be no criticism because criticism is outside of the topic, laugh at them, and then tell them to read WP:UNDUE. Its really like that, there is no way anyone can argue, sucessfully to keep criticism away under any rule in wikipedia. Even areas with "Reception of" or "Criticism of" generally do so as per WP:SUMMARY for article size reasons, not as coat racks. And the worse coat-racking usually gets resolved via AfD. My point is that unless you provide a specific incident to attend to, there is no systemic solution, because we already have the tools to deal with this bias. We just have to use them - and that in the only specific example you provided (gingrich), there seems to be no bias drifting that cannot be addressed - rules are no substitute for WP:BRD.--Cerejota (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Jesanj has a point: for instance the Political positions of Barack Obama article has a sub on Energy policy of the Obama administration which has a section Energy_Policy_of_the_Obama_Administration which does not include much in the way of alternate opinions. I would think that on such a very notable topic, Wikipedia would have more to offer.  Article naming is an important way to focus the content of an article.  Content may be rejected or included purely because of the title.  But what's lacking here is suggestions on what else we might call such an article which would allow or encourage more discussion of the debate-matrix surrounding Obama's political positions.  Be— —Critical __Talk 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Cerejota: When you said "I know", did you conceed that the titles do not "encourage multiple viewpoints"? I think there is a big article title-NPOV improvement with "Politics of..." instead of "Political positions of..." articles. Reliable sources can publish many perspectives on the politics of a candidate, but much less so on what the political positions of a cadidate are. I know you said criticism of political positions can be and should be included in those articles, and I would agree with that argument, but by that standard can you point to one neutral article here? If not, then I'd just reiterate my main point that these articles suffer from POV titles which encourage editors to find one viewpoint. Even if a news story contained a political position that was completely ignored by the outside world, it would be suitable for inclusion in one of these articles. I don't believe that is the kind of editing a neutral article name encourages. (I still think a Reception of... article would be the most encyclopedic. They could cover things like speaking style [this article criticizes Obama's communication], or mannerisms, etc., other things voters care about.) Jesanj (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the article title "Reception of the political positions of X" could be split off of "Reception of X" articles if necessary. Jesanj (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If no source (newspaper, organization, think-tank, academic, opinion piece, etc.) mentions a political position taken by a politician by demonstrating a reception to it, then I think that position is very likely unencyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, because of the non-neutral titles (is this disputed?) I think all Political positions of... articles should be moved to Reception of... articles and tagged with the following template:

Jesanj (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I see that there is a way to request multiple page moves, but I'm asking for neutrality/(appropriateness) of article titles at this point. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In contrast to Political position articles, I think the article title of Political thought and legacy of Khomeini is neutral and encyclopedic. Jesanj (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Political positions of..." is a fine title. It's just that some editors working on those articles (and subsections of biographies) forget that all Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. I agree that positions which haven't been mentioned in secondary sources should receive little or no attention. But adding "Reception of..." to the titles would just make them longer without changing their intended focus.   Will Beback    talk    22:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting renaming them to Reception of John McCain, instead of Political positions of John McCain, for example. If the rewritten sections on political positions grow to justify splitting as one article (perhaps doubful), I still think Reception of the political positions of John McCain, though wordy, would change the focus. The focus would then be on what others said, instead of what McCain said. Jesanj (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with "Political positions of politician X"... it's a valid topic area. I would agree that such articles should include a section on "Criticism of X's positions".  Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is a valid topic area, but I'm arguing the title is not netural because it does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I challenge anyone here to find a Political positions of... article that is neutral by the standards we have all agreed on. A "Reception of John McCain" article would necessarily cover the topic by instead encouraging multiple viewpoints and encyclopedic writing. Jesanj (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's really a very different focus. "Reception of..." indicates that it is entirely about how people perceive the subject, including personal issues, campaign style, etc. "Political positions of..." is clearly about just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject, reported through the filter of secondary sources (like any article).   Will Beback    talk    22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that that goal is unencyclopedic. I don't understand why an encyclopedia would attempt to collect "just the policy statements and actions taken by the subject" in one article. That doesn't encourage editing from multiple viewpoints. Jesanj (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. That's the inherent problem with such articles. However, as noted elsewhere, WP:CONSENSUS currently states that these articles may exist on Wikipedia, despite the clear non-neutrality and soapboxing permitted by same. As it stands right now, the ONLY way to move such articles back to a more neutral stance is to ensure that EVERY major or significant politician has such a page, and that each such page be written with extremely close attention to WP:NPOV. The biggest pitfall any editor can run into when creating or working on these articles is the incredibly tempting urge to move away from simply stating what the verifiable sources state and move into WP:SYNTH or WP:OR territory. This gains even more emphasis when one looks at how polarized American politics have become over the past decade. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that POV-"consensus" can change. We could move them all to "Politics of..." instead, as mentioned below. Would you support that? Jesanj (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Politics of...
As political position articles tend to suffer from a dominance of one viewpoint (the subject in the title), how about we, in order to "encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing", discuss the neutrality of renaming them to the more general "Politics of..." When named this way, authors will no longer have the incentive to incorporate only what the politician says (one viewpoint). Instead, authors will have the incentive to add new viewpoints, such as analysis on the why and the how of the politics of a politician. Jesanj (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To my ear, "Politics of..." sounds like it would be mostly concerned with political deal making. That might be an appropriate topic in and of itself, though the sources may tend to be even more partisan than those talking about mere political positions. What about "Politics and political positions of..."? That covers the widest scope, though perhaps it'd be too broad.   Will Beback    talk    22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of politics in the general sense. Analysis of their communication style would be fair game in my opinion, as a politician's communication style is one part of their politics. And political positions would fit in too, as would a reception section, if needed or desired. I think the long name would be too wordy. Jesanj (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I did not perceive a serious problem with the wording, but after reading through this discussion, I understand how it could present issues. However, I am not sure how I feel about goals such as "analysis of their communication style". I may be taking the word "analysis" too literally, but that seems to saunter rather close to NPOV. Although there are problems with the wording of "political position" articles as is, I don't think anybody is arguing it's not an encyclopedia topic, and it at least has a clearly defined scope. Kansan (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere, I find the political articles on Wikipedia to be all too frequently affected by "political silly season" editing, where those favouring a politician seek to show the person in the best light, and those opposing - the worst light. Reaching an actual balance is nigh impossible, and I think it ill-serves the readers to see any such articles - there are plenty of other places to see campaigning, and Wikipedia ought not be used as "campaign literature" at all. Unless and until Wikipedia installs a true mechanism to control such pages, I fear I dilike them in the first place, and likely would support a special committee (not just "the closest admin") to rule on all disputes therein, with actual teeth in their mandate (and mandibles). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kansan, I am arguing it is unencyclopedic, due to its non-neutral (and overly narrow scope) title. Jesanj (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of encouraging multiple opinions and if the sole word politics is able to do that, fine. Otherwise, Will Beback's Politics and political positions of ... is another possibility. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have worked on a "Politics" section here: John_Lewis_(U.S._politician). It is how I think all "Political positions" articles should be instead. I'm considering renaming all these articles. Jesanj (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't unilaterally change many article titles based only on the editing of one article section. In the case of this article, "Politics" apparently does not include "Activism", "Political career", or "House of Representatives". I think that's a questionable choice. OTOH, it does include the subject's presence at a presidential inauguration. That sounds more like an honor than "politics". I'm not complaining about how this article looks, and I'm sure that Jesanj's work is an improvement. But I do not think this is a good template for the thousands of political biographies.   Will Beback    talk    02:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Further: much of this material is basic biographic info. The "Politics" heading could be removed and the rest of the sub-headings would be fine without further changes.   Will Beback    talk    03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to John_Lewis_(U.S._politician), thanks; but my main point is that the content there is the type of content that should be at the "Political positions of..." articles. For example, Before being elected to Atlanta City Council in 1981, Lewis faced "years of criticism as a holier-than-thou publicity seeker who challenged city leaders on ethical matters".[14] That's the kind of content that would be included at a "Politics of..." article but excluded now. We need to encourage editing from multiple viewpoints. Is calling a RfC on this appropriate? Jesanj (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest fixing a couple of other articles, especially an actual "Political positions of..." article, before trying to roll it out across the board. When the time comes, an RfC should be held in a very well-publicized fashion.    Will Beback    talk    04:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perpetrator
Is the term "perpetrator" in Maxim restaurant suicide bombing for the person who committed  a suicide bombing WP:NPOV, as in this edit ? The term "perpetrator" usually applies to someone who committed a crime. I think it could be replaced with the more neutral term "bomber". What should I do to avoid an edit war? --Nbauman (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If this were within the prose, it would probably be best avoided, but I think the word "perpetrator" is okay within the infobox, as it clearly indicates the intended information and communicates that it is a non-military bombing. There appears to be plenty of precedent for the term elsewhere on Wikipedia; for instance, see the infobox on September 11 attacks. Kansan (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A perpetrator is someone who commits a crime. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Perpetrator http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/perpetrator This is inherently WP:NPOV. It's like WP:TERRORIST; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


 * You seem to be saying that WP:NPOV is acceptable in the infobox. Is that right?


 * September 11 attacks is not a precedent for other articles. [] --Nbauman (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I frankly do not see what on that FAQ page corresponds to this particular situation. Kansan (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it POV to refer to a suicide bomber with a term that implies commission of a crime? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Procter & Gamble
A new "Environmental record" section has been repeatedly added stating that "PETA and Uncaged have called for a boycott of P&G products". I am concerned that the edit is WP:UNDUE as there is no indication that a reliable secondary source has written any extensive account of the issue. The proposed text appears to violate WP:NOTADVOCACY. This is a minor matter but one that is not going to go away soon, and opinions or page watchers would be welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Environmental record section doesn't fall under WP:NOTADVOCACY since it is only reporting on published facts from major and relevant organizations. It uses notable sources already used on wikipedia and it pertains to orginizations that have millions of members and thus is not WP:UNDUE. This pages bias has already been questioned and its obvious why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.11.147 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A section heading of "Environmental record", combined with contents which are solely descriptive of calls for boycotts, is most definitely afoul of WP:NOTADVOCACY, not to mention WP:NPOV. If those calls for boycotts are to be included in the article at all (and, IMO, they should NOT be, in accordance with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), change the title of the section to something more like "Controversies". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources used by the section are marginal at best, being strident advocacy sites. The IP has been challenged on this previously and has ignored any views contrary to their own.  I haven't seen anything that might meet notability requirements.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is appropriate to briefly mention that animal rights groups such as PETA and Uncaged criticize P&G, and call for a boycott ... but we should summarize their complaints. Including detailed account of P&Gs environmental record seems to be an attempt to "prove" that the criticisms are justified, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? I'm not being flippant here - why include this boycott and not others?  From 2000, this one by unions.  From 2007, this one about RFID tags.  From 2004, this one by conservative groups.  That was a quick google search limited to cnn.com.  And nothing about a PETA boycott.  So where the's notability of these boycotts?  If all we've got are advocacy sites, it's beyond NPOV to mention it.  It's absolutely using WP as an advocacy site in an attempt to get publicity that otherwise hasn't been generated.  Let secondary sources cover it first and generate the notability, THEN include it here.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking more in terms of broad brush strokes... "Some animal rights advocates such as PETA and Uncaged have called for boycotts due to perceived abuse of test subjects"... something like that (the final exact wording might be different, but you get the idea).  This would be included as one sentence within a broader "criticisms" section which would also include criticisms by unions, consumer groups, etc. (you could even toss in something about how some fringe Christian groups have criticized the P&G logo for being satanic"... which while ridiculous, crops up in the press from time to time). Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The satanic logo is in the article already :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Should the Occupy Wall Street article mention that the "American Nazi Party" has publicly announced support for OWS?
There is/are one or more editors arguing for inclusion of material indicating that this group, the ANP, supports OWS. The discussion can be found here.

My feeling is that this would be an NPOV violation, and that it bears a troubling resemblance to guilt by association, although it's not clear that BLP policy is actually relevant here. It also strikes me that the sourcing for this association is very tenuous, and that some of the sourcing that comes from mainstream outlets actually reflects attempts by opinionated pundits to conduct a little tar-and-feather attack of their own by slapping a "Supported by the Nazis!" label on OWS.

I feel confident that at least one WP policy strongly counsels us against including material of this sort, but I'm feeling a bit out of my depth, in that I can't immediately articulate a bulletproof reason for excluding this. Thoughts, please? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Giving WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe group is absurd. Dualus (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Short answer: no. Long answer: fuck no. The American Nazi Party is such a small organisation that mentioning it, especially without mentioning other supporters, is a massive violation of UNDUE. It'd be like putting the fact that David Duke is a Tea Party supporter, or that Osama bin Laden was a supporter of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (and annihilation, but that's beside the point). There's an unwritten rule that guilt by association isn't allowed as it is a violation of NPOV (as, indeed, it cannot be written neutrally), and there are synthesis issues too (ANP support OWS, ANP is bad, therefore...) Sceptre (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dualus and Sceptre. It's the equivalent of using the old "Hitler was a vegetarian" canard in a discussion about vegetarianism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, interestingly, we do talk about Hitler and Stalin in, but that's suitably rebutted by Dawkins' moustache comparison. Sceptre (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally and completely agree that the American Nazi Party should not be mentioned in the Occupy Wall Street article... however, it might be (and please note that I say "might", not "is") appropriate to mention their support of the OWS movement in our article on the American Nazi Party. Due Weight is a contextual thing... ANP support of OWS is not important in the context of discussing the OWS, but ANP support for OWS could well be important in the context of discussing the ANP. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would think the primary concern is whether or not the OWS movement's endorsement by Nazis has been covered by reliable sources. If reliable sources have covered it, then it should be included. Kelly  hi! 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see Tea Party movement. As Wikipedia seems to lay racism at the heart of the Tea Party movement, it's probably appropriate to point out the endorsement of OWS by actual racists. Kelly  hi! 06:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Radically different issue, Kelly. In that case, the claims (well supported, by lots of references) are that core members of key tea party groups, as well as broad trends among members, are racist or have racist overtones.  That is radically different than the idea that a group that has no actual affiliation with core OWS members (if such a thing can be said to exist) happened to give support to OWS.  Sceptre has put it best, in my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to establish a point of fact, did the American Nazis endorse the Tea Party movement, or only the Occupy Wall Street movement? Kelly  hi! 06:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The ANP didn't endorse the Tea Party, but appears that the KKK, or at the very least, David Duke, did. But comparing the two articles is apples and oranges: the Tea Party article contains a lot of discussion of the idea among black conservatives, and so can be written neutrally, while putting ANP support in this article can only be done so in a non-neutral way. Sceptre (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Using your reasoning, the KKK endorsed the Democrat Party by way of Robert Byrd. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment If it has been reported on in reliable sources and if other groups support are being mentioned then so should this. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty easy thing to solve. Wikipedia does not censor facts What Wikipedia is not, but also does not allow for WP:UNDUE weight of any information above it's true notability. The information cannot be kept out simply because it "may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". It should be allowed in the proper context with reliable sources and with the proper amount of weight in relationship to the overall facts being presented.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Short answer: it depends on the situation


 * 1) The Nazi party posts a blog on their website saying they endorse it. Do not include information since they are small and irrelevant
 * 2) It is widely reported that the Nazi party supports them. Do include the info as well as critics who have claimed that people are pointing out that info in an attempt to smear the campaign with guilt by association(as I assume many are arguing).
 * So if sources are talking about and debating this then yes, you should include the info, without too much weight, and while providing any comments from the OWS or anybody else responding to it.AerobicFox (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There are no unwritten rules for Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines are not hard fast rules themselves and very few Bright-line rules exist at Wiki. Consensus should only be formed by the what we have before us, written down and laid out for our consideration. All else is irrelevant.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first two answers above (by Dualus and Sceptre) said all that needs to be said about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, for the reasons laid out by Dualus and Sceptre. This is a particularly clear-cut example of guilt by association at its slimiest. It cannot be denied that an occasional antisemite has snuck an antisemitic sign into OWS demonstrations; but that's all part of WP:UNDUE. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The American Nazi Party has views on all sorts of current events - the bailout, the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, etc. The Last Angry Man and other editors who want the American Nazi view explained in articles must explain why the American Nazi viewpoint is significant.  American Nazi views I think are insignificant, but if TLAM thinks we should take note of them then he should explain why American Nazi views are important.  Otherwise, they belong in their own article.  TFD (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not recall saying that the ANP views should be mentioned in the article in question, I do recall saying that if it has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources then it warrants a mention in the article. If celebrity's and other organizations are being mentioned as supporting OWS then why exclude the ANP, regardless of how distasteful they are. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We cover what the mainstream media reports widely. Has the Nazi parties views received coverage concerning the War and Iraq, Libya, and other events? Why would the Nazi parties views not be covered in Wikipedia if they are reported on by a wide variety of sources, because they're incorrect? WP:WEIGHT was agreed upon by a consensus of Wikipedia, whereas "an unwritten rule that guilt by association isn't allowed" was never agreed upon by anyone. I have not followed this story, but if it gains traction then it should be presented. You can try arguing WP:NOTNEWS, which would be far more in line with policy then NPOV, but as this is an emerging news story deletions based off that would be better in a week or so to see if coverage has died down or continued.AerobicFox (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I got curious and looked on google news, 30 hits for "Occupy Wall Street" "american nazi party" seems to have gotten enough coverage to give it a line in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One may google "American Nazi" and any subject and find that American Nazis have opinions on many current events. You may believe that American Nazi views are of such importance that they should be added to Wikipedia articles about current events, but I disagree.  Can you please provide sources that they have any significance.  Other fascist groups, such as the British National Party and the English Defence League probably have also commented, and probably many other fascist groups.  How many fascist groups' opinions should we explain?  TFD (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately misconstruing what I have written? Were have I said that any fascist groups opinions ought be in the article? I have said if it has been reported on (which it has been) then that fact ought be mentioned. If minor celebs who get 7 mentions in the news are in the article then a group which has 30 hits warrants a line.The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "American nazi" wall street = 35 results
 * "American nazi" libya = 3 results
 * "American nazi" Afghanistan = 2 results
 * "American nazi" Iraq = 2 results
 * Although Google results are a bad indicator of notability, there is a clear discrepancy between the coverage of their views on other current events compared with their views on the wall street protest. While their views on those events have received no coverage, it is clear that their views on this have received attention. I have already seen multiple conservative and Tea part leaders condemn this as well the Anti-defamation league.AerobicFox (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)7
 * Mentions of ANP endorsement of OWS seem to be limited to right-wing blogs; (and yes, I am counting Fox Nation there) blogs by default are not RS, and editorial opinion is only RS for statements about opinions. Sceptre (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "I think there is a danger in the people on Capitol Hill starting to embrace this movement, especially now that we know that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party are also starting to align themselves with this Occupy movement," Senator Allen West, from huffingtonpost
 * "The Occupy Wall Street movement is getting support from some out-of-the-mainstream groups. The American Nazi party is urging followers to get involved..." Bret Bair:Special reporting Fox news
 * "On the Monday edition of Fox News' flagship "straight news" program Special Report, anchor Bret Baier also treated this endorsement as if it were significant:" Response by Media Matters The Latest Desperate Smear Of Occupy Wall Street Protests: The Nazis Like Them
 * "Fifteen percent of American people believe Jews control Wall Street,” said Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. “It reflects itself in some of the people in the protest."metro
 * Looking into it though the Nazi's often seem to be lumped into the support to the protestor's being given from the communist and socialist parties as well, and Anti-Semiticism is more commonly brought up than Nazism. Even so, the Anti-Defamation League, a Republican senator, a Fox news(not editorial) anchor, in addition to the usual conservative pundits have weighed in, and responses have been made to them; worrying about prejudicial impact on the reader is not our pejorative, informing them of things reported is.AerobicFox (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only been reported in right-wing dog-whistle-political blogs; the coverage from left-wing blogs is more coverage of the coverage than coverage itself. All the sources fall into editorial comment, which do not count as reliable sources regardless of reliability of the source (hence why Fox News is okay but Fox Nation is not). In any case, the far-right are so miniscule in America that mentions of them, in either articles about the Tea Party or OWS, violate UNDUE. We don't mention David Duke in the Tea Party article, even though his endorsement was notable enough that a quick Google News search shows that it's still talked about, notably in comparison to this. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "right-wing dog-whistle-political blogs"? I'm not sure which link you think is a rightwing blog. Counting the links down below I see a New York Times article that was published on the print version, and outside of the opinion section in an article devoted to analyzing Antisemitism on OccupyWallstreet, Fox New's flagship "hard reporting" show which is as far from editorial as you can find on Fox News, The Huffington Post, and several comments including multiple critiques by the liberal ADL.AerobicFox (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A discussion of anti-semitism in general is fine, as it's a dispute that's being thrashed out in RSes (and could do with a contextual link to new antisemitism). ANP endorsement, however, is only used by right-wing political figures to denigrate OWS. Allen West is a Tea Party Republican, so is not a good source, and Fox is established on this noticeboard as not a good source on political issues ("Mark Sanford (D)" and all that). Sceptre (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. Very little coverage in proportion to the weight of the subject as a whole, no obvious relevance, and some clear guilt by association.  It's probably not worth covering in the articles about the American Nazi Party either, but if it is significant thing for them that would be a more obvious place for the info.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, Googling "Anti-semitism wall street" yields a lot more results and appears more significant than the Nazi's support:
 * The Occupy Wall Street protests, now in their second month, have increasingly been criticized by a variety of groups, most of them politically conservative, for flashes of anti-Semitism.
 * But much as the Tea Party movement initially grappled with accusations of racism, Occupy Wall Street has been consistently confronted with accusations of anti-Semitism.
 * New York Times:Cries of Anti-Semitism, but Not at Zuccotti Park
 * Olbermann responded to statements made by those he described as "right-wing pontificators" like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. He took particular issue with the general use of the term "antisemitism," a label he believed was imposed on the Occupy Wall Street protesters by members of the conservative media.
 * "The right-wing seems to have woken up to some of the power of Occupy Wall Street," Olbermann said. He quoted Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin's latest article in which she criticized the media for ignoring what she called Occupy Wall Street's "antisemitic elements."
 * Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann Rips Rush Limbaugh Over Occupy Wall Street (VIDEO)
 * "Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history, and we need to run them out of this one," she told Fox11 Tuesday.
 * McAllister's comments prompted Amanda Susskind, the Anti-Defamation League's Los Angeles regional director, to call on those "more directly affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy LA movements" to "denounce any expressions of anti-Semitism during the protests.
 * Los Angelos Waves Occupy L.A. denounces participant's anti-Semitic comments
 * If one was trying to tack the label of antisemitism onto the Occupy Wall Street movement, (which apparently, everyone is) one needs to look no further than David Brooks‘ October 10th op-ed for The New York Times, entitled “The Milquetoast Radicals.”
 * New York Observer, Much Ado About ‘Adbusters’ Relationship to the Jews
 * In addition to above sources there is enough commentary on this from a variety of people to warrant inclusion into the article.AerobicFox (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This matter has been resolved as the following ten editors have explained above why the proposed text is undue: Dualus, Sceptre, Dominus Vobisdu, Blueboar, Piotrus, Qwyrxian, Johnuniq, Orange Mike, TFD, Wikidemon. Naturally there are media reports with excited commentary on every blip-of-the-day, and it is no surprise that links mentioning Nazis and OWS can be found—see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "ten editors have explained above why the proposed text is undue"
 * I seem to be missing this "proposed text". To answer your response, consensus is not decided by numbers, but by arguments, and I have currently addressed above editor's arguments that only conservative blogs have reported by finding both conservative and liberal news sources, organizations, and pundits that have commented on this. Also, applying NOTNEWS to an article which is a breaking news story is difficult enough to do and easy enough to argue against, please respond to the above sources on Antisemitism.AerobicFox (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. It's what everyone can live with. If it's undue weight, OK. If it's added, it should be in the proper context with reliable sources and not be undue weight to the overall content of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can "live with" a line or two. Not including any mention despite the NYT equivocating it to racist charges against the Tea party, the ADL speaking out on multiple occasions, and various pundits will stand out more as a blind spot in Wikipedias coverage of the article more so then will a brief mention stand out as undue weight.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your reasoning here AerobicFox I have posted on the article talk page requesting this be mentioned in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I added a single line which was promptly reverted, I tagged it for neutrality but no doubt that will also be reverted. Some articles are impossible to edit really, people just ignore policy and let their bias lead the way. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a
 * ^^Phantom edit?', meh whatever. I don't care enough to devote more time to this, in a few weeks things will have settled, there will be more sources, and it will be more clear what the impact of all of this will be.AerobicFox (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

POV tag removal on Occupy Wall Street
I have been accused of edit warring and warned twice because I want to include information about calls to amend the Constitution to the Occupy Wall Street article. I have spent several hours over the past five days carefully sourcing and condensing the material, but three other editors insist on deleting it without any specific objections that I have not fully addressed, apart from vague claims of undue weight. I believe I am being WP:TAGTEAMed by people who simply want to discredit the movement (they also want to remove the most recent polling from the intro even though they had no objections to it when it was not as favorable.) Right now I just want to add a POV tag to notify everyone that there is a dispute. I have done so but it was quickly reverted with the edit summary, "consensus is not a dispute." I just replaced it, and it was deleted again.

Relevant discussion sections are:
 * Talk:Occupy Wall Street
 * Talk:Occupy Wall Street
 * Talk:Occupy Wall Street
 * Talk:Occupy Wall Street
 * Talk:Occupy Wall Street
 * Talk:Occupy Wall Street
 * Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Thank you. Dualus (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Lawrence_Lessig_part_of_the_Occupy_movement.3F. This is a very long and covoluted debate, can you proved the material you wish to include and the sources so we can judge if the accusations against you of Synthasis are valid?Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Call_for_a_constitutional_convention_in_Occupy_Wall_Street.3F). It seems worthy of note that at least one reason there are so many different discussions on this topic is that the above editor disengages from the discussion and head off to start a new one whenever the current one doesn't seem to be leading in a direction he likes.  (Granted, noticeboard discussions are always new discussions; I'm mainly referring to the seven different section at the article talk page.)


 * For the record, I don't especially care whether the tag is removed, although I would point out that after several days of debate, no other editor has agreed with the edits Dualus wants to make. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its really poor that the tag has been removed before the discussions have finished. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is begining(?) to look a lot like forum shoping.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to also be one more noticeboard thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_restore_POV_tag_to_Occupy_Wall_Street_and_help_me_with_dispute_resolution.3F. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's definitely some WP:FORUMSHOPPING going on here; I see the same arguments, from the same user, at the article Discussion page, here, and at WP:ANI. Two of the three need to be closed, and the OP given a for conduct unbecoming a contributive editor. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And at RSN, it would be a poty tp leave all this effort unrecognised.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't condone the Forum shopping... it does seem that there is quite a bit of POV warring on the other side as well. I can see how people on both sides are getting frustrated and turning to the policy/guideline notice boards for help.  That said, since the article has been raised at ANI, we can leave it to them to sort out. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Dualus has opened all of these notice board pleas. The other editors who have achieved the consensus Dualus just can't deal with have not filed any notices, expect for the two 3RRs I have filed - both of which are about edit warring and not content. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)
 * Dualus was told to discuss this here on WP:ANI. It therefore isn't forum-shopping. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have closed the first two sections - the first is closed as reliable sources need presenting and the second is closed as there is a consensus against adding polling information. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not explain why this has been raised in 2 otehr notice boards.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issues raised at the original research noticeboard are subtly different so its worth assuming good faith - and at ANI he was told to discuss it here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Eraser has neither edited the content of the OWS article or been involved in the formation of consensus. All disputes content disputes have been resolved, though Dualus persisted in ignoring, as an admin noted in a warning to that editor,"please read WP:CON and WP:EW - you are ignoring the one and engaging in the other. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which makes me uninvolved and more neutral. Please see WP:OWN. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Get this straight, there are no unresolved POV issues requiring a tag. We have reached consensus on them all in a timely fashion. Trying to get in the mustard when you can't even ketchup, as it were. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note the irony of saying that all POV issues have been resolved on Occupy Wallsteet when there is an unresolved discussion concerning Occupy Wallstreet here in the NPOV board just two spots above this one. Anyone feel like commenting up there in a timely fashion?AerobicFox (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ever hear of edit warring against consensus? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm for whatever the consensus decides. My own point of view is that Dualus decided to use this in the middle of a discussion as further disruption to simply poke at people with a new stick.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto, just as I do not believe a POV tag should be added but am rather using this opportunity to poke a stick at people to respond up above to a day old comment.AerobicFox (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was told to "take it to" the RSN first, and the one uninvolved person who responded there told me to take it to ORN, then when I thought the evidence of tag-teaming was overwhelming, someone told me to post on ANI and I did, and they told me to go to NPOVN. So here I am. I didn't even know there was something against forum shopping. Sorry, but I've been doing what other people have told me to do in each instance. Dualus (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh...a new accusation! Didn't see THAT one coming! Now everyone is trying to discredit the movement! This NPOV/N made by Dualus could be Libel by now accusing editors of actions for a specific reason without cuase or proof. He is quickly stepping over a line. I urge him to take more caution because I am losing patience with these accusations.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How do I think I feel about your constant reversion of statistics, polls, or other information which shows the movement in a positive light? Dualus (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In that reply you simply make further accusations....and show your POV is what you are editing into the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This new hater meme of Dualus is something else, but it falls in with the editor's predilection to play the role of the victim minus any proof. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hater memes and what not aside I took the time to address editors up above who stated they wanted good sources, and found good sources including information on antisemitism, and find it absurd that such editors have now just become silent while a another editor has just appeared and declared their previous comments, which have been adequately addressed and do not relate to current comments, as somehow representing a consensus. I'm being courteous enough not to be pushing for a POV tag or editing in such information into the article to draw attention, or other obnoxious things that some editors do when they want responses, so please return the favor and respond back in a somewhat timely manner.AerobicFox (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any unresolved questions? Dualus (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Power
I think that characterising this as simply racialist is pov, but I'm being reverted by an editor with the comments first that "Cleaned up some of the whitewashing of history" and when I reverted that as changing cited text, saying "word choice in the sourced text is not NPOV" - maybe this is for RSN, I'm not sure, but it's being called NPOV by the editor changing the text. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I undid the latest as lacking sources. I can see the idea behind the edit, but it needs something more than an appeal to authority for support. Particularly as the term "black power" has been widely used in a variety of contexts, it is rather sweeping to say they are "racist ideologies". Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a monolithic movement and shouldn't be labelled as though it was (or is). Some strands are very similar to the Gay Power movement. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the edit as valid, because it altered sourced material, therefore may have misrepresented what the content of those sources actually is. Unless the editor wants to make a case that s/he is actually representing the sources better... Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to know which edit you're referring to, I assume this initial one by TBSchemer? I definitely don't see that as valid, since the opening sentence talks about "various associated racist ideologies" (in the new version) with the footnote listing them as "three groups: nihilists, integrationists, and separatists", with an accompanying reference. Obviously racial integration isn't a racist ideology (or at least not that I'm aware of). Looking at the article talk page there's been various attempts over the years to portray Black Power and White Power as two sides of the same coin which has no doubt transferred over to the article at various points, I wouldn't personally agree that's the case but it's largely dependent on how reliable sources see things and not giving undue weight based on the "there's a source" argument. 2 lines of K  303  12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edward Witten's biographical article
If you read through this, you'll find it's absurdly tilted towards the guy in a very flattering manner. Whoever wrote it was a serious admirer. Phrases such as "Clearly a leading figure in the field" and "Perhaps even a successor to Einstein" just don't sound very objective to me. I removed the latter myself, but I think the whole thing needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerovistae (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed some of the blatant puffery. Collect (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aerovistae, thanks for posting this. I've removed some more puffery.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

College dating
Whatever the reason, the College dating entry represents, in contrast to "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on the topic, only one view, one that neither claims nor cites evidence to suggest that it is representative. One editor says that being "just incomplete and poorly developed" should be an exemption from the basic requirement of the NPOV policy quoted above, and has removed a maintenance template, directing me here. So I am soliciting views on both the specific article, and on the general topic of whether an article that is so incomplete that it gives a skewed view of its subject is in conformity with the NPOV policy.

Thank you, <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thee is a reason we do not slap POV templates on all stubs, and other poorly developed articles. Look at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Even a C-class article states, by definition, that it is not comprehensive. Yet, we don't tag all C and below class articles with POV templates for a reason, the reason being that not being comprehensive is not the same thing as not being neutral. In even simpler words: small is not necessarily evil, just... small :) POV applies to articles that are biased towards some points of view, not to articles that are simply not comprehensive, because they are not developed. The article may deserve tagging with some Template messages/Cleanup indicating a need for expansion, but not with the generic POV template. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  03:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some forms of incompleteness lead to POV problems, some don't. The incompleteness in this article does. It's not a question of missing certain pertinent but non-essential facts. Rather, it's a case of a very narrow subset of the topic being presented as being representative of the topic or relevant to the topic on a standalone basis. I have created dozens of stubs, none of which (as far as I'm aware) has ever been tagged for POV violation because of its brevity, so the "small ≠ evil" concept is well familiar to me. But it's simply inapplicable here. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo   <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating yourself. Let's wait for input from others. Oh, a disclaimer on our POVs: I am instructor of the students writing this article, and Bongomatic is an editor who tried to get the article deleted, and even after the debate was closed keeps commenting on talk that the article should be deleted. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no strong feelings about the npov tag itself, but the article is very incomplete. It says there are several "types and traditions", but then only describes one (disturbing) practice. There is already a globalization tag, which is certainly needed as it seems to have an unstated focus on dating in one nation (US, I would guess). The article makes no mention of possible negative outcomes to dating, i.e. the only mention of date rape is the see also link that I have added, and which has been questioned as even belonging - a section should be added about the topic. Lady  of  Shalott  16:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that the article is far from being comprehensive. The point asked, however, is - does it make it non-neutral? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the article has improved since I last looked at it--it now resembles something close to an article, and in its current state I don't see the need for a POV tag. I am glad to see a section on date rape, of course; I suggested a while ago that sexual violence on college campuses ought to be paid some attention. So I am not displeased, on the whole--but when Bongo started this thread, the date rape thing wasn't in there (unless I'm mistaken), and I think that his tagging was warranted. Now for that globalize tag... (other countries have colleges and dating too, I would imagine) Drmies (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think the article is woefully inadequate and fails to address all of the significant perspectives on the matter, including some of the most basic (what percentage of people find their spouses from college dating? etc.). But it has improved substantially and I don't have a strong opinion on the tag any longer. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  14:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 19 out of 40 references about violence and rape? I get the impression that rape is a major factor in daily college life in Amerika. I'm curious about the frequency, must be a few reports per week per campus, by the looks of it? or is it just a coatrack? DS Belgium (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street nuetrality needs checking
My major concern is the use of academics, authors, activists, celebrities and other living persons in a way that may violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies and guidelines. Even as a strong supporter of the Occupy movement I am disturbed by the promotional tone that is near pamphlet like in its prose and references seem to be used to promote the author's works, especially in the case of lawrence Lessig, which now seems to have only Wikipedia making claims about this academics involvement with protesters at the level being claimed. (I have removed much today, but it keeps being returned by a very stubborn editor) in google searches and all sourced by the same editor. The use of user submitted video with copyright problems seems to be way out of line for many reasons, point of view being just one of them with very weak explanations and arguments to include. Heavy use of images without context to article and only decorative, many from the same photographer/editor that could be seen as POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I do share your concern but IMO it is overshadowed by (and perhaps difficult to separate from) the behavior of a few extremely disruptive editors who seem to feel they should not be fettered by troublesome policies such as V, NOR, and CON. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A recent edit to the article has used a reference from the NY times that shows David Haack to have a leadership role in the protest and the Demands working group. how do we handle his blogs and articles concerning the movement moving forward? Also the 99% Declaration continues to be used as a primary source to reference claims about the document. Is this within MOS or should it be used as an illustrative source behind secondary sources?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland has no conservative parties at all?
has the edit summary:
 *  Remove unsourced section. The SVP btw is no longer consider a conservative party)

Leaving not a single conservative party in that entire nation. Nil. Is this true? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All that's needed is to find a source calling it conservative.   Will Beback    talk    20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the parties removed is the "Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland." I kinda sorta think that finding a source calling it "conseervative" is a no-brainer.  YMMV. The WP article calls it "centre-right."   is also clear.  Has proof of existence  been met?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some parties with "liberal" in their name are actually conservative - we can't go by names alone. "Centre-right" isn't the same as "conservative". If we can find a source saying that the party is conservative then add it back, if not then leave it off. I don't see an NPOV issue here.   Will Beback    talk    21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note further that the entire unsourced section was added today.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case at hand, the parties are clearly considered "conservative" by multiple RS sources, are each described as "conservative" in their respective articles on Wikipedia (sourced), and each is on the "right" in Switzerland per Swiss news articles. I wot not how to explain this to you, but sometimes it looks like replies are made without thought.  And how does the adding of material by another editor make any difference at all as to whether there are absolutely no conservative parties in Switzerland?    Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the amusement of onlookers - see as one example which makes clear that there are, in fact, conservative parties in Switzerland!  Collect (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have sources then add material summarizing them. No big deal.   Will Beback    talk    23:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to categorize a party as conservative, or christian democrat or liberal, etc., we need to demonstrate not only that some sources call it that but that that is the normal categorization of the party. The article clearly states in the section on political parties, "According to Alan Ware, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK retained viable conservative parties into the 1980s.  [Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-19-878076-2]...  Since then, the Swiss People's Party has moved to the extreme right and is no longer considered to be conservative.  [Flecker, Jörg. Changing working life and the appeal of the extreme right.  Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 978-0-7546-4915-1, p. 19]"  The Conservative Democratic Party of Switzerland btw is actually called the Bourgeois Democratic Party of Switzerland and is a splinter of the the SVP.  However, it may be too insignificant for any sources to exist about its categorization.  The Christian Democratic People's Party is categorized as christian democratic, rather than conservative.  Will, these foreign "liberal" parties really are liberal, they just do not conform with American terminology.  See for example Arthur Schlesinger's 1956 "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans":  "...liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country...."  TFD (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but much of this looks like a typical case of WP:SYNTH. You have Ware (with his idiosyncrasies) claiming "viable parties", then you substract the SVP based on Flecker (who may use a different classification scheme) and end in none? Finally (here is my Meta-WP:OR!), party classifications are very much ambiguous, and many parties can be classified as both "conservative" and "liberal" (European sense, or "conservative" and "christian democratic". In particular, the German CDU and CSU have been classified as "conservative"  for really long periods of time (and, weirdly enough, the "Christian Social" party is universally regarded as more conservative than the "Christian Democratic" party - these are just labels). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any NPOV angle to this matter. Why can't this be discussed on the article talk page?   Will Beback    talk    05:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Removal of an entire section based on a SYNTH claim that no conservative parties exist in Switzerland is absolutely an NPOV issue, Will. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The categorization was developed by Klaus von Beyme. Ware is merely used as a source for the broad acceptance of Von Beyme's categorization. Of course Ware was writing in the 1980s, and Flecker writes in 2007, "a party that was formerly a conservative one...."(p. 217) Flecker of course is writing about the "extreme right", which is part of Von Beyme's terminology. Note that in A Europe, a Political Profie [2 Volumes]: AnAmerican Companion to European Politics (2011), Hans Slomp identivies the SVP as "Radical right", which is a category of the extreme right. (p. 486) And Slomp explains the various ideologies in Chapter 7, "European Liberals are Not American Liberals". In fact there are extensive sources for categorization of modern European parties, all of which place the SVP in a different category from traditional conservative parties. Incidentally I originally created the Switzerland section, but removed it when I found that later writers did not consider the SVP to be conservative. TFD (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ecopsychology
This page was nominated for a POV check back in 2007 but it doesn't look like much was done or that it ever made it here. I know nothing of the subject so I'm not sure where to start. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Biased presentation of the critical response to Hart of Dixie
The article on Hart of Dixie misrepresents the critical response to the show, deliberately portraying it as more positive than it actually is. See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hart_of_Dixie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephkugelmass (talk • contribs) 01:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is currently balanced in the Critical reception section. As you can see on the article's talk page here, the new editor above has suggested the favorable comments be deleted.  This would consititute WP:UNDUE.  this has already been explained to him.  Indeed, another editor has also already stated that as it is, the article is balanced re: positive and negative reviews by TV critics.  Lhb1239 (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above statement is a deliberate misrepresentation. If I thought the existing positive material should be deleted, I would have attempted to delete it. I merely disapprove of Lhb1239 actively re-editing the document so that the positive quotations precede the negative ones, which were more representative, and which appeared in more reliable publications. Take a look for yourself! Josephkugelmass (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)josephkugelmass


 * I think that the current critical reception section gives undue weight to TVLine. WP:UNDUE states that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."  For creative works like televions shows, WP:UNDUE also states that an article can describe how the "work has been received by prominent experts".  Note that the prominence of the source matters.  Putting these ideas together, applying WP:UNDUE here mean that the proportion of positive and negative reception in the article should match the proportion found in prominent TV critics.  For television shows, MOS:TV provides a list of prominent critical sources:  "Reviews should preferably come from the conglomerates (Associated Press, REUTERS, Canadian Press), major newspapers (USA Today, The Toronto Star, The Times [London]) and major periodicals (TV Guide, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly)."


 * The current Hart of Dixie critical reception section gives TVLine priority by listing it first and giving it much more space than TV Guide and the LA Times (whose review for Hart of Dixie was published by The Toronto Star). I've looked for other reviews from sources listed in MOS:TV, and so far, they've all been negative.  For example, USA Today wrote, "There's nothing deep in 'Hart of Dixie'".


 * While I think it may be good to provide a brief positive statement about the show and TVLine would work as a source for that, the current version of the reception section is out of line per WP:UNDUE and MOS:TV.-- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it NPOV to use a Mormon source to describe a critic as a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist"?
See. I did a quick Google Book search and didn't find similar comments, although Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal seems to be mentioned in a number of books. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course not. Such a claim would have to be supported by an independent scholarly source. The source provided is not independent, nor is it scholarly. As a self-published source, it would fail as "unduly self-serving", as the LDS Church has a vested interest in undermining the journalist's credibility. Even with attribution, it would almost certainly fail WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Of course a document hosted by Brigham Young University cannot be used to write that a critic can be dismissed merely as a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist". While a case could be made to attribute the statement as an opinion (of those who disagree with the journalist), that would be a rather transparent attempt to cherry pick factoids in order to discount a critic. An article on Wikipedia should not discount a statement attributed to an author unless an independent source has discounted the author. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am coming late to this issue, but I have to say I agree with Dougweller that the statement is not NOPV, but not for the same reasons listed here. I have no problem with the source itself, not using "Mormon source". However, To assume that all LDS scholars are Bias and cannot be objective, is just as inappropriate as a Mormon editor insisting that an all "Anti-Mormon" scholars can't be objective about Mormon research.  One's religion should not even be an issue on Wikipedia.  Mormons (not the Mormon church) have a very good history at researching history.  However, again, I don't think the statement is NOPV and should be removed since it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is just an attack.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is a book review in a publication of Brigham Young University, which puts it on the same level as a book review in an academic publication. However I do not think that makes it a good source and the author appears to be expressing his own opinion rather than the consensus opinion of historians and therefore WP:WEIGHT would require us to igore it.  TFD (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. The statement is POVish and dose seem to be a matter of the authors opinion.  It should not be used and should be ignored.  However, the statement above like "Such a claim would have to be supported by an independent scholarly source" and "Of course a document hosted by Brigham Young University cannot be used to write that a critic can be dismissed...." are what I took issue with.  It seems that Dominus Vobisdu and Johnuniq are saying (and if I'm wrong forgive me) that a book review in a publication of Brigham Young University, is not an academic publication, since it came from Mormons. That is what I took issue with, just as I take issue with Mormons who say that I can't be objective about Mormonism since my family history was part of Mormonism, but I am not one.  I just don't think that "They are Mormons" is justification for removing the statement and it sets a very bad precedence.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Brigham Young University has some distinctly non-standard policies with regard to academic freedom that limit its use as a reliable source on issues where the Mormon faith is concerned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So has a large number of other Universities. If your going to limit Brigham Young University sources you have to limit them all.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the examples you link to are either not based on official policy, or are several decades old. Brigham Young has a specific policy of forbidding opposition to Mormonism. If there are other universities that limit academic expressions, then yes, these are indeed dubious sources for that field. Liberty University publications are not, e.g. reliable sources on biology or geology or anthropology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sound like typical Anti-Mormon bigotry. BYU dose not have "a specific policy of forbidding opposition to Mormonism."  That is your opinion.  You can't have it both ways.  Ether it is or it isn't a academic source.  If we are then every collage in everywhere has to have a second source for everything.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this not an example of where the solution is just to write "Mormon source X writes that Y is a "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist""? Including that seems more a matter of WP:DUE than NPOV since it is a factual statement about what a Mormon source has written without omitting the sources possible bias or representing the sources opinion as a fact or in a non-neutral manner.AerobicFox (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I like your suggestion, the more I read over the talk page the started this discussion (ie Talk:Children of Joseph Smith) the more I think this has nothing to do with "Mormon sources" vs "Non-Mormon Source" but an attempt to reopen the "Abortion" debate in the past on that page. Therefor I'm not sure if the this will solve the issue.  Not that this help, but I thought it was worth mentioning.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI: A WP:Consensus and a WP:Compromise between the two editor in this issues has been reach so I have made the agreed upon changes. Therefore the page will no longer include the POV statement nor Mormon source anyway, making this issue Moot.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

JIMPORTANT! Challenges Tab on Junie B Jones/ Childrens Book
am writing herein as the Talk page for this article has many posts yet nothing has changed. This article is not open to editing or I would have clarified the problem.

The Challenges Tab is completely misleading. It references The American Library Association site staying that these books are #71 of #100 on their "Challenges" list and states why these are listed thereon. Unfortunately, any additional reference of explanation of what the list actually represents is not included.

This ommission is Crucial since the Talk Page has been addressing the Challenges Tab over and over and it is absolutely Critical to Clarify what this list is and the fact that the ALA DOES NOT SUPPORT these listed books as needing any censorship outside of parental choice. To the contrary, according to The ALA (cited as below), they advocate for First Amendment Rights. The list is compiled from newspaper articles, feedback from other libraries, etc. and The ALA's research has been completely distorted in this article to the point where the author of these books has a good case for there being LIBELOUS MISREPRESENTATION OF HER WORK THAT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR A LAWSUIT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA SINCE, WITHOUT A READER LIKE MYSELF DOING FURTHER RESEARCH, MOST PERSONS REFERENCING THESE BOOKS ON THIS WEBSITE WOULD BE SWAYED TO NOT PURCHASE HER MATERIAL!

I personally almost decided not to purchase them for my granddaughter.

Please take the necessary action. I almost always check references when seeking clarification but from the posts on the Talk Page, it would appear people disagree with the author's mistake but they did not read through The ALA's website as the link cited in the article just goes to the list of censored books. Seeing the Harry Potter series as #1 as well as literary classics on this list is what made me investigate further.

Thank you for your time and attention to this potentially volatile misrepresentation.

Corinne Smith

If you need a volunteer to investigate articles, I would be happy to help out. I am both a reseacher and writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corspeak (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any action whatever is required here. Warned Corinne about the NLT policy.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm trying to look at this, and in the article there's a brief description of why it's on the list, cited, unfortunately, to a blog directly. We don't consider blogs to generally be reliable sources, so that's one problem, but the cite doesn't go to the specific blog post mentioning the Jones books which is also a problem.  The ALA list used as a reference does list both Banned and Challenged books and has Junie B. Jones as #71 on the list, so that's accurate.  Part of the reason for that list is to highlight classic books that various groups don't like (Steinbeck, Mark Twain, etc).
 * Also, please, please be careful using legal terms on Wikipedia. We've got a very strict policy called no legal threats that I don't think you cross, but it gets a bit close.  I don't think WP pointing out that a book is on a banned or challenged list from a major group like the ALA is even close to the criteria for libel.  Unfortunately for Barbara Park, some groups do object to her books.  That's just a fact.  I think that section could use some additional references and maybe some examples though.  I'll add it to my list of things to look at.  If you happen to find some good examples of groups that have challenged that book (and why) or something from the ALA about why they added that book to the list, adding them to the talk page would be helpful.  Please look at our reliable sources page though so you'll know what kind of sources we can use in our articles.  In particular, most blogs are usable sources for us.  Thanks! <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)